How should we be rating the difficulty on caches now?

[+LCAS-271]

I dont know about any else but I'm starting to have trouble rating caches. The terrain rating's are easy because it all stays the same. But with the new techniques of cache building are making it harder for me to rate my own caches. For instance, I'm in the middle of painting 4 ammocans and 4 lock-n-locks using the Criminal camo technique. Now I know that these wouldn't be rated as a 1 but they aren't even close to the spanish moss covered containers. Another example are the flat electric covers. At one time I'm sure they would have been rated at 4 or 5, but when I only had around 60 finds I was able to walk right to one.

 

It seems that the difficult caches of yesterday are just run of the mill now. If that's the case then how should one rate the old high-difficulty caches today. I'm sure that a few years ago a Criminal painted ammocan could have been rated at 3 or 3.5, but now where would they be rated at?

 

LCAS-271

[+sbell111]

I don't understand the issue. I would rate caches exactly the same today as I did five years ago.

 

Are you using Clayjar's tool?

[+StarBrand]

The Clayjar tool doesn't have any assesment for camo type or size - just how long/hard is it to find once you are on site (at GZ). Of course certain types are easier for vetrans or those that have seen them before but that shouldn't really influence the rating as newbies are still out and about.

[+LCAS-271]

Ok, what I was trying to get at is that some of the caches that used to be incredibly difficult are now just run of the mill. For instance, when they first came out the electric covers(the flat ones) were terribly difficult. But now if a person sees one at the GZ then it's the first thing that they check. So that style cache isn't a 3-5 rating on difficulty now. The idea of pine cones as caches is another example. Any time that I'm around a cedar tree the first thing I look for is a pine cone that's been converted. But 2-3 years ago it would have taken many caches awhile to find it.

 

My point is, Are the difficult caches of yesterday becoming ordinary today? And if that's the case then how should one rate the caches that are being put out?

[+4BOWS]

 

My point is, Are the difficult caches of yesterday becoming ordinary today? And if that's the case then how should one rate the caches that are being put out?

 

For those of us who have found these types of caches, they are not that difficult, but keep in mind that new cachers are beginning the adventure each and every day. What may seem old and trivial to you, could very well be a totally new and exciting thing for someone just starting. The cache ratings remain the same today as they did years ago.

[+Kit Fox]

 

My point is, Are the difficult caches of yesterday becoming ordinary today? And if that's the case then how should one rate the caches that are being put out?

 

It's all really simple, you reduce the difficulty level of the cache. Instead of a 3 star difficulty, they become a 1 to 1.5 difficulty. I always believed that there was no such thing as a 5 star difficulty traditional cache. There are only so many methods to hiding a cache.

[+StarBrand]

Ok, what I was trying to get at is that some of the caches that used to be incredibly difficult are now just run of the mill. For instance, when they first came out the electric covers(the flat ones) were terribly difficult. But now if a person sees one at the GZ then it's the first thing that they check. So that style cache isn't a 3-5 rating on difficulty now. The idea of pine cones as caches is another example. Any time that I'm around a cedar tree the first thing I look for is a pine cone that's been converted. But 2-3 years ago it would have taken many caches awhile to find it.

 

My point is, Are the difficult caches of yesterday becoming ordinary today? And if that's the case then how should one rate the caches that are being put out?

I think I understood you.....

 

and by the way - I have never seen a flat electrical cover cache or a cache in a pine cone after 4.5 years and 412 finds - so would be difficult to me. Maybe getting easier to you but not necessarily everybody else.

[+Isonzo Karst]

Please rate for NOVICE cachers. Yes a flat electrical plate is old hat to you and me, but it sure isn't for the guy with 6 finds. These stats are old (and worse yet, from memory) but at one time Jeremy offered up the stat that 90% of cachers have fewer than 56 finds.

 

I have over 2000 finds and I think I've seen at most 4 or 5 true "1" difficulty caches. Two 5 gallon buckets just sitting in the woods (remote), a big box with the green geocaching label fixed to a park sign, another in front of a training facility for retarded adults, and my own ammo can in the woods with pink plastic flamingo standing guard (remote). Most stuff is hidden.

[+Thrak]

The first time I found a lamp post micro I thought it was totally clever. Perceptions change with experience.

[+parker313]

The first time I found a lamp post micro I thought it was totally clever. Perceptions change with experience.

The first time I ran into one, I had to log a DNF b/c I didn't know the trick and thought I was just blind!

[+briansnat]

We should be rating them the same way we always have, by using the definitions below. A camo job on the cache container may, or may not affect the difficulty rating.

 

Difficulty rating:

* 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:

* 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.

 

 

For instance, I'm in the middle of painting 4 ammocans and 4 lock-n-locks using the Criminal camo technique. Now I know that these wouldn't be rated as a 1 but they aren't even close to the spanish moss covered containers.

 

Why couldn't they be rated a 1? An ammo box with a great camo paint job sitting in the open or in an obvious hiding spot could easily be a 1.

Edited September 26, 2006 by briansnat

[+Night Stalker]

the only true difficulty 1 cache I ever saw was an ammo can in plain sight on the hillside spray painted with flourescent orange paint. we could see it from 100 yards away. Now that is a true 1.

Edited September 26, 2006 by Night Stalker

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

the only true difficulty 1 cache I ever saw was an ammo can in plain sight on the hillside spray painted with flourescent orange paint. we could see it from 100 yards away. Now that is a true 1.

Oh. I scored sixteen DNFs on that one... I just couldn't find it. sigh!

 

 

[+sunrise searcher]

I am new to geocaching (6 finds, 8 searches), but I think the rating system available on the new cache submission page should be used for all caches. What some people find difficult to find, is easy to others. I can see camouflaged items easily because I do a lot of hunting. However, a film canister may be easy for younger eyes that can see those small objects. My preschooler daughter can see the ground level and slightly above stuff really well, but would have trouble with even a bright orange something that was placed above her head. I would find caches in urban settings hard to locate, but love the wild country ones. I have yet to see a pine cone cache or an electrical cover cache, but have found tupperware boxes of several sizes, waterproof match containers and ammo boxes already. Some were difficult to find, some were not. Some I still have not found (but will go back to Colorado someday and look again).

[+team5150]

The first time I found a lamp post micro I thought it was totally clever. Perceptions change with experience.

We still have no lamp post micros in this part of the geo-world, so when I finally do find one I will probably think it is greatest thing since sliced bread.....

Edited September 27, 2006 by team5150

[+globalgirl]

We still have no lamp post micros in this part of the geo-world, so when I finally do find one I will probably think it is greatest thing since sliced bread.....

Uh, could that be 'cuz WY doesn't yet have electricity?

 

<just kidding - couldn't resist...>

[+Renegade Knight]

Cammo doesn't normally impact how hard the cache is to find, though it can influence it somewhat.

 

Generally with experience you can get a good guess on difficulty and then watch the finds and DNF's and adjust based on real experience.

 

I keep being suprised by new and more evil methods of hiding caches. True, I'll find a light pole cache, for but a newbie...that's a hard hide.

 

As for the criminal method of painting the can. If the can is in the first place 99% of all cachers would look...It's still a one.