About Difficulty and Terrain Ratings

[+MaplessInSeattle]

When choosing a rating for one's multi-cache, what does one do about seasonal variances?

If some of the points will go up and down in difficulty as the seasons pass, do you alter the rating as the seasons change, or pick what it will be at its worst, and set the rating to that level?

What is the general consensus or rule-of-thumb about such matters.

We are planning on releasing a large multi-cache this weekend.

The cache has locations, that based on the time of year could be: Covered in low, but non-moving water, no more than 3 inches. Surrounded by brambles, about 6 ft tall, with canes that are approximately 1 1/2 in. thick. Or surrounded by ice, not to exceed 1 inch depth.

 

I plan to rate this a 3.5/3.5. Based on Clayjar, and the associated notes/remarks that come with it. It said to rate it a 3/4, however, last time complaints arose about the gentle terrain being rated too high.

 

There are 2 trees to climb, and a swamp to navigate, but the swamp doesn't currently have water in it. Just some nice spongy ground =). There is also a circular path to follow to one of the points, which leads you through a massive amount of brambles to safely arrive with minor scrapes from thorns if you were very fast and clumsy with your walking.

 

Any advice for what to do would be appreciated.

Still learning,

-=[MaplessInSeattle]=-

[+Chuy!]

With only 13 finds (1 multi), I'm going to suggest you hold off on this multi and double or triple you current finds to get a better idea for terrain rated caches in your area.

 

To answer your question. I would rate it somewhere in the middle and mention in the description the possible challenges based on seasonal changes.

[+macroderma]

With only 13 finds (1 multi), I'm going to suggest you hold off on this multi and double or triple you current finds to get a better idea for terrain rated caches in your area.

 

To answer your question. I would rate it somewhere in the middle and mention in the description the possible challenges based on seasonal changes.

 

I agree

 

You could rate it in the summer, and make it clear that this is what you have done in the cache description. You can then say how the rating will change through the year

 

We do this a lot in the UK - obviously we don't have the extremes of weather that you folks get but you still have the problem of foliage affecting GPSR reception quality, natural barriers like stinging nettles, and the likelihood of flooding

[+elmuyloco5]

I agree too. This issue comes up for us alot as we get a lot of snow in the winter and it can completely affect whether or not you can even make it to the cache. The best thing to do in this situation is:

 

Rate the cache according to what the difficulty will be for the majority of the year (i.e. do you have snow or wet weather more than you do dry?)

 

Then, make something like this comment:

 

The cache difficulty and terrain rating are based upon (enter season here) and would change to (enter different levels here) in the (enter off season).

 

Next, on caches that have road conditions or walking conditions that might be altered do to mud or water run off, we also add a disclaimer:

 

The above ratings reflect what you can expect during good weather, please be advised that the (road/path) might be unusable or need a high clearance 4x4 vehicle to access during inclimate weather.

 

 

Hope this helps!

[+Scare Force One]

Just to be compleat, i also agree. A 3 would be appropriate for what you are describing.

 

~.~Scare Force One

[+briansnat]

I would rate it for the conditions the searchers are most likely to encounter and mention that conditions do change seasonally.

 

For example if the area is flooded 8 weeks out of the year I would rate the cache based on the conditions that would be encountered the rest of the year, but mention on the page that during part of the year a boat might be required.

 

As far as winter conditions I think most people will automatically assume that winter conditions will increase the difficulty of the terrain, so I see no need to change the ratings seasonally.

 

As far as the Clayjar system, I've found that if you use the rating program it tends to rate the terrain from 1/2 to 1 star too high if you compare it to the actual definitions for the terrain. So when rating a cache I just go by the definitions you see at the end of the Clayjar program.

[+Ambrosia]

We do this a lot in the UK - obviously we don't have the extremes of weather that you folks get....

 

Oh, this made me laugh. Here I'd just been thinking to myself, "how extreme could it get, they live in Seattle?".

[+elmuyloco5]

 

As far as winter conditions I think most people will automatically assume that winter conditions will increase the difficulty of the terrain, so I see no need to change the ratings seasonally.

