Extreme caches in England

[swhite7000]

A topic has sprung up on one of the other GC messageboards about extreme caches (5* terrain) and I am keen to know about any located in the U.K. There are several in the states and are difficult to the point that cachers risk their lives hiking through untracked areas with no official paths that can be found before your visit and are rarely found. So if there are any I would be grateful for any links to the cache listings posted on thsi thread. Thanks.

[+Kitty Hawk]

You've got two methods here - either

 

Use the search facility on www.geocacheuk.com

 

If you are a premium member, create a new pocket query and run it immediately and a list will pop up.

[+Simply Paul]

Someone's got a bookmark list of 4.5 and 5* /4.5 and 5* (terrain and difficulty) caches, linked via their sig line - perhaps they'll step forward.

 

It's worth saying there's not much of the UK that's really trackless. It's just not that big, and too many people live here. Many people say the few 5* terrain caches we have possibly shouldn't be, as very few need special equipment. Even the one on top of the UK's highest mountain can be reached by hardy children, and on the day I climbed 4,406ft up Ben Nevis, a little old blind lady...

[+Pharisee]

Another old 'argument' coming back to haunt us What is 'difficulty' and what is 'terrain'?

To my mind, the 'difficulty' rating should reflect how hard it is to find the cache once you've reached the cache site (or how hard it is to solve the puzzle as well, in the case of mystery/puzzle caches)

 

The 'terrain' rating should reflect how difficult it is, physically, to reach the actual cache site.

 

Just because a cache has a difficulty of 5*, is does not necessarily follow that it should automatically have a terrain of 5* as well. And vice-versa, of course. How many of the UK 5/5s actually warrant a rating of 5 for both... If we're truthful, not many!!

 

I believe that 'difficulty' is fairly global.... A puzzle that's difficult in the UK doesn't get any more, or less, difficult if it's set in America or even Uzbekistan. A cache hidden under a pile of rocks in Scotland is just as difficult to find as a cache hidden under a similar pile of rocks in Outer Mongolia. We're talking about the actual difficulty in finding the cache, here.... not the difficulty in reaching the cache site.... that's the 'terrain' rating.

 

'Terrain' on the other hand most certainly is not global. No one in their right mind could compare even the most difficult of Scottish or Welsh mountain terrain with the Rocky Mountains, the High Andes or any of the other great ranges world wide. UK caches should be given a terrain rating based of the terrain 'available' in the UK. If our caches are to be terrain rated on a scale of 1 to 5 on a global scale, then none of them would rate more than 1.

So they have to be rated against the most difficult terrain that's available here. Even then... I believe a lot of caches are well over-rated. If a cache hidden just off hard paved, wheelchair friendly path is a T1 and cache hidden high in the Grampian mountains is a T5, I really don't believe that a shortish hike along a muddy bridleway or an easy climb to the top of a grassy hill can rate a T3 or T4 as a lot of cache setters, particularly in the southern half of England seem to think.

Unless, of course... we take it a stage further and the caches are terrain rated against 'local' terrain... but where do you stop?

[+pirate_matt]

Just to throw another log on the fire. I think its also important to point out that as there is are standardised methods of rating terrain then it is down to individuals to rate it as they see fit and as such it is very subjective. I have done a few caches in the lakes which have a 5 for terrain. I personally didn't find the terrain too bad and maybe would have only given it a 3-4 but then someone else may feel it to be totally justified. Oh yeah and weather makes a difference as some of these caches I would have given a 3-4 for in the summer really do become 5s in the winter!

 

edited to sort out some of my spelling etc!

Edited January 3, 2007 by pirate_matt

[+Birdman-of-liskatraz]

Cachers will tend to compare their "new" cache with other they have done. So maybe even unintentionally caches will be rated against local terrain. My sons who where used to caching in the Flatlands of Norfolk and Cambridgeshire were pretty much gob-smacked at the rating on some of the caches down here in Cornwall and Devon.

 

Does a cache hidden in a tin mine where the only specialist equipment required is a torch rate a 5 for terrain? When say one hidden 200 meters down a water filled cave system that requires specialist sub agua gear is also rated a 5 for terrain? Obviously not - but it really depends on cachers comparing like with like and in most cases they are not.

