Way Overrated

[+Super_Nate]

Have you ever been to a cache where the difficulty or terrain rating was rated MUCH higher than what it should have been.

 

Maybe caches are easier for you to find than someone else, but in some cases a cache owner lists is 5 star on the difficulty or 5 star on the terrain and you visit the site and it OBVIOUSLY should have been a full star or two less.

 

Two examples that I can think of are Grizzled Exchange for a high terrain rating (should have been a 2.5)

 

And another example is Pluggers Delight for high difficulty (should have been a 3 star)

 

Anyone else have examples of overrated caches?

[+budd-rdc]

I've visited a cache that had a terrain of 5 stars, but it was actually a 4 for me, since no special equipment was required. It was still a difficult cache to get to, so perhaps, a difficulty of 4 (instead of 3) would have been more appropriate.

 

I have no problems with overrated ratings. I just post in the log my opinion and leave it at that. I DO have problems with underrated caches since they might lead to people trying to visit them unprepared. I prefer people err on the side of overrated for that reason.

[+brodiebunch]

I think being overrated is better than underrated.

 

Over would allow a geocacher to prepare accordingly or bypass it for an easier one. Under could invite negative comments or possibly endanger someone.

 

The star rating system for caches should be accompanied by the owners comments in the description letting geocachers know what to expect.

[+Blue Power Ranger]

You can really only use the ratings as a general guideline since they are subjective to both you and the hider.

[+Snoogans]

MOST of my high terrain and difficulty ratings are over cooked on purpose, but read the logs and look at the cache galleries. Those that would come less prepared, could be taken by surprise by changes in terrain difficulty caused by weather, altitude, or other unforeseen factors.

[+Wadcutter]

We did one last spring that was a 4/4 rating. It was the hider's first cache. When we got to it we wondered if we had actually found the right cache. It was handicap accessible and someone in a wheelchair could have wheeled right up to it. It was covered with a few branches. We suspect the person hiding the cache never looked at the rating guides.

[+briansnat]

I've found some way overrated and some way underrated.

 

There is way too much regional variation. I live in NJ and to me, there is very little (if any) 4+ star terrain here. I think that should be reserved for places like the Rocky or Adirondack Mtns or the Everglades and similar areas. But I've also seen many out of staters come here and complain that our terrain ratings are too low. I've seen a number of logs on my 2 or 2.5 star terrain caches that say things like "this is at least 3.5 or 4 stars back home".

 

Its obvious that many people don't adhere to the recommended definitions. I once suggested that the definitions for difficulty and terrain pop up if you "mouse over" the stars on the cache page, but TPTB didn't go for that idea. I think way too many people just aren't aware of the definitions.

[+9Key]

I haven't ran across very many caches that were over rated, mostly under rated. I wish it was the other way around!

[+adjensen]

I'll sure agree with the regional/underrated bias. Did one last month in Idaho that involved a 1/2 mile hike through snake country, a shorter hike through head high weeds (with the continued option of snakes,) and then a ten foot climb up a cliff face (non-vertical, but still...)

 

Terrain on that one rated a two! Around here, it would have been a three or four.

[+worldtraveler]

I've never searched for a cache that I later considered to be underrated. A significant percentage of caches I've searched for within the U.S. are overrated when compared to the objective criteria listed in Clayjar's rating system. It seems to be less of a problem outside the U.S., from my somewhat limited but widely scattered experience. I attribute the practice of overrating to weak willpower. Many cache hiders apparently can't resist the temptation to participate in "one-upsmanship".

[+ThePropers]

I'll second what Briansnat said about it being mostly regional. I can't imagine someone from Colorado who is used to hiking up those mountains coming to PA and walking up one of our "mountains" and agreeing with the terrain rating that we'd give it here.

 

With that said though, I tend to find that when I disagree with the rating, "nature" ones tend to be rated too high, while urban micros tend to be rated too low (not taking into the wheelchair factor for instance).

 

It's all good though.