 

 

I think that depends on where you live. Personally, I live in the high desert, so I receive a lot of snow and it will greatly affect whether or not roads are closed etc. But, the majority of people who will come to my caches aren't from my small city, and the 1 to 2 hour distance away makes a huge difference in climate. It gets cold, they might get snow as well, but there is a change of 2500+ in elevation so they receive the amount of snow that we do, and beause they are larger cities, they also have a better response on road maintenance. I realize that this issue might not apply to the OP, but some of us need to comment on winter weather as the cachers we will have visiting don't know what to expect. So, if I does apply, it's a good thing to note. Just keep in mind that every cacher you will have come to your cache, may not be from your immediate area. It takes very little space and time to notify the searchers of what to expect and will ensure that they are informed and prepared...

[+briansnat]

It takes very little space and time to notify the searchers of what to expect and will ensure that they are informed and prepared...

 

I never said not to keep searchers informed of conditions that can affect the hunt. In fact I suggested doing so in my post. I just don't think it's necessary to constantly change the terrain and difficulty ratings with each season, or when conditions change.

 

I have caches that probably go up a 1/2 - 1 star in terrain during and right after a rain. I mention on the page that it might be significantly more difficult in wet or icy conditions but keep the terrain rating the same.

[Scamp]

I kinda think it is better to err on the side of ranking too high than ranking too low. I've hunted a couple of caches that had relatively low terrain ratings that made me (a pretty fit 20-something person) work a bit due to weather-related trail conditions, and I found myself wondering what might have happened if it was an older person or a family with small kids hunting the cache. If the trail is a 2 except for when it is the rainy season and it becomes slick with mud that could send yah toppling off a thousand foot cliff, it doesn't seem like it would really hurt anything to bump up the rating a little bit. I guess you might have some people complain that it was easier than they were expecting, but that's better than having somebody get hurt.

[+elmuyloco5]

It takes very little space and time to notify the searchers of what to expect and will ensure that they are informed and prepared...

 

I never said not to keep searchers informed of conditions that can affect the hunt. In fact I suggested doing so in my post. I just don't think it's necessary to constantly change the terrain and difficulty ratings with each season, or when conditions change.

 

I have caches that probably go up a 1/2 - 1 star in terrain during and right after a rain. I mention on the page that it might be significantly more difficult in wet or icy conditions but keep the terrain rating the same.

 

Actually, I never suggested that the difficulty and terrain be "changed" at all. I said:

 

I agree too. This issue comes up for us alot as we get a lot of snow in the winter and it can completely affect whether or not you can even make it to the cache. The best thing to do in this situation is:

 

Rate the cache according to what the difficulty will be for the majority of the year (i.e. do you have snow or wet weather more than you do dry?)

 

Then, make something like this comment:

 

The cache difficulty and terrain rating are based upon (enter season here) and would change to (enter different levels here) in the (enter off season).

 

Next, on caches that have road conditions or walking conditions that might be altered do to mud or water run off, we also add a disclaimer:

 

The above ratings reflect what you can expect during good weather, please be advised that the (road/path) might be unusable or need a high clearance 4x4 vehicle to access during inclimate weather.

 

Why I had quoted you was that you said they should notify finders of things such as flooding that might affect the path to the cache, but then said that most people understand winter conditions will affect the find. I understand that you said that because of winter conditions, they should not change the rating, and I agree. But it also came across that you didn't think they should mention winter conditions either as people would already understand what to expect, and that was why I made my comment. It was not to disagree with your comment on changing a rating, but that it's important to note when winter conditions will affect your cache as not everyone that searches for it will be from your local area and thereby know what to expect.

[+elmuyloco5]

Sorry triple posting for some reason when I posted.

Edited November 9, 2007 by elmuyloco5

[+StarBrand]

Simple answer - no need to change it for varying seasons.

 

Rate it the way it will be most of the time with a few warnings about how it "could" be under certain conditions.

 

Sounds like a 3.5 for terrain to me.

[+elmuyloco5]

Wow, what's up with the site today? Triple postings and crazy errors being put into my msgs.

Edited November 9, 2007 by elmuyloco5

[+Ambrosia]

The funny thing is that it says on the main site that StarBrand was the last to post, too. (well of course, now it says that I am.)

[+MaplessInSeattle]

Thanks for the inputs. I'm going to head out to eastern washington and see how some of this higher rated caches look.

[+Ambrosia]

Thanks for the inputs. I'm going to head out to eastern washington and see how some of this higher rated caches look.

Where are you headed?

