'difficult' Drives And Terrain Ratings

[+JimmyEv]

I've noticed some people beginning to increase the terrain rating of caches due to 'the long drive' to the cache or the fact that it's way out in the boonies down a maze of dirt roads. The caches are usually hidden within 100 feet of parking. Should these really be a three terrain? I was always under the impression that caches three or higher in terrain involved some sort of hiking. Am I wrong?

[bogleman]

There is a lot of grey area when it comes to rating a cache. What I consider easy may be hard to others. Could be that the person had a hard time walking the 100', had to jump over a log and walk down a steep ditch. Whatever, I do not always check the D/T when searching for a cache, just read the logs.

 

The "Clay Jar" rating system has it's good points and bad points but how do you rate a light pole cache that is 15' off the ground or a 1/2 mile off trail bushwack cache or a cache hidden a 1/2 mile underground in a storm drain.

[+Team Cotati]

"...1/2 mile underground in a storm drain."

Terrain Rating = 3

See how easy that was?

[+Udink]

Am I wrong?

That all depends. A one star terrain rating should mean that any cacher's legs (or wheelchair) can get them to the cache. On the other hand, not everybody drives a high-clearance 4x4 vehicle. People drive to caches in all kinds of vehicles, and I see nothing wrong with indicating a terrain difficulty that is geared toward those vehicles, rather than the cachers' legs and feet.

[+Googling Hrpty Hrrs]

I think you're correct about the drive not factoring into terrain, but I've got a couple where I've done that. One is a bonus cache that requires you to drive to 6 other caches 120 miles apart. I wanted some way to get a casual observer to notice the fact. Maybe an icon (like a steering wheel) would be better for this. Good point.