Difficulty And Terrain Rating By Geocachers

[+Referee]

I'm pretty new to this and couldn't find that anyone asked on the forum before about this. I was wondering if geocaching.com had ever considered added a feature to the geocache listings where you could rate the difficulty and terrain and not just rely on what the owner rated it.

 

I think it would be very interesting to see what the average ratings are since there is quite a broad spectrum when it comes to picking the ratings for the difficulty and terrain.

 

Thanks,

 

Referee

[+Prime Suspect]

I'm pretty new to this and couldn't find that anyone asked on the forum before about this. I was wondering if geocaching.com had ever considered added a feature to the geocache listings where you could rate the difficulty and terrain and not just rely on what the owner rated it.

 

I think it would be very interesting to see what the average ratings are since there is quite a broad spectrum when it comes to picking the ratings for the difficulty and terrain.

 

Thanks,

 

Referee

Try searching for "rating" in the subject line, and you'll find the dozens of threads where this has been discussed before.

[+Referee]

I'm pretty new to this and couldn't find that anyone asked on the forum before about this. I was wondering if geocaching.com had ever considered added a feature to the geocache listings where you could rate the difficulty and terrain and not just rely on what the owner rated it.

 

I think it would be very interesting to see what the average ratings are since there is quite a broad spectrum when it comes to picking the ratings for the difficulty and terrain.

 

Thanks,

 

Referee

Try searching for "rating" in the subject line, and you'll find the dozens of threads where this has been discussed before.

 

Hi, yes I did as you suggested and I saw a number of people asking for exactly what I had originally mentioned. So where does it go from here? Or does it just "hang" out there with the other people asking for the same feature. Thanks

[+Miragee]

A rating system, whether it is for the "quality" of the cache, or the "difficulty" or "terrain" rating is just too subjective.

 

If people go on long hikes frequently and a cache-owner has rated their cache a '3', the finders might say it isn't that hard and should only be rated a '2'. Someone who doesn't hike very much might think that one-mile hike up a steep hill should have been rated a '4'.

 

This site does incorporate a rating system, but there aren't very many caches listed there . . .

[+RJFerret]

Actually, allowing users to rate terrain/difficulty ala' Wikis would work better. In the above example 'twould come out a 3, just what the owner picked!

 

You could also weight the owners selection more heavily (x3) so it wouldn't be wonky with fewer logs.

 

IE, owner rates it 5 difficulty, joking finder or random discovery rates it a 1, ends up a 4. Next finder rates it 3-5 and it's still a 4.

 

The biggest problem I see is loggers wouldn't bother spending the time providing their input unless they disagreed a lot.

 

But it would solve that fear of insulting someone when having to log, "nice first cache hide but I'm afraid it's totally over-rated in difficulty and should only be a 2"... -Randy

[+StarBrand]

If we all used Clayjar's system then it remains well defined and doesn't require review. Terrain at least.

 

The problem with user ratings of difficulty is that the difficulty changes as cachers slightly move a container or the seasons change etc... One of mine I rated as 2.5 had the first few cachers searching for 3 -5 hours. The last 2 logs both called it "an easy find" - clearly something has changed. I will be out to check that one next week.

[+BlueDeuce]

If we all used Clayjar's system then it remains well defined and doesn't require review. Terrain at least.

 

The problem with user ratings of difficulty is that the difficulty changes as cachers slightly move a container or the seasons change etc... One of mine I rated as 2.5 had the first few cachers searching for 3 -5 hours. The last 2 logs both called it "an easy find" - clearly something has changed. I will be out to check that one next week.

 

Yep, except for clearly incorrect ratings (a 1 star when it's not wheelchair accessible) the D/T ratings can only give an approximation of the actual environment. For example. if a cache is located along a nice flat bike trail but it's a mile hike, who shall I base my ratings on? The same as all others, a lone, walking, healthy adult. Not a bike rider, not the guy with a one year old and a three year old in tow, not the guy with a bum leg. Everyone else needs to take into account their own situation and adjust the ratings for themselves, not post an average for everyone who has visited so far. That won't help me with my situation when I attempt the cache.

 

Are some cache rating inaccurate? Well sure, but not that many and usually not by much. It would be better to simply discuss it with the cache owner than run a polling system. And as StarBrand pointed out, most owners will adjust ratings based on their own interpretation of the logs.

[+HaLiJuSaPa]

If we all used Clayjar's system then it remains well defined and doesn't require review. Terrain at least.

 

The problem with user ratings of difficulty is that the difficulty changes as cachers slightly move a container or the seasons change etc... One of mine I rated as 2.5 had the first few cachers searching for 3 -5 hours. The last 2 logs both called it "an easy find" - clearly something has changed. I will be out to check that one next week.

 

Yep, except for clearly incorrect ratings (a 1 star when it's not wheelchair accessible) the D/T ratings can only give an approximation of the actual environment. For example. if a cache is located along a nice flat bike trail but it's a mile hike, who shall I base my ratings on? The same as all others, a lone, walking, healthy adult. Not a bike rider, not the guy with a one year old and a three year old in tow, not the guy with a bum leg. Everyone else needs to take into account their own situation and adjust the ratings for themselves, not post an average for everyone who has visited so far. That won't help me with my situation when I attempt the cache.