[+StarBrand]

I tend to see more that are under-rated than those that are over. Can get into trouble real quick on a 1.5 star terrain that is actually a 3 or 3.5

 

However, I see a couple nearby with 3.5 and 4 ratings that should be more like 2 or 2.5

[+flossmoor]

There is something to be said about regional subjectivity. As I've moved from state to state, I've found a "3" in Indiana is way different than a "3" in Wisconsin, which are both way different than a "3" in Florida.

 

As a footnote to the Everglades comment: it is my understanding there are only (to date) two physical caches in the mainland part of Monroe County, Florida. It isn't technically the "Everglades", but it's in the 10,000 Islands region. They can only be accessed by kayak, which gives them their difficulty 5 terrain.

[Clan Riffster]

While on a camping trip in the Tamoka basin area of North Florida, we hunted this cache, Dixie Highway Waterfall, which showed a 4.5/4.5 rating. When we parked on the side of the road, we were about .2 miles from ground zero. Since we were so close, we assumed the terrain must be rather extreme, so Viv & Munchkin waited by the truck whilst I hunted. I got to ground zero in about 10 minutes of easy, level terrain, open trail walking, and found the cache in about 5 minutes.

 

Don't get me wrong, I thought that was a kewl place for a hide, but it sure weren't no 4.5.

[+Super_Nate]

While on a camping trip in the Tamoka basin area of North Florida, we hunted this cache, Dixie Highway Waterfall, which showed a 4.5/4.5 rating. When we parked on the side of the road, we were about .2 miles from ground zero. Since we were so close, we assumed the terrain must be rather extreme, so Viv & Munchkin waited by the truck whilst I hunted. I got to ground zero in about 10 minutes of easy, level terrain, open trail walking, and found the cache in about 5 minutes.

 

Don't get me wrong, I thought that was a kewl place for a hide, but it sure weren't no 4.5.

 

I'm sorry, I should have been watching this thread so that it didn't wander off the original reason why I opened it in the first place. My original intent was to have examples from your cache hunts of caches that you felt were overrated.

 

Thanks to Clan Riffster for your example....that is what I was looking for.

[+boda]

A new cache opened up nearby a few months ago - rated 4 for difficulty. I knew we would try it whenever we cached in that area of town. It was on a hill that I pass often so I was a little suspicious of the high terrain rating, but just assumed that it was rougher on the other side.

 

Finally the day came where we would face the beast head on. When I looked up the area in Google Earth, I felt better - but still looked forward to a boulder hopping climb. To make a long story short - we faced a choice; should we drive up to the cache on the northern paved road, or take the short gravel road up the hill from the south? The cache was 5 foot off the road under a bush. We took the paved road up, and the gravel road down.

 

It has since been downgraded to a 2, and that is still pretty high.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Okay. I did this one yesterday: Gizmo to Gadgets. 1.6 mile hike on the Columbia Trail (which is a rail to trail.) Level and great hiking surface. Technically, it was wheelchair accessible, if somewhat a long ride. Solved the puzzle in two minutes. Most of the caches along this trail are rated 2 for terrain. I would have rated it a 2/2, instead of 3/3. My log reads: Finally an easy cache! (Though it was the highest rated of the day.)

[+JimmyEv]

Vacationing in a different part of Texas, I drove up to a 4.5 terrain cache. On a paved road. In front of me was a gate, secured to a tree with a rusty old chain. There was a shiny new bolt on the chain. The idea flashed through my head that the shiny new bolt was the cache. But, no, it's a 4.5...must be high up in the tree. Looked in the tree, didn't see a cache and didn't see a way to climb it. Got home a week later, posted a DNF, and the cache owner e-mailed me. It was the bolt. The terrain rating was high because it was a long drive down a lot of back-country roads. I think he lowered the terrain rating to a 4.

[+Airmapper]

I know of someone that has a 4 star terrain in a picnic shelter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But it's accurate.

Edited September 6, 2006 by Airmapper

[+FamilyDNA]

I found B-Rock last June. Terrain is rated as 5, but no special equipment is needed, so 4 would be more realistic. (It is quite an uphill scramble - off trail.) The difficulty, however, is rated way too high at 4 stars. Once at the coordinates it is a large, obvious find.

