4/4+...what?

[+Team Silver]

I was perusing the GeoMatrix (gc.com) and was wondering about some of the caches in some states where the caches are rated 4/4 or higher and it has more than 30 logs on that cache. is it me or should they be readjusted for terrain and difficulty? i am thinking that 4/4 is reaching the level of caches that not everyone attempts...so it seems a 5/5 with 70 logs on it should be re-evaluated?!

[+Ed & Julie]

With 109,000 registered users, I'm suprised every cache doesn't have 70 finds.

 

Ed

[+denali7]

the sad answer to that question is that not everyone defines "found it" the same way.

[+The red-haired witch]

I don't believe the number of logs is a good way to tell if the cache rating is right. A 1/1 cache in a small town in Alaska might get less logs than a 5/5 cache near a large town in California. That doesn't mean the cache ratings are wrong. Keep in mind that, even if one geocacher in a hundred will go find a 5/5, if you have enough geocachers in an area, the cache will end up with many visits. Also, some people will travel far to get a 5/5, meaning you geographically have a larger pool of people for those caches.

 

All that said, I've seen a few 5/5 rated caches that seem to have that rating only because they are on an island in a lake, meaning you need special equipment to reach them. Maybe it should be made clearer to hider that the fact that you need a boat only makes the terrain rating a 5, the difficulty rating can vary.

[+Team Silver]

red-haired witch...i totally agree with your last statement. a difficulty of 5 would mean that it was hidden well or that you solved some great mystery to get to the cache. i think most 5/5 water caches should be 1 or 2/5 caches.

[+Airmapper]

If it's a micro placed in a (Naturally occurring) hole and covered with leaves on an island cliff. You might have a 5/5.

[+tands]

I never pass up the chance to plug our lonely 5/5, Deliverance, especially when folks start running down water caches.

 

- T of TandS

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

I don't believe the number of logs is a good way to tell if the cache rating is right. A 1/1 cache in a small town in Alaska might get less logs than a 5/5 cache near a large town in California. That doesn't mean the cache ratings are wrong. Keep in mind that, even if one geocacher in a hundred will go find a 5/5, if you have enough geocachers in an area, the cache will end up with many visits. Also, some people will travel far to get a 5/5, meaning you geographically have a larger pool of people for those caches.

 

All that said, I've seen a few 5/5 rated caches that seem to have that rating only because they are on an island in a lake, meaning you need special equipment to reach them. Maybe it should be made clearer to hider that the fact that you need a boat only makes the terrain rating a 5, the difficulty rating can vary.

Very well put. Number of finds means nothing, or next to nothing, about the Difficulty or Terrain rating of a cache, and also means nothing, or next to nothing, about the accuracy of those ratings. Rather, there are about 300 other variables (including nearby cache density, geocacher population density within 15 mile radius, alien landing site proximity, etc.) which seem to account for far more of the variance if we were to plug these factors into a multivariate regression equation. Some 1/1 caches will have lots of finds. Some 1/1 caches will have few finds. Some accurately-rated 5/5 caches will have lots of finds. Some accurately-rated 5/5 caches will have few finds. In fact, for the other side of the coin: some 5/5 or 4.5/4.5 caches are SO TOUGH and SO WILD that they become incredibly popular, and therefore nearly every "serious" cacher within a 150+ mile radius ends up logging them.

[+bikinibottomfeeders]

another variable to add is that # of logs also includes notes written and the published log and also any logs that indicate a disabling of some sort. I could have 60 logs on one of my caches and 49 of them could be notes being left congratulating the 11 finders

 

just something to think about

[+snowfrog]

I think the self rating concept is too subjective to different opinions. What I or others define as being a 1-5 in difficulty or terrain is never going to be consistent. I have been raked over the coals for posting a new cache as a one in terrain, in which it was 600' from parking, on totally flat asphalt trail, 12' wide. There was one slight 3' dirt mound near the end which took about 3 steps to clear. One of the first posts was a berated finder who stated it should have been higher since his definition of a 1 in terrain is accessible by wheelchair, " You gotta be kidding me! ". In my 300 finds, I can honestly say that I have never found a cache that is located on paved surface within easy reach of wheelchair without having to exit it. My suggestion would be to eliminate that self rating, on terrain and difficulty by having 25 or so questions added to the listing page, in which the lister clicks bullseyes to answer questions regarding terrain and difficulty.

Such as;

 

!) Distance to cache from most likely parking spot is 1-100', 101-250', 251-.25 mile etc.

 

2) Likely approaches are totally flat, less than 100 ' elevation, 250 elevation, etc.

 

3) Surfaces are paved, loose dirt, mud at times etc.

 

4) Road or trail and average width is....

 

5) Size of cache container is .....

 

6) Location ground level, 1-5', 6-10'...

 

7) Container camouflaged yes/no

 

8) Single/Multi-stage and number of stages.....

 

Well, you get the idea. Maybe a little cumbersome but the end result is then a consistent site generated rating of both terrain and difficulty. With suggestions from members over time and a little tweeking, this would, I think work well.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

I think the self rating concept is too subjective to different opinions. What I or others define as being a 1-5 in difficulty or terrain is never going to be consistent. I have been raked over the coals for posting a new cache as a one in terrain, in which it was 600' from parking, on totally flat asphalt trail, 12' wide. There was one slight 3' dirt mound near the end which took about 3 steps to clear. One of the first posts was a berated finder who stated it should have been higher since his definition of a 1 in terrain is accessible by wheelchair, " You gotta be kidding me! ".....

I agree that any easy system of rating is going to be somewhat subjective, which means that different observers may give it a different rating. However, it is true that there has been a trend over the past year regarding Terrain rating, wherein a Terrain rating of "1" shoud -- nowadays -- indicate a cache which is wheelchair accessible. Having said that, most Terrain 1 caches which Sue and I have found to date would NOT be truly wheelchair accessible. Ratings also seem to vary a lot from regoin to region. A "traditional" terrain 1 cache in the backcountry regions of Wyoming or Idaho may easily -- in my experience -- require parking your car, hiking along a dirt road for a few hundred yards, then hiking thru light underbrush for a few hundred yards, then climbing a steep hillside for about 200 yards, and then clambering up on a 5 foot high boulder to retrieve the cache, all at an elevation of 8,000 feet. On the other hand, a Terrain 1 cache in an urban area may be a lamppost micro in a supermarket parking lot. ...lots of variance!

[+CamoCacher]

I never pass up the chance to plug our lonely 5/5, Deliverance, especially when folks start running down water caches.

 

- T of TandS

OOOHHH OOOHHH I wanna try this one!

[+badlands]

I never pass up the chance to plug our lonely 5/5, Deliverance, especially when folks start running down water caches.

 

- T of TandS

OOOHHH OOOHHH I wanna try this one!

Looks like it's worth driving down from the midwest for.

Sorry to see some cacher moved it on you.

 

I may never get to do this one, but I'm adding it to my watch list.

[+tands]

Be sure to drop us a line if you come down to SC. We'll point you in the right way on gearing up.

 

- T of TandS