5/5s

[CamoCachers]

I recently did a 5/5 rated cache, that although was an awesome cache (my favorite so far, by far!), really probaly wasnt a 5/5. the terrain was pretty tough, but it was a short hike (about 1/4 mile, mostly up a fairly steep hill). and once at the site, it was very obvious where the cache was, especially with the hint.

 

in the time thats passed since, ive been thinking of doing my own 5/5 cache. but i really want it to be worthy of a 5/5 rating.

 

ive got the area in mind, which will make the terrain fairly easily a 5, although nothing special will be "required".

 

for the difficulty of 5 im having a hard time deciding on what to do. tell me if you think the plan sounds like a 5 on difficulty................ part 1 would contain coords to a locked part 2, which will be on the other side of a fairly steep ridge from part 1. upon finding part 2, you would need to search say a 50ft radius to find yet another hidden cache, which would contain the keys to the locks.

 

so i need opinions. critique my cache idea.

 

does that sound hard enough for a 5 difficulty? is it too much? not enough?

 

does a cache have to "require" special equipment to be a 5 terrain, in your opinion? and what in your opinion is "speacial equipment".

 

all input is greatly appreciated

[Tahosa and Sons]

5 for Difficulty is the aspect of the hide; how well its hidden the camo etc.

 

5 for Terrain does not always require special equipment, just make it a tough, tough, tough hike and that will do.

 

A good example of a 5 x 5 is Here

[CamoCachers]

so making it a 2 part shouldnt up the difficulty? what about the offset cache with the keys to the locked cache? as i described it, what difficulty rating would you give it?

 

i just cant see how i can make a large ammo can a 5 difficulty in just the hiding. the can i have in mind is approx 15" tall x 24" long x 10" wide. theres only so many places something that big can be

[+BadAndy]

 

does a cache have to "require" special equipment to be a 5 terrain, in your opinion? and what in your opinion is "speacial equipment".

 

I think it's possible to have a 5 rating without the need for special equipment. A 10 mile hike across broken glass with an elevation change of 2k feet would do the job.

 

On the other hand, a flat 1/4 mile hike into a cave or lava tube would also be a 5 star rating.

 

I think special equipment is something the average urban cacher would not normally have on his/her person at any given time. The cave example above requires 2 flashlights. While many people may have a minimaglight in their swagbag, I doubt the average cacher would have a flashlight sufficient for the task, let alone a backup.

 

I also think it's incumbant on the cache owner to spell out what "special equipment" would be required in order to do the cache.

[+BadAndy]

 

i just cant see how i can make a large ammo can a 5 difficulty in just the hiding. the can i have in mind is approx 15" tall x 24" long x 10" wide. theres only so many places something that big can be

If the ammocan was 50 feet deep in a murky lake with 5' visibility, it would be a 5x5.

 

Another example would be if it was hidden inside a hollowed lava rock in a lava field....

[+Team Cotati]

When in doubt: http://www.clayjar.com/gcrs/

[CamoCachers]

compared to some of the stuff yall are describing i dont think theres anywhere around here that could give a 5 difficulty. i am in indiana, compared to most places, our topography just isnt that extreme and ourstate forest areas just arent that expansive.

 

i guess a 5 terrain is judged different depending on the area. compared to the 4 star terrains ive done in the area, mine would easily be a 5star. compared to the first 5/5 listed in this thread (11 miles round trip), i havent done anything over probaly a 3 star terrain rating.

 

i did the clayjar test, cant get it over 4.5/4.5 .... maybe ill just have to round up

 

my idea as of now, terrain wise would be about 1 mile from the logical parking area to the final part of the cache. no trail, all bushwhacking. it would be a rough 1 mile, with 2 400ft ridges to cross which would definately require hands and feet to go up, a rope would help a lot. and going down is pretty much gonna be on your bottom. of course itd be up to the finder to pick a place to park. could make it harder/longer. and youll need to come back over that same terrain! perhaps i could make it a 3 part and stretch the length of the hike out a bit

 

and maybe ill throw a puzzle in there somewhere, too. ill just have to think about it for a few more weeks. gotta make this one extra tough.

[+briansnat]

I think the 5/5 appellation is thrown around way too easily. If you see the logs of some so called 5 star difficulty and 5 star terrain caches you see how many are not close to being rated correctly. Sheesh, this week I printed out a parking lot cache in Westfield NY that was rated 4.5 stars for terrain . Gimme a break. There is no 4.5 star terrain within 200 miles of Westfield NY.