[+FunnyNose]

I'm deathly afraid of heights as my good buddy The Mercury Project can attest to.. I did this cache Three Sisters View rated a 4.5/4.5 with no problem

[+conradv]

I found B-Rock last June. Terrain is rated as 5, but no special equipment is needed, so 4 would be more realistic. (It is quite an uphill scramble - off trail.) The difficulty, however, is rated way too high at 4 stars. Once at the coordinates it is a large, obvious find.

 

In my neck of the woods, that'd probably be a 2-1/2.

 

Now THIS is a 4 near my home coords.

Edited September 6, 2006 by conradv

[wandat24]

I usually use the rating system where it rates it for you. My Time to Play was rated at a 2/3. There’s NO way that was right. Considering someone could push a stroller/wheelchair right up to it. What brought it up I think is the fact that I said Yes its un-even ground and Yes there's more then one place it could be hidden. I ended up rating it myself at a 2.5/1. Some have e-mailed me saying its difficulty is too high, but I'm leaving it. There’s more then one tree it could be in, a bush it could be and a few other factors. I use that (rated for you) as a guide line, but have known alot that go by it to a "T".

[+Tsmola]

The Old Car Graveyard close to home is overrated in terrain, depending on the way you go, if you go left as is suggested the terrain is more like 2.5-3 if you go all the way around the pile and the swamp like I did, then yes I'd say the 4 was pretty close.

 

Overrated or not, a great cache none the less.

 

I have a cache that's rated a 4 in terrain that's a short hike back through a park over ground with slight elevation changes, but the final is 15 ft up a tree. So I rated it accordingly.

[+BAMBOOZLE]

I haven't ran across very many caches that were over rated, mostly under rated. I wish it was the other way around!

 

I agree, when the rating is incorrect it is almost always under rated. I think a lot of people under rate a cache they think might be hard in order not to scare off folks.

[+James Lobb]

rate caches for the person with the lowest IQ thats my style,thought i rated my first cache a bit high but after the terrain ratings were confirmed buy philma. a seasoned geocacher o knew they were good.

 

Freaky Creek

Edited September 7, 2006 by James Lobb

[CoyoteRed]

While rating our own caches we try to go with CJGRS. Though I don't particularly agree with it, it is the only accepted standard.

 

For hunting caches, I tend to look at the rating with a very fuzzy eye and try to be prepared for just about anything. The reasons is as already mentioned above. Folks seem to not like to follow the system, over rate their cache, or simply pull the number out of their behinds. Additionally, conditions could change making terrain much harder and even dangerous. Difficulty is wildly subjective and dependent on luck and skill.

[Luckless]

I used Clayjars test to rate one of my caches. It came out 5 because of special equipment, but I didn't feel it deserved a five so I downgraded it to a four. Even that semed a little high, but most people like the cache and the rating hasn't mattered to anyone.

[CoyoteRed]

I used Clayjars test to rate one of my caches. It came out 5 because of special equipment, but I didn't feel it deserved a five so I downgraded it to a four.

 

While I don't agree with it, the 5 stars is supposed to highlight the need for special equipment among other things. Even a simple canoe ride down a creek is supposed to be a 5 star.

 

Personally, I'd rather drop the special equipment portion of the rating system and use an attribute. The idea didn't get a lot of traction.

[+The GeoGadgets Team]

There is way too much regional variation.

 

Boy, that's true. When putting together a PQ for our trip cross-country, keeping the terrain rating at 3 or below left few if any caches along our route through Utah (just one example... others results may vary). This was a bit disappointing, but then if you actually LOOK around Utah (any part other than SLC), the terrain is either completely flat (for miles and miles), or very, very steep and rocky. I think we only did two or three caches in Utah along the I-80, and I'm sure we could've done more had Steak been willing to stop more often.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

I've visited a cache that had a terrain of 5 stars, but it was actually a 4 for me, since no special equipment was required. It was still a difficult cache to get to, so perhaps, a difficulty of 4 (instead of 3) would have been more appropriate.

 

I have no problems with overrated ratings. I just post in the log my opinion and leave it at that. I DO have problems with underrated caches since they might lead to people trying to visit them unprepared. I prefer people err on the side of overrated for that reason.

