Difficulty rating question

[+figtreesky]

I'm thinking about placing a cache this week that is a bit deceptive if looked at from the GPSr or google/yahoo map. The cache would appear to be easily accessible "as the crow flies" on a trail up a mountain, but in actuality it is on the other side of the mountain and can only be accessed by a different trail that begins several miles away. Suffice to say, it is not as straightforward as one might initially assume. If I don't give too much away in the description or hint, how should this reflect in the difficulty rating? Which scale, if any should be elevated?

[+StarBrand]

Terrain is for the trail. Difficulty is how hard is it once you are "on-site".

[+figtreesky]

Also, does this cache make me a jerk?

[+figtreesky]

Terrain is for the trail. Difficulty is how hard is it once you are "on-site".

 

Yes, I am aware of that. But, how do you consider the difficulty of finding the correct trail? The terrain is not a problem, but getting there would be.

[+joranda]

Getting there is half the challenge and no your not being a jerk my putting out a cache like that. Some people like the challenge.

[+x_Marks_the_spot]

Rate the terrain for the trail that will actually get you to the cache. You should bump the difficulty on account of the misleading trail system.

 

As for you being a jerk, I would say a qualified "no." If were talking about two relatively short, well-established and marked trails, then you certainly aren't a jerk. But I personally would be a little miffed if you sent me on a six-mile hike across treacherous terrain only to find that the cache is actually 250 feet up a nature trail on the other side, and not even accessible from the six-mile trail..

 

If it's a difficult or long hike, I personally would mark a trailhead as a reference point unless you are just really keen on the puzzle aspect of the misleading trail thing. Even then I'd put some sort of really vague, cryptic hint to that effect. "Choose your path carefully" or"... I took the road less traveled/and that has made all of the difference." -Robert Frost.

[+Isonzo Karst]

If you rate if for the person that climbs the wrong trail, then tries to 'whack over the mountain, you suggest by your very high rating that such an approach is correct. If you rate for finding the right trailhead and then having a modest 'whack to the cache you suggest that such an approach exists.

 

I'd probably just suggest that such an approach exists, in the interest of cutting down on the cacher damage to the area, though much depends upon the area and any concerns about off trail wandering.

 

I have a cache out where all the aerial, topo sat views would suggest a hike in from the south trailhead (that and some caches along that south trail). I mentioned "north bank" a modest bit of help for cachers to think about crossing the main body of the water. If they start following assorted tracks too soon they're going to be near but facing some serious swamp, if they whack that, they'll discover a matrix of man made (deep) dredged channel. With some discipline to stay on the most traveled track, they'll find an easy ford, then can work south to the cache. I think a couple of folks will understand all that from the mere fact that I mention "north bank".

[majormajor42]

it sounds like a good challenge for the FTF types. They won't be upset at you. I've only done a couple FTFs but I prefer it when there is a challenge and it just doesn't come down to who happened to get notified of the posting first and happens to be in the area. wouldn't it be great if you get more than one cacher out there at once, coming at it from different directions?

Now, as far as the picky people who might get offended by the trick, keep in mind that by the time a few people have found it, they will log their adventures and might include such items as where they parked and how they approached it. Not everyone reads the logs but I think most that would have issues would read them. If you don't want people to give these hints away in the logs, you might want to make a request for them not to say so in the description. Have fun and TFTC

[+briansnat]

Rate the terrain using the route that you think geocachers are most likely to take. If it's the short route I'd go with that.

 

You could list the trailhead coordinates as an additional waypoint. If you do that, then I'd rate it coming from that direction, but my experience is that most geocachers will attempt the shortest and most direct route unless they are given parking or trailhead coordinatesm(even then some will still go for the short route).

 

If you provide trailhead/parking coords you can mention on the page that there is a shorter route, but using it will add a star (or 2 or 3) to the terrain rating.

[+Miragee]

I'm thinking about placing a cache this week that is a bit deceptive if looked at from the GPSr or google/yahoo map. The cache would appear to be easily accessible "as the crow flies" on a trail up a mountain, but in actuality it is on the other side of the mountain and can only be accessed by a different trail that begins several miles away. Suffice to say, it is not as straightforward as one might initially assume. If I don't give too much away in the description or hint, how should this reflect in the difficulty rating? Which scale, if any should be elevated?

As StarBrand stated, the Difficulty is related to how hard the cache itself is to find once you arrive at GZ. The Terrain rating is related to the trail itself, whether it is paved, well-established, or involves bushwhacking.