[+Alan2]

I rate my caches based on what I encountered when I hid the cache. Who knows what's going to be there later (ie brambles, snow etc). Let the people looking make those determinations. They can see the date (season) when you hid the cache. They're not stupid. If you hid it in August and they can't find it because they're looking in a blizzard, well....duh!!?? Also, if you're way off with the ratings, people will report that back to you and you can always change the ratings later. Also, I never change ratings as the seasons change. I got more important things to do. Plus how would I know how many brambles or snow is at the cache at any one time?

 

I would also not wait. You seem to have a handle on caching and have spent a lot of time getting ready to release it. So do it. This hobby isn't brain surgery. So get it published and enjoy the nice comments you're going to get from the people who hunt it. Good luck.

[+MaplessInSeattle]

Thanks for the inputs. I'm going to head out to eastern washington and see how some of this higher rated caches look.

Where are you headed?

We're going to go to Desert Aire, Near Mattawa.

I guess we'll try to hit some along the way. Although I've already been told by the wife: "We are NOT stopping every time the GPS says we're near a cache!"

I figure we'll get the four in Desert Aire, it looks like one is on the island, so that's gonna suck, I might have to swim to it. Wheeeee!

[+MaplessInSeattle]

I rate my caches based on what I encountered when I hid the cache. Who knows what's going to be there later (ie brambles, snow etc). Let the people looking make those determinations. They can see the date (season) when you hid the cache. They're not stupid. If you hid it in August and they can't find it because they're looking in a blizzard, well....duh!!?? Also, if you're way off with the ratings, people will report that back to you and you can always change the ratings later. Also, I never change ratings as the seasons change. I got more important things to do. Plus how would I know how many brambles or snow is at the cache at any one time?

 

I would also not wait. You seem to have a handle on caching and have spent a lot of time getting ready to release it. So do it. This hobby isn't brain surgery. So get it published and enjoy the nice comments you're going to get from the people who hunt it. Good luck.

Actually, I've been watching the cache area for two years, and have seen it at its worst, and its best.

I've been to the cache site, when there is knee high pond of ice formed, which won't happen again, because a new runoff drain was placed to prevent it.

I've been to the Original waypoint when it was covered in brambles so high that you have to low crawl to get to it, just so that i could have a nice spot to watch birds.

Personally, I wouldn't look at terrain, unless special equipment is needed, I am always game for whatever.

Climb a tree, scale a rock, get a bit wet, eat some mud, all sounds like fun to me.

 

I've looked for a thread about suggesting a dual rating system, but couldnt' find one.

Is there a request in existence for such a feature.

Urban ratings vs rural ratings.

If such a system were in place, i could rate my cache extremely low. Since it is in an overgrown park, but would be easy for a hiker or other adventure minded person.

[+briansnat]

I've looked for a thread about suggesting a dual rating system, but couldnt' find one.

Is there a request in existence for such a feature.

Urban ratings vs rural ratings.

If such a system were in place, i could rate my cache extremely low. Since it is in an overgrown park, but would be easy for a hiker or other adventure minded person.

 

I'm not sure if a dual rating system would help matters. Our current system is simple and people still can't use it correctly. A dual system will only confuse things further.

 

The current system has its flaws, but used properly the ratings are useful.

[+PlantAKiss]

I only have one cache down and working on another but I made notes in the description warning of possible changes in terrain (i.e., noting an area might be soggy if heavy rain). I think noting things like briars, poison ivy or heavy bushwhacking is nice so people can be prepared with their clothes and gear.

[+MaplessInSeattle]

I'm not sure if a dual rating system would help matters. Our current system is simple and people still can't use it correctly. A dual system will only confuse things further.

 

The current system has its flaws, but used properly the ratings are useful.

Hmmn.

So then is it generally accepted within the community, that if you rate something as difficult, that falls inside of a city park, it may not be difficult for those that like to hike 5 miles in the snow to go scuba diving in a frozen pond for a geocache?

[+briansnat]

I'm not sure if a dual rating system would help matters. Our current system is simple and people still can't use it correctly. A dual system will only confuse things further.

 

The current system has its flaws, but used properly the ratings are useful.

Hmmn.

So then is it generally accepted within the community, that if you rate something as difficult, that falls inside of a city park, it may not be difficult for those that like to hike 5 miles in the snow to go scuba diving in a frozen pond for a geocache?