Agreed, agreed, agreed. Even though I am a "geo-gourmet" and primarily seek caches with a Terrain rating of 4 or higher (preferably 5) (it's my wife Sue who goes after all those puzzle caches, not I), I never mind finding a cache which has been somewhat over-rated. Better to over-rate a cache than to under-rate it and thereby assist in helping someone get injured or killed!

[+cimawr]

 

I have no problems with overrated ratings. I just post in the log my opinion and leave it at that. I DO have problems with underrated caches since they might lead to people trying to visit them unprepared. I prefer people err on the side of overrated for that reason.

 

I'll chime in on the agreement chorus! I've recently visited two that I felt were underrated.

 

On one, which IIRC has a 2-star rating (may be a 2.5), I would have been better prepared for if I'd read the logs, which did refer to the fact that one has to climb boulders starting about 200 feet from the cache. However, even if I had read the logs, I might still have had the wrong shoes on.

 

I was wearing running shoes; had I read the logs, I would have had on hiking boots which might or might not have been adequate. If I go back, I will most likely do so prepared to climb barefooted in order to get enough grip on boulders higher than my head which are next to water and therefore slippery; at the very least, I'll be wearing my waterproof flexible boots rather than my standard hiking boots.

I didn't list that one as a DNF because I didn't even try to find it due to the hazard involved - I'll be back that way again, and will probably make a serious re-try with proper equipment.

Any way you look at it, though, the climbing involved is hazardous and IMO deserves at least a 3 and possibly a 4; I've done a couple of other caches with 3-star listings which were MUCH easier to get to.

 

The one I other is an urban hide, with a difficulty rating of 1 and a terrain rating of 2, which is on the property of a local store. However, getting to the cache involves doing one of the following:

 

1. Scaling a 4-foot wall which has unsecured upper bricks - IOW, they may move under the hands or feet - as well as loose gravel in between the bricks which can roll or slip under one's hands or feet. Once at the top of the wall, in order to access the actual hide spot you need to either crawl through a fence which is a couple of feet from the edge, or walk around the edge to a place where there is a 5-foot drop; the footing there is also not stable.

 

2. Climbing over or crawling under a fence, then walking along the top of the same wall, starting at a place where the drop is 7-8 feet, to access the area.

 

It might also be possible to get there by forcing one's way though about 5 feet of very densely planted bushes, but that route looked pretty much impossible to me - and I'm a small, physically fit person.

 

Any way you look at it, though, one does NOT go to an urban store hide with a rating of 2 expecting to have to scale walls and make a 4-foot down jump on to concrete.... even if the cache listing has a rather ambiguous "be careful" in the description, which could just as easily mean "watch out for truck drivers at the nearby loading dock" or "keep a weather eye out for store employees".

That particular cache has about a 70% DNF listing, which is almost certainly because the terrain listing leads most to disregard the actual hide spot. I understand that the hider doesn't want to give too much of a clue with the terrain listing, but the hazard level deserves more than a 2 IMO.

[+fatdog]

To be perfectly honest, we rarely pay attention to the ratings and just GO! If a cache is not a micro and in an area that we will be in, we'll usually try it-we don't check ratings because many of them are simply subject to opinion

[+DocDiTTo]

One particular cache which comes to mind is in a state park in Maryland. It's a cool cache, but rated incorrectly as a 5/5. I think it took us 15 minutes from car to cache. The cache itself was hidden in plain sight once you reached the correct area. When we found it, we initially thought it was out of place, but nope, that's where it was supposed to be. It was a bit of a letdown, as we were expecting a real challenge. It was a fun cache though, and certainly an above average hide, but it's nowhere close to a 5/5.

[+Super_Nate]

I know of someone that has a 4 star terrain in a picnic shelter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But it's accurate.

 

Wonder what cache that is?

For those who don't know....that is likely one of my caches that they are talking about here. GCV6JP

[+Super_Nate]

Here is another cache that I found a while back. It was once rated a 4*, but it is in plain sight and was the easiest cache out of 36 that I found that day. Turns out, the owners lowered it down to a 3* and I STILL feel that it should be a 2*.