Terrain Ratings

[+nancois]

Some recent experiences have caused me to wonder about terrain ratings.

 

There's terrain ratings that come directly from the rating function on the website, those that come from a common-sense approach from comparing other caches, and those that are based on the owner's personal opinion and experiences.

 

I've seen a 4 terrain cache that only involves walking through about 50 feet of salal, and a 2 terrain that involves taking a 4 ft leap between two cliffs 30 feet above ground. It always seems to be a surprise.

 

I personally think the website's ratings tend to skew towards the more difficult side. Here's how I would break it down:

 

1 - A person in a wheelchair can get to and reach the cache without leaving the wheelchair.

 

1.5 - My 85 year old auntie, with her cane, can get to and reach the cache.

 

2 - You need to walk more than 1/10 mile, over uneven terrain, or up a hill.

 

2.5 - Over 1/2 mile hike, a few hills, some bushwacking or jumping over logs/creeks necessary.

 

3 - Significant hiking or hillclimbing, or you need to climb over, under, or into something moderately difficult to get to the cache, or intense bushwacking needed.

 

3.5 - It's going to really hurt to get to this cache, but it won't kill you.

 

4 or 4.5 - Exceptional stamina or physical skill will be needed to get to the cache, or significant physical danger.

 

5 - Better have your climbing gear, pilot's or boating license or SCUBA gear to get this cache (and I'm not talking about rowing a raft to the middle of a duck pond).

 

Am I being too harsh? I really would like to hear what others think.

 

(If there's a previous thread on this topic, I apologize - I don't come here that often)

[+Mopar]

Here's my take on them:

 

* Handicapped accessible. (Terrain is likely to be paved, is relatively flat, and less than a 1/2 mile hike is required.)

 

** Suitable for small children. (Terrain is generally along marked trails, there are no steep elevation changes or heavy overgrowth. Less than a 2 mile hike required.)

 

*** Not suitable for small children. (The average adult or older child should be OK depending on physical condition. Terrain is likely off-trail. May have one or more of the following: some overgrowth, some steep elevation changes, or more than a 2 mile hike.)

 

**** Experienced outdoor enthusiasts only. (Terrain is probably off-trail. Will have one or more of the following: very heavy overgrowth, very steep elevation (requiring use of hands), or more than a 10 mile hike. May require an overnight stay.)

 

***** Requires specialized equipment and knowledge or experience, (boat, 4WD, rock climbing, SCUBA, etc) or is otherwise extremely difficult.

[+briansnat]

Here's my take on them:

 

* Handicapped accessible. (Terrain is likely to be paved, is relatively flat, and less than a 1/2 mile hike is required.) 

 

** Suitable for small children. (Terrain is generally along marked trails, there are no steep elevation changes or heavy overgrowth. Less than a 2 mile hike required.) 

 

*** Not suitable for small children. (The average adult or older child should be OK depending on physical condition. Terrain is likely off-trail. May have one or more of the following: some overgrowth, some steep elevation changes, or more than a 2 mile hike.) 

 

**** Experienced outdoor enthusiasts only. (Terrain is probably off-trail. Will have one or more of the following: very heavy overgrowth, very steep elevation (requiring use of hands), or more than a 10 mile hike. May require an overnight stay.) 

 

***** Requires specialized equipment and knowledge or experience, (boat, 4WD, rock climbing, SCUBA, etc) or is otherwise extremely difficult.

Interesting. That is very similar to the accepted definitions that are linked to on the "hide a cache page", where it says:

 

Terrain rating:

* Handicapped accessible. (Terrain is likely to be paved, is relatively flat, and less than a 1/2 mile hike is required.)

** Suitable for small children. (Terrain is generally along marked trails, there are no steep elevation changes or heavy overgrowth. Less than a 2 mile hike required.)

*** Not suitable for small children. (The average adult or older child should be OK depending on physical condition. Terrain is likely off-trail. May have one or more of the following: some overgrowth, some steep elevation changes, or more than a 2 mile hike.)

**** Experienced outdoor enthusiasts only. (Terrain is probably off-trail. Will have one or more of the following: very heavy overgrowth, very steep elevation (requiring use of hands), or more than a 10 mile hike. May require an overnight stay.)

***** Requires specialized equipment and knowledge or experience, (boat, 4WD, rock climbing, SCUBA, etc) or is otherwise extremely difficult.

Edited December 8, 2005 by briansnat

[+Allen_L]

Mopar those look very familar.

Edited December 8, 2005 by AllenLacy

[+The Jester]

These discussions are always interesting. But only one part of the linked page is ever quoted (see above). What about the line on the form that says:

If the cache is within a few feet of a trail, don't worry about the last few feet.

It seems to give a different slant to the whole rating system. If those "last few feet" aren't paved...

[+Isonzo Karst]

Yes to what The Jester said. I recently found a number of caches with a 1 terrain rating which were a 1 terrain - provided you IGNORE those "last few feet". Unfortunately, in order to actually find the cache and sign the log, you really have to traverse the "last few feet", and that made all of those caches either a 2 or a 2.5. The person I was caching with really needed ALL the terrain to be 1.

[+Mule Ears]

I hope we can agree that trying to compress the whole range of terrain conditions of our planet into a 10-unit scale is an exercise in futility. (If we can't, some of us need to get off the couch or away from the computer.) Once that's settled, the OP's scale is a pretty good description of what the terrain ratings actually mean in practice.