 

Difficulty should not be relative to the location. Most city parks will not have difficult terrain at all and ratings for urban caches should reflect that.

 

Sometimes you will find a bias based on the experiences of the hider. Someone who is a couch potato might see those woods in the city park as 4 star terrain, while a veteran outdoorsman might see that rocky, steep hiking trail as 2 star terrain. In both cases however they are misusing the rating system.

 

Used correctly the terrain rating should reflect the actual terrain encountered regardless of the location. Misused, it will be wrong no matter what kid of system you use.

[+MaplessInSeattle]

Someone who is a couch potato might see those woods in the city park as 4 star terrain, while a veteran outdoorsman might see that rocky, steep hiking trail as 2 star terrain. In both cases however they are misusing the rating system.

 

Good point. I like that statement.

[+Ambrosia]

Thanks for the inputs. I'm going to head out to eastern washington and see how some of this higher rated caches look.

Where are you headed?

We're going to go to Desert Aire, Near Mattawa.

I guess we'll try to hit some along the way. Although I've already been told by the wife: "We are NOT stopping every time the GPS says we're near a cache!"

I figure we'll get the four in Desert Aire, it looks like one is on the island, so that's gonna suck, I might have to swim to it. Wheeeee!

Ah. I was wondering if you would be close to the Wenatchee area.

 

I understand being told by a spouse that we need to curtail the caching. I just don't even ask on trips anymore. But I guess being the woman has some advantages. Over time, I've been upset enough and cried enough tears to make him feel guilty. Being sick makes him feel even more like taking care of me. For the past year and a half or so, I haven't mentioned caching for trips in particular, and he's the one that suggests we get some which is so sweet. It's not as much as I'd like, but that's life I guess. It doesn't always work on the day to day life, so I only mention it when it's really important. I got him to do cache maintenance for me on two of my caches yesterday, though! He had me on the phone the whole time so I could guide him through the process.

 

If you swim to the island, let us know. That sort of thing is what makes geocaching great!

[+MaplessInSeattle]

Ah. I was wondering if you would be close to the Wenatchee area.

 

I understand being told by a spouse that we need to curtail the caching. I just don't even ask on trips anymore. But I guess being the woman has some advantages. Over time, I've been upset enough and cried enough tears to make him feel guilty. Being sick makes him feel even more like taking care of me. For the past year and a half or so, I haven't mentioned caching for trips in particular, and he's the one that suggests we get some which is so sweet. It's not as much as I'd like, but that's life I guess. It doesn't always work on the day to day life, so I only mention it when it's really important. I got him to do cache maintenance for me on two of my caches yesterday, though! He had me on the phone the whole time so I could guide him through the process.

 

If you swim to the island, let us know. That sort of thing is what makes geocaching great!

 

Well, i didn't swim to the island, actually, i'm going to make a note on that cache. That is supposedly a federally protected wetland refuge for white pelicans. So, i'm not about to go out there and get in trouble. As well, we are considering putting a log book in a bottle, and sending it across the lake.(wife's idea)

 

however, we did have an interesting geocaching moment today. After we climbed to the top of the Iron horse Monument, to get the cache, I realized there was no pen/pencil in the swag bag. UGH!!!

So, i contemplated the options. Too windy *60mph* to burn a stick and write in charcoal. So, the decision was made. I would walk my wife back to the car, and then i would sign the log, and make the walk back up the canyonside.

So yah, I'm a bit tired, as we write this from some restaurant/lounge that is kind enough to leave their wifi unsecured.

Must drink coffeeeeeee.

[+MaplessInSeattle]

Wow, experience makes a difference.

We're going to lower the terrain rating.

Just did a 3.5 that nearly killed me.

Makes our Lost in North SeaTac park look like... well, a walk in the park!

[+Ambrosia]

Wow, experience makes a difference.

We're going to lower the terrain rating.

Just did a 3.5 that nearly killed me.

Makes our Lost in North SeaTac park look like... well, a walk in the park!

Regions have different takes on things, which I found after talking to people on the other side of the country (and traveling over there). We tend to under-rate our terrain here. I have friends from the east come over and visit and they think it's interesting the kind of ratings we have. I just say it's just us rugged North West people.

[+briansnat]

Wow, experience makes a difference.

We're going to lower the terrain rating.

Just did a 3.5 that nearly killed me.

Makes our Lost in North SeaTac park look like... well, a walk in the park

 

Here are the definitions for 3 and 4 star terrain, so as you can see, a terrain properly rated at 3.5 stars should be quite tough.

 

*** - 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.)

 

Regions have different takes on things, which I found after talking to people on the other side of the country (and traveling over there). We tend to under-rate our terrain here. I have friends from the east come over and visit and they think it's interesting the kind of ratings we have. I just say it's just us rugged North West people.

 

I have also seen a wide variation depending on region. I found a cache in VA that was rated 4 stars for terrain. It was a 5 minute walk on fairly flat ground with a stream crossing and a trail through some reeds. Another nearby one was also rated 4 stars and it was a very light bushwack (with plenty of room between trees and bushes to maneuver) over flat ground. Something like those would have been 2 or 2.5 stars at home. Most of the cache I had found during my time in VA tended to be rated at least 1 star higher for terrain than they would have been back home.

 

On the other hand I was in VT and found a cache rated 1 star that required a bushwack down a steep hill, a stream crossing and walking through a riocky, swampy area.

 

The few complaints I get about my terrain ratings say are that they are rated too low and almost always come from out of state geocachers.

 

I go by the definitions as stated in Clayjar, so I'm not sure what these people in other areas are using.

[+MaplessInSeattle]

 

*** - 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.)

 

well the one I did had me walking almost a mile across sand dunes, and up the side of a hill that had loose rock, as well as having to secure the gps while I scaled some of the rock areas. I think the 50mph gusts added to it a bit. So I guess 3.5 wouldn't have been so inaccurate if the weather was nice.

Of course in nicer weather, there would have been snakes. LOL

All in all that was one of my favourites so far though, just wish I would have read the logs first.

But considering I saw people from this side of the state's signatures on there as well, and no complaints from them, besides the normal ones... I'm gonna definitely lower the rating of mine.

Now if I could just finish this camo job...

[+Ambrosia]

Wow, experience makes a difference.

We're going to lower the terrain rating.

Just did a 3.5 that nearly killed me.

Makes our Lost in North SeaTac park look like... well, a walk in the park

 

Here are the definitions for 3 and 4 star terrain, so as you can see, a terrain properly rated at 3.5 stars should be quite tough.

 

*** - 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.)

 

Regions have different takes on things, which I found after talking to people on the other side of the country (and traveling over there). We tend to under-rate our terrain here. I have friends from the east come over and visit and they think it's interesting the kind of ratings we have. I just say it's just us rugged North West people.

 

I have also seen a wide variation depending on region. I found a cache in VA that was rated 4 stars for terrain. It was a 5 minute walk on fairly flat ground with a stream crossing and a trail through some reeds. Another nearby one was also rated 4 stars and it was a very light bushwack (with plenty of room between trees and bushes to maneuver) over flat ground. Something like those would have been 2 or 2.5 stars at home. Most of the cache I had found during my time in VA tended to be rated at least 1 star higher for terrain than they would have been back home.

 

On the other hand I was in VT and found a cache rated 1 star that required a bushwack down a steep hill, a stream crossing and walking through a riocky, swampy area.

 

The few complaints I get about my terrain ratings say are that they are rated too low and almost always come from out of state geocachers.

 

I go by the definitions as stated in Clayjar, so I'm not sure what these people in other areas are using.

I agree with what you said earlier: "So when rating a cache I just go by the definitions you see at the end of the Clayjar program." That's what I do. If I'm not sure what to rate it right away, I'll go through the system and then read the definitions and go mostly off of that. It's usually at least a half star under the clayjar. The definitions and questions on clayjar are useful, and I wish that everyone kept an eye on them.

[+briansnat]

If I'm not sure what to rate it right away, I'll go through the system and then read the definitions and go mostly off of that. It's usually at least a half star under the clayjar. The definitions and questions on clayjar are useful, and I wish that everyone kept an eye on them.

 

I've also found that the system over rates terrain by 1/2 to 1 star compared to what the definitions state, so I just go by the definitions.

[+MaplessInSeattle]

I just wanted to thank everyone for their input and advice.

I did eventually have to up my terrain/difficulty to 3.5/3.5.

I saw five of the geocachers wandering around for quite a while, and then after watching some of them try to navigate the obstacles, decided it was only fair to up the ratings.

So I'm off to go average some more waypoints for our next hide.