 

I think the way forward is for cachers who do caches to add their ratings to the cache page and an average of those being added under the setters grading.

 

And when all is said and done there's a certain cachet to having set a 5/5 cache.

[+scottpa100]

Someone's got a bookmark list of 4.5 and 5* /4.5 and 5* (terrain and difficulty) caches, linked via their sig line - perhaps they'll step forward.

 

 

It's not my sig but there's a cache near me that I've not yet done that's a 5D 5T and it has this bookmark listing.

 

I agree that it all appears fairly subjective. One reason why I think its really important to use the cache rating system recommended by geocaching.com when setting up a cache. It's not ideal and it won't provide the correct ratings at all occasions. The computer then decides what the rating is. I agree that people are comparing them to their own experiences, where I've done caches of 3 terrain in Reading (up a grassy hill) and 3.5 in Snowdonia (a three mile hike up an 800 metre summit) and they just don't balance out.

[+Simply Paul]

That's the list I meant. Thanks scottpa100

[+Happy Humphrey]

I have one 5/5 cache (which I think is in the list, but it doesn't display!). I only rated it so high after having done a few in different areas with 4*-5* difficulty and/or terrain. Hardly any are correctly graded (IMO), but this one gets the full rating according to the "cache rating system". Even though it could be harder, I think that the key is to assume that the geocacher is just an average (but fairly fit, intelligent and determined) sort of person with no special skills (or none that can't be picked up temporarily, sufficiently to find the cache). I would also assume that you want the cache to be found in the "spirit" of geocaching, so don't make it so hard that you'd need to take a year off work to complete it...

 

So, for difficulty, I concentrated on how much effort and/or time may be required to actually locate the cache. Perhaps it's defended by a tricky puzzle, or some test of observation, or perhaps it's just laborious and takes a lot of time and effort. Possibly all of that to make a 5* difficulty cache. My example has all that.

 

Then, for terrain, if it's on the limit of what a non-climber could expect to negotiate safely, or if it's very remote (several hours walk), or if there's some physical barrier (in the middle of a river, perhaps), then it might deserve 5*. As Pharisee observed, the terrain rating is likely to be local to this part of the world.

 

As another example, perhaps the nearest to a genuine 5*/5* cache that I've completed is "Sick Clanger" which I think deserves the full 5* for terrain too!

Edited January 3, 2007 by Happy Humphrey

[+MBFace]

As another example, perhaps the nearest to a genuine 5*/5* cache that I've completed is "Sick Clanger" which I think deserves the full 5* for terrain too!

 

As others have said it's all relative. Take Scafell Pike - the virtual cache GCG3A7 which requires the finder to appear in a summit photo is 3.5/5 while the SOTAcache GCWMVG which involves finding a physical cache in rocks a little lower down is 1.5/4.5. Obviously rated by people with experience of the fells (but both considerably harder terrain wise than Sick Clanger ).

 

Last sentence should have read "with different experience" - poor editorial control this end!!!

Edited January 4, 2007 by MBFace

[+Happy Humphrey]

Obviously rated by people with experience of the fells (but both considerably harder terrain wise than Sick Clanger ).

I know that there are plenty of harder walks to caches than the one to "Sick Clanger", but I think that once any cache involves a walk of several hours including a climb of 2000 feet or more it should be 5*. In the context of geocaching, which is not a mountain sport, this is at the extreme end of the rating!

Well done for finding the blighter, by the way...

[markandlynn]

Someone's got a bookmark list of 4.5 and 5* /4.5 and 5* (terrain and difficulty) caches, linked via their sig line - perhaps they'll step forward.

 

 

It's not my sig but there's a cache near me that I've not yet done that's a 5D 5T and it has this bookmark listing.

 

I agree that it all appears fairly subjective. One reason why I think its really important to use the cache rating system recommended by geocaching.com when setting up a cache. It's not ideal and it won't provide the correct ratings at all occasions. The computer then decides what the rating is. I agree that people are comparing them to their own experiences, where I've done caches of 3 terrain in Reading (up a grassy hill) and 3.5 in Snowdonia (a three mile hike up an 800 metre summit) and they just don't balance out.

 

I think that difficulty and terrain should be based on the visitors opinion not the setters.

It's because of inconsistencies that the list is for 4 and above not just 5's

[+Pharisee]

I think that difficulty and terrain should be based on the visitors opinion not the setters.