 

A real shocker for cachers who travel is that T ratings have very different meanings in different regions. I've seen logs written by winter visitors to southern Arizona expressing shock that a "T3" could be so hard and perilous. On the other hand, I've read cache descriptions from the southeast where mucky swamps and vicious mosquitoes are written off as part of the scenery; I'd rate 'em a 5 (special equipment=full bunny suit).

 

A "T1" should always be a potential roll-up for a chairbound person, IMO.

[+HaLiJuSaPa]

Isonzo, we have had that problem too. We lookup some "terrain 1" caches to bring our 4 year old and 2 year old to, and find that the last 10 feet involves extensive bushwhacking or climbing on rocks that was pretty hard for them. These 1's truly were not "someone in a wheelchair can get it" caches.

 

I heard from a friend of another "terrain 1" where the find is in a hole in a tree where someone in a wheelchair could easily get to the tree but could not reach it (in fact for that matter, this friend is only 5'1" and she was angry that she couldn't reach it either and was lucky to have a taller friend with her who grabbed it). I could accept that one being a 1.5, but not a 1.

[+Miragee]

There is a Terrain '5' cache here that is only 300 feet from a road you can drive a regular car on. All you have to do is get out of your car and walk up the steep hill often used by people to prove their 4-WD vehicles can ascend such a steep grade.

 

Apparently the cache hider thought a 4-WD vehicle was the "specialized equipment" necessary.

 

As long as the cache hider makes the decision about the ratings, those ratings don't necessarily give an accurate picture of the cacher's experience . . .

 

Last week, I completed an accurately-rated 4.5 cache, but DNF'd a cache rated a 4 the next day because it looked too dangerous to attempt without climbing equipment . . .

[+nancois]

Isonzo, we have had that problem too.  We lookup some "terrain 1" caches to bring our 4 year old and 2 year old to, and find that the last 10 feet involves extensive bushwhacking or climbing on rocks that was pretty hard for them.  These 1's truly were not "someone in a wheelchair can get it" caches.

 

I heard from a friend of another "terrain 1" where the find is in a hole in a tree where someone in a wheelchair could easily get to the tree but could not reach it (in fact for that matter, this friend is only 5'1" and she was angry that she couldn't reach it either and was lucky to have a taller friend with her who grabbed it).  I could accept that one being a 1.5, but not a 1.

Yeah, there's a lot of that going on with so-called "1 terrain" caches. I sometimes use this site to help clear that up. It also allows others to suggest rating adjustments depending upon their own perception. Someone who is curious can view everyone's opinion before attempting the cache.

 

The only problem is, how many handicapped cachers know about that website?

[+pwcorg]

Some recent experiences have caused me to wonder about terrain ratings.

 

There's terrain ratings that come directly from the rating function on the website, those that come from a common-sense approach from comparing other caches, and those that are based on the owner's personal opinion and experiences.

 

I've seen a 4 terrain cache that only involves walking through about 50 feet of salal, and a 2 terrain that involves taking a 4 ft leap between two cliffs 30 feet above ground. It always seems to be a surprise.

 

I personally think the website's ratings tend to skew towards the more difficult side. Here's how I would break it down:

 

1 - A person in a wheelchair can get to and reach the cache without leaving the wheelchair.

 

1.5 - My 85 year old auntie, with her cane, can get to and reach the cache.

 

2 - You need to walk more than 1/10 mile, over uneven terrain, or up a hill.

 

2.5 - Over 1/2 mile hike, a few hills, some bushwacking or jumping over logs/creeks necessary.

 

3 - Significant hiking or hillclimbing, or you need to climb over, under, or into something moderately difficult to get to the cache, or intense bushwacking needed.

 

3.5 - It's going to really hurt to get to this cache, but it won't kill you.

 

4 or 4.5 - Exceptional stamina or physical skill will be needed to get to the cache, or significant physical danger.

 

5 - Better have your climbing gear, pilot's or boating license or SCUBA gear to get this cache (and I'm not talking about rowing a raft to the middle of a duck pond).

 

Am I being too harsh? I really would like to hear what others think.

 

(If there's a previous thread on this topic, I apologize - I don't come here that often)

What, IMHO, often gets overlooked here is this is all realtive to the approach one takes. You could choose a 4 route to get to a 2 cache.

[+Miragee]

Yes, we did that during a recent Geo-Campout in the desert.

 

We thought the cache was accessible from the wash.

 

Ha . . . turned out it was supposed to be accessed from the level ground up above the wash.

 

We definitely turned that Terrain 2 into a Terrain 4.

[+2trax]

Does this mean i have to stick to one star caches from now on??

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Life is the prize and then you die

Edited December 9, 2005 by 2trax

[+HaLiJuSaPa]

Nancois, in defense of cache owners (which I am not as of yet), I imagine it is somewhat difficult to develop a Terrain 1 cache because the setup may be TOO visible and muggles with plunder it and all. But as you say, don't give a cache that's at least a 1.5 or 2 a "1 star".

[+Renegade Knight]

I think there is room for improvment in the ClayJar system. Plus as people have noticed the last few feet is often 100% different from the rest of the route and it's where Handicache ratings have trouble.

[+StarBrand]

I have a 3.5 terrian cache that is hard enough if you pick your route intelligently. If you follow the arrow on your GPS the last .25mi then it is more like a 4.5.

 

The definitions are pretty broad and could be enhanced with some examples (pictures??) but generally we hiders do the best we can.