 

Personally, I am not amused when the access for a cache is not included in the cache description, and I am not the only cacher in this area who will post coordinates for the trailhead, if I ultimately find it. Since many people cache "Paperless" now and follow their auto-routing GPS units to the closest access point, without at least a "hint" in the cache description that some research might be necessary to find the correct trail, they will not be very happy driving around for half an hour, or longer, trying to figure out where the access is.

 

Sorry if this is not the reaction you want, but with the price of gas these days, I prefer getting to the trailhead to start hiking. As briansnat writes, having the trailhead coordinates included as an Additional Waypoint would be appreciated. In fact, to really assist cachers in their search for difficul-to-find parking, I have placed a small cache at the trailhead.

[+tozainamboku]

This makes a good point. Some cachers, like me, feel that figuring out how to get to the cache is part of the challenge. Others want coordinates for where to park, the trailhead, and even the place to leave the trail to get to the cache. To them the search begins when you get to the cache site.

 

I would put on the page that figuring out how to best get to the cache site is part of the challenge and rate the difficulty accordingly. The terrain is for the "intended" approach to the cache. You might want to add some disclaimer to warn people that if they take the wrong approach this might be dangerous or impossible to do. You may also ask that people don't put spoilers in there logs. Without such a request, many cachers would probably say in their logs what approach they used to find the cache.

[+briansnat]

I'm thinking about placing a cache this week that is a bit deceptive if looked at from the GPSr or google/yahoo map. The cache would appear to be easily accessible "as the crow flies" on a trail up a mountain, but in actuality it is on the other side of the mountain and can only be accessed by a different trail that begins several miles away. Suffice to say, it is not as straightforward as one might initially assume. If I don't give too much away in the description or hint, how should this reflect in the difficulty rating? Which scale, if any should be elevated?

As StarBrand stated, the Difficulty is related to how hard the cache itself is to find once you arrive at GZ. The Terrain rating is related to the trail itself, whether it is paved, well-established, or involves bushwhacking.

 

Personally, I am not amused when the access for a cache is not included in the cache description, and I am not the only cacher in this area who will post coordinates for the trailhead, if I ultimately find it. Since many people cache "Paperless" now and follow their auto-routing GPS units to the closest access point, without at least a "hint" in the cache description that some research might be necessary to find the correct trail, they will not be very happy driving around for half an hour, or longer, trying to figure out where the access is.

 

Sorry if this is not the reaction you want, but with the price of gas these days, I prefer getting to the trailhead to start hiking. As briansnat writes, having the trailhead coordinates included as an Additional Waypoint would be appreciated. In fact, to really assist cachers in their search for difficul-to-find parking, I have placed a small cache at the trailhead.

 

There are two schools of thought on this. I personally will post parking/trailhead coords only if I want people to approach the cache from a specific direction. Could be private property issues and I don't want people to trespass, or maybe there is something of interest along the way that I want people to see.

 

That said, parking/trailhead coords are never a requirement. Some people want a homogenized geocaching experience with everything provided by the owner but the actual find. Others want an adventure and that includes route planning. Some of my favorite cache finds needed extensive pre-planning, using topo maps, sat photos, tide charts and similar tools.

 

Some people will appreciate parking/trailhead coords and others prefer to go it on their own. If you don't want to provide parking or trailhead coords that is your right. Some people might think you are being a jerk, but I think most won't give it a second thought.

Edited December 20, 2007 by briansnat

[+TrailGators]

This makes a good point. Some cachers, like me, feel that figuring out how to get to the cache is part of the challenge. Others want coordinates for where to park, the trailhead, and even the place to leave the trail to get to the cache. To them the search begins when you get to the cache site.

 

I would put on the page that figuring out how to best get to the cache site is part of the challenge and rate the difficulty accordingly. The terrain is for the "intended" approach to the cache. You might want to add some disclaimer to warn people that if they take the wrong approach this might be dangerous or impossible to do. You may also ask that people don't put spoilers in there logs. Without such a request, many cachers would probably say in their logs what approach they used to find the cache.

I enjoy figuring out the best approach too. I was thinking that if you post a note on the cache page that you are giving away the fact that there is a challenge. That takes out some of the fun. So I would bury that advice in the hint section. That way those that like challenges (and seldom read hints) would have still have fun with that cache and those that don't could be spoonfed a hint.

[+Team Cotati]

If you provide information on how finders can reach the correct trail head, then you ought to rate the terrain from that point. That some cachers might decide to go a different way is not something that you can control.

[+TrailGators]

If you provide information on how finders can reach the correct trail head, then you ought to rate the terrain from that point. That some cachers might decide to go a different