 

As far as 5 star difficulty, there should be something about the cache that will take the average geocacher many days, if not weeks to figure out. Only when its an incredibly clever hide or extremely difficult puzzle should it be 5 stars (something like "Blood and Guts in Virginia" that takes teams of geocachers hundreds of man hours to figure out)

 

5 star terrain is more of a gray area. It calls for the cache to require "specialized equipment or knowledge" or to be "extremely difficult". So a cache that requires a kayak trip on a placid lake can be rated 5 stars (I'm OK with that because it is the the current system). But any other cache that claims a 5 star terrain rating should be incredibly difficult and I mean INCREDIBLY difficult. Only something on the peak of McKinley, or the Matterhorn, or deep in the Amazon rainforest should be considered for this rating.

Edited December 26, 2005 by briansnat

[+ZingerHead]

It's a good question, and I think it comes down to "relativity", as in "you judge your caches based on the ratings of those around you". I will likely never see, let alone cache, the Matterhorn, so I don't have any problem with somebody labeling a 15 stage multi with 17 miles of bushwacking included as a 5 star cache right here in CT. And there are some puzzles coming out around here that the NSA would find challenging. So if you want to call it a 5/5 because the Clayjar system says the rating fits and the cache stands head and shoulders above the local caches in difficulty and terrain, go ahead. You can always de-rate it if somebody decides to top you .

[+Jamie Z]

You think Indiana is flat and can't hide a 5-terrain cache?

 

I just posted a cache a few weeks ago in flat, flat Memphis which is correctly rated 5-star terrain. (2.5-star difficulty though)

 

It can be done. It took me a few years of caching before I happened upon the opportunity, and some work and thought to get it how I wanted, but it's a 5-star and has received quite a reaction from the locals (and some others, too.) I'm pretty happy with it.

 

Brian is right. Most 5-star rated caches (difficulty and/or terrain) probably are not. I'm not sure if people just don't understand the ratings, or if they're so bent on owning a 5/5 that they fudge a little.

 

Jamie

[CamoCachers]

im in the southern part of indiana, its not so flat down here. but compared to the level 5 terrain of someone say in colorado where a 5 terrain means a 6 mile hike, all uphill, we aint got nuthin

 

compared to the local 4 star terrain rated caches, and espcially compared to the supposed level 5 i did a few weeks back, i definately think what i have in mind would score a 5 star terrain rating. it may not be 5 star worthy in all areas of the country, but for this area, its not gonna get much tougher.

 

im in no hurry to place it. right now im just thinking it out and studying topo maps for just the right areas. hopefully ill come up with something worthy of a 5/5 rating

[+BigWhiteTruck]

does a cache have to "require" special equipment to be a 5 terrain, in your opinion? and what in your opinion is "speacial equipment".

 

all input is greatly appreciated

IMHO, when the terrain is so difficult to traverse that special equipment is needed just to get to the cache site, that means the terrain is 5-star. A lot of people have taken the "special equipment" quote and perverted it into a license to inflate the rating of their own caches or caches they have found. Someone once suggested a cache in the middle of a city park could be rated 5-star for terrain because "special equipment" was needed to retrieve the cache. What was the special equipment needed? A bent coat hanger! The cache was just out of arms reach down a hole or hollow stump or something like that!

 

5-star is as high as the ratings go! Before you rate a cache as a 5-star, ask yourself this question: "Does this cache need the highest rating for terrain difficulty? Is it unlikely that other caches are as hard to get to as this one?"

 

If you rate your cache a 5 for terrain because it is a hike up a steep hill, what are people supposed to rate caches located on the side of cliff faces where you need to either climb up from below or rappel down from above? What are we supposed to rate caches deep underwater? There is no 6!

 

Rock climbing/rapelling gear, kayaks, scuba gear, and parachutes are specialized equipment when it comes to terrain.

 

Bent coat hangers, flashlights, and hiking boots are not.

 

With that being said, I also believe that certainly there is 5-star terrain which should be rated as 5-star by virtue of it's danger, treachery, or all-around difficulty, though it does not require "special equipment". Someone made the example above in this thread about a cave being 5-star because you need a flashlight. I would say it is a 5-star because it's a freakin' cave! The fact that you need a flashlight doesn't make it a 5-star, it's the fact that you could get lost and die inside there! Unless it's just going 100 feet into a walk-through tunnel and then back out again, then call it a 2-star and note on the cache page to be sure to bring a flashlight!