It's because of inconsistencies that the list is for 4 and above not just 5's

 

What makes you think that 'visitors' are any more qualified to judge difficulty or terrain than 'setters'? After all, visitors are only the setters of other caches. They are just as likely to be as inconsistent in their judging of other peoples caches as they are judging their own

If you're proposing some sort of 'averaging' method then we may as well just give all caches a D & T rating of 2.5 as that is where the vast majority of caches will probably end up

[+Alibags]

I use the system which is linked to from the cache hiding page... and then I invariable knock it back a star or half, as it always seems to over rate caches in my opinion.

[+Cache U Nutter]

It is clear to me having read the various forum logs, that Geocahing has now reached the stage in its grading systems that the rock climbing fraternity puzzled over some 40 years ago.

The climbers[i being one of some 31 years experience] realised that they required an extra grade which they called 'extreme'.

This was then sub grade E1, E2,E3......E7 reflecting the overall difficulty of the climb taking into account the risk of injuring yourself if you fell [i.e no protection] , and the overall mental and physical challenge of the whole experience [ including the walk / hill climb to the start] E7 being the most difficult

The degree of technical difficulty was then assessed with a technical grading system which related to how difficult the actual move/s would be irrespective if the climb was on an exposed sea cliff or at 10 ft off the ground on a boulder in a park.

 

This system works very well and could be adapted by the Geocaching community for the harder caches i.e those currentely graded 4+

 

Until then any cache that I put up involving a degree of physical difficulty, or perhaps a little scary would be graded as per the rating guidelines but with a more precise description in the text box

it could well include a climbing grade.

[+Cache U Nutter]

It is clear to me having read the various forum logs, that Geocahing has now reached the stage in its grading systems that the rock climbing fraternity puzzled over some 40 years ago.

The climbers[i being one of some 31 years experience] realised that they required an extra grade which they called 'extreme'.

This was then sub grade E1, E2,E3......E7 reflecting the overall difficulty of the climb taking into account the risk of injuring yourself if you fell [i.e no protection] , and the overall mental and physical challenge of the whole experience [ including the walk / hill climb to the start] E7 being the most difficult

The degree of technical difficulty was then assessed with a technical grading system which related to how difficult the actual move/s would be irrespective if the climb was on an exposed sea cliff or at 10 ft off the ground on a boulder in a park.

 

This system works very well and could be adapted by the Geocaching community for the harder caches i.e those currentely graded 4+

 

Until then any cache that I put up involving a degree of physical difficulty, or perhaps a little scary would be graded as per the rating guidelines but with a more precise description in the text box

it could well include a climbing grade.

[+Cache U Nutter]

In reply to the many posts on 'Extreme caches' including that of my own.

I have just set up 4 X 5*/5* multiple caches in Surrey which have been given an additional difficulty rating, or extreme grade to grade the challenge according to the Danger involved in reaching these caches.

The caches, Slither, Tip Toe Wall - Warming up for the Beast, The Beast 666 and Beastleytoo partially involve the use of climbing equipment and in some cases there is a real risk of falling and or being hit by falling stones.

There is a degree of difficulty in reaching the coordinates and the challenge to reach all 4 takes about a day.

The 'Extreme rating' E1-E10 reflects the likelyhood of being injured or killed in doing these caches and is based on the U.K mountaineering/ Climbing grading of climbs.

Hence a D5*/T5* would in addition have a E grading as well.

It may explain why these caches have not [so far] had a second successful attempt at them.!!

I am thinking about putting up a cache which involves a 200 ft wild abseil off a overhanging limestone cliff.

To reach the cache you either have to swing in under the overhang into a cave,or alternatively abseil in further along the cliff then traverse/ swim to the cave [with climbing gear]and then climb up with difficulty at a grade E4 level .

You then have to either reverse this procedure or climb up 200ft.

Puts the comments posted into some kind of perspective as regards there being very few places for 5/5 caches in this country, and shows how Geocaching can move on in many different tangents

By the way I have been climbing up the Ben in winter in conditions akin to the wildest experienced anywhere in the world. and certainly in areas where your average walker would not dare to tread!

Perhaps some of the 5*/5* caches in existence should include the Extreme level classification[E Grade] to save any confusion.