 

Are some cache rating inaccurate? Well sure, but not that many and usually not by much. It would be better to simply discuss it with the cache owner than run a polling system. And as StarBrand pointed out, most owners will adjust ratings based on their own interpretation of the logs.

 

We agree that the only completely incorrect rating is a Terrain Level 1 when the cache truly isn't wheelchair accessible, but the example of the guy with a 1 and 3 year old in tow is another good reason that I think it would be good to have cachers rate it too, even if it is not subjective. We think owners misrate terrain levels often. We have been to Terrain Level 1.5 caches that involved 500 ft. of bushwacking and were pretty tough on our kids (3 and 5 years old respectively), we have also avoided some Terrain Level 3 caches that our brother/brother-in-law and told us they were misrated, that the "3" was due to a small level (50-100 ft.) of bushwacking or because "ground zero" involved 25-50 ft of going up a small hill and when we took the kids to them was no trouble at all.

 

So although I admit there would be quite a variety of responses, I think it would be useful.

Edited July 15, 2006 by HaLiJuSaPa

[+Team Neos]

I'm pretty new to this and couldn't find that anyone asked on the forum before about this. I was wondering if geocaching.com had ever considered added a feature to the geocache listings where you could rate the difficulty and terrain and not just rely on what the owner rated it.

 

I think it would be very interesting to see what the average ratings are since there is quite a broad spectrum when it comes to picking the ratings for the difficulty and terrain.

 

Thanks,

 

Referee

The clayjar rating system being spoke of is right here. CLAYJAR

 

Interestingly enough, I plugged in that bike trail example that folks had given in this thread and came up with this advice from clayjar: Your cache has been rated 1/2.25

 

(I said the cache was right out in plain site, which is the reason for the 1 star rating for difficulty)

 

Here is how clayjar describes the ratings.

Difficulty rating: 1

* Easy. In plain sight or can be found in a few minutes of searching.

** Average. The average cache hunter would be able to find this in less than 30 minutes of hunting.

*** Challenging. An experienced cache hunter will find this challenging, and it could take up a good portion of an afternoon.

**** Difficult. A real challenge for the experienced cache hunter - may require special skills or knowledge, or in-depth preparation to find. May require multiple days / trips to complete.

***** Extreme. A serious mental or physical challenge. Requires specialized knowledge, skills, or equipment to find cache.

 

Terrain rating: 2.25

* 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.

 

I don't think some people ever bother to actually read these, or perhaps they are afraid no one will come to their cache if they rate it as too difficult/too easy. The thing is, if everyone stuck fairly closely to these ratings, then it would be a piece of cake for the rest of us to consider our own circumstances and make the appropriate adjustment.

 

If I come across a cache that I think is drastically over- or under-rated, I check to see if the owner is new. If they are, I send them an email saying that I thought it was more/less challenging thant their rating and describing why I think that. If they've been around awhile, I just make a mental note to adjust their ratings for myself.

Edited July 15, 2006 by Team Neos

[+Referee]

I'm pretty new to this and couldn't find that anyone asked on the forum before about this. I was wondering if geocaching.com had ever considered added a feature to the geocache listings where you could rate the difficulty and terrain and not just rely on what the owner rated it.

 

I think it would be very interesting to see what the average ratings are since there is quite a broad spectrum when it comes to picking the ratings for the difficulty and terrain.

 

Thanks,

 

Referee

The clayjar rating system being spoke of is right here. CLAYJAR

 

Interestingly enough, I plugged in that bike trail example that folks had given in this thread and came up with this advice from clayjar: Your cache has been rated 1/2.25

 

(I said the cache was right out in plain site, which is the reason for the 1 star rating for difficulty)

 

Here is how clayjar describes the ratings.

Difficulty rating: 1

* Easy. In plain sight or can be found in a few minutes of searching.

** Average. The average cache hunter would be able to find this in less than 30 minutes of hunting.

*** Challenging. An experienced cache hunter will find this challenging, and it could take up a good portion of an afternoon.

**** Difficult. A real challenge for the experienced cache hunter - may require special skills or knowledge, or in-depth preparation to find. May require multiple days / trips to complete.

***** Extreme. A serious mental or physical challenge. Requires specialized knowledge, skills, or equipment to find cache.

 

Terrain rating: 2.25

* 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.

 

I don't think some people ever bother to actually read these, or perhaps they are afraid no one will come to their cache if they rate it as too difficult/too easy. The thing is, if everyone stuck fairly closely to these ratings, then it would be a piece of cake for the rest of us to consider our own circumstances and make the appropriate adjustment.

 

If I come across a cache that I think is drastically over- or under-rated, I check to see if the owner is new. If they are, I send them an email saying that I thought it was more/less challenging thant their rating and describing why I think that. If they've been around awhile, I just make a mental note to adjust their ratings for myself.

 

Hi Team Neos, thanks for the post. That will be a tremendous help to me as I am about to place my fist cache!

 

Referee

[+Team Neos]

Hi Team Neos, thanks for the post. That will be a tremendous help to me as I am about to place my fist cache!

 

Referee

Hey Referee,

You are very welcome. So glad it helped you. Enjoy your first cache!