[+DocDiTTo]

Many 5/5 caches are overrated. I found one in MD that could literally be completed in 15 to 20 minutes, from parking lot to cache. That's not a 5/5. Yes, the terrain was a little slippery, but the cache wasn't really even hidden... it just appeared in front of you if you were in the right spot. It was a cool cache and a neat location, but the 5/5 rating wasn't justified in that case.

 

Don't overrate your caches just to bring attention to them. If they don't measure up, don't lie about the rating. Those who hunt 5/5s are looking for a real physical and mental challenge, and assume they'll be going somewhere that could potentially be very dangerous. They expect such a cache to take hours (not minutes) to complete. If your 5/5 rated cache doesn't fulfill those expectations, it's not rated properly. A 5/5 cache should be earned, not just found.

[+Kit Fox]

I posted a topic about this very subject, but I can't look for it with the search function being down.

 

I think some caches should be rated 5/5/5 Difficult hide, impossible puzzle, extreme terrain.

 

I have one puzzle cache that I might have overrated a bit, but I factored in the "cumulative value" of all parts of the cache. There are three caches containing partial coords to the final puzzle cache.

 

If and when a certain gate is closed, the hike to two caches is 12 miles.

 

The third cache is a 1 1/2 mile night cache, in rough terrain, requiring the use of magnetic bearings. During the rainy season, the riverbed where the cache is located would be very hazardous.

 

Add the multiple layer ciphers for the final puzzle, as well as the hazardous terrain in which you need to traverse to get to the cache, and you get a 5/5 in my book.

[+StarBrand]

Hide difficulty is the least understood of the ratings. I agree with briansnat, a 5 star difficulty should require multiple visits over a period of time to find. I think many cachers slap a higher "difficulty" rating just because of the terrian to the cache. Shouldn't be that way.

 

What the OP is proposing sounds like a 3 difficulty at best to me.

[+TeamGuisinger]

I tried discussing this in the chat with a few cachers. I'm in Ohio so I have the same problem with terrain, but we also have numerous abandoned strip mines which provide plenty of cliffs and rocks. I was basically told by many on the chat, that I couldn't create a true 5/5 without requiring special equiptment. I argued left and right about it because I didn't want to limit the traffic to only people who had rapelling gear and knowledge, but I guess the requirements for a 5 rating do state that special gear or knowledge is required. So I guess you can list it however you want, but not sure if it will be a true rating or not. It stinks cause I had most of mine planned out with an 85' cliff to scale down to the final location.

[+Horn229]

Intertesting thread..

 

I'm planning a multi cache that will end up being about 8-10 miles long, through some tough terrain. The terrain includes thick brush that is sometimes taller than me (5'3), steep hills that require hands and feet to climb up (have to slide down), and a creek to cross(40'-50' wide) which can get up to 2'+ deep.

 

The multi will most likely be 19 stages, each of which contains the coord's to the next with the 20th stage being the caches, a 50 Cal ammo box. Oh, and the 19 stages with the coord's, will be black bison tubes, most likely tied to a tree/bush with green rope. Most of these will take a while to find, as the area is pretty tough to find an ammo box in, nevermind a bison tube.

 

According to the rating system, the terrain is a 4.75 and it rates difficulty as a 4 (IMO, it doesn't have many questions about finding the caches to really determine the diffulty of it). I think the overall difficulty for finding all the stages, and how much energy people really have left after the whole thing will make the difficulty at least a 4.75 or a 5.

 

What do you all think it should be?

[+Car54]

I recently did a 5/5 rated cache...

Which cache was that? If it's the one I think it is (I have it on my "must-do" list), I think it's "only" a 4/5. I understand there's a doozy over in the Peoria, IL area called The Journal. That one's also on our list.

 

Mrs. Car54

[+worldtraveler]

...compared to the local 4 star terrain rated caches, and espcially compared to the supposed level 5 i did a few weeks back, i definately think what i have in mind would score a 5 star terrain rating. it may not be 5 star worthy in all areas of the country, but for this area, its not gonna get much tougher...

Did you appreciate the way the "supposed level 5" cache was rated? The problem with subjective, relative rating as you've described here is that it is, well... subjective and relative.

 

Consider: The owner of the cache you've described above may well have used the same rationale to rate his cache as you're now considering for rating yours. Do you want your new cache to be an excuse for someone else to overrate a future cache simply because he judges it to be relatively more challenging than yours?

 

Many of us don't limit our caching activity to a single geographical area. Should we be expected to know that a "3" here is equivalent to a "5" there and a "4" somewhere else? Clayjar's rating system provides a means for consistent, objective cache rating worldwide, but each cache owner must employ it honestly in order for it to have any value to the caching community. Please rate your caches accurately. Future finders will thank you.

Edited December 27, 2005 by worldtraveler

[+briansnat]

I argued left and right about it because I didn't want to limit the traffic to only people who had rapelling gear and knowledge, but I guess the requirements for a 5 rating do state that special gear or knowledge is required.

 

The definitions says "requires special equipment or knowledge OR is otherwise extremely difficult". Something that is extremely difficult is likely to require special equipment, but it isn't absolutely necessary.

 

I'm planning a multi cache that will end up being about 8-10 miles long, through some tough terrain. The terrain includes thick brush that is sometimes taller than me (5'3), steep hills that require hands and feet to climb up (have to slide down), and a creek to cross(40'-50' wide) which can get up to 2'+ deep.

 

Judging from this description it sounds like something I would rate a 3.5 or 4 max.

Edited December 27, 2005 by briansnat

[+He suncdakanu]

I was browsing the forums a couple weeks ago, and found a little quote reguarding the 5 star topic. Something like this. "Unless you have to pry the cache from the jaws of a rabbid caged dog in the bottom of a slurry pit, it's probably not a 5." m-anon.

[+Horn229]

I argued left and right about it because I didn't want to limit the traffic to only people who had rapelling gear and knowledge, but I guess the requirements for a 5 rating do state that special gear or knowledge is required.

 

The definitions says "requires special equipment or knowledge OR is otherwise extremely difficult". Something that is extremely difficult is likely to require special equipment, but it isn't absolutely necessary.

 

I'm planning a multi cache that will end up being about 8-10 miles long, through some tough terrain. The terrain includes thick brush that is sometimes taller than me (5'3), steep hills that require hands and feet to climb up (have to slide down), and a creek to cross(40'-50' wide) which can get up to 2'+ deep.

 

Judging from this description it sounds like something I would rate a 3.5 or 4 max.

hmm, you rate it a 3.5-4 and the geocaching.com system rates it's a 4.75. I'll prolly go with a 4.5, any other thoughts on it?

[+The Jester]

Also consider that ratings will change over time. I have one early cache that was rated 5 difficulty - and it was at the time - but things have changed (BTW I've left the original rating for history purposes). Then micros were film cans and were thought to be very hard, now we have nano caches (which a dozen or so fill a film can) that are 'common' in the area. So take a look at the date a 5 star cache was hidden, it may be historical.

[CamoCachers]

I recently did a 5/5 rated cache...

Which cache was that? If it's the one I think it is (I have it on my "must-do" list), I think it's "only" a 4/5. I understand there's a doozy over in the Peoria, IL area called The Journal. That one's also on our list.

 

Mrs. Car54

not sure if its the one you are talking about or not. but i realized when checking it a few days back, it said 4/5 rating. perhaps he changed it, dont know really. i do remember some people discussing how it shouldnt have been rated quite a 5/5, just going on that. maybe i even heard them wrong

 

as for "did i appreciate the way it was rated?" i did it for the pure spectacle, never actually checked the rating till i went back the other day. i dont feel cheated or anything. i maybe over prepared a bit, but i still had fun.

 

now for the rating system. just wanna let everyone know that im not planning on rating a cache 5/5 for pure spectacle. i just got thinking about how much harder i wouldve thought a 5/5 would be. so i thought about it for a while and came up with the craziest plan i could.

 

but after comparing it to some of the true 5/5s out there i see im just not in the correct area of the country for a true 5/5 cache. i could make it 5 difficulty easily. but the terrain just dont get that rugged in my area.

 

i do have a fairly hard cache idea in my head. ill rate it whatever the clayjar system tells me. if it isnt a 5/5, fine with me. the finders will just have to fret over what a 5/5 would really be like. cause for the area, i dunno f itll get much more involved then the idea im toying with.

 

thanks for the input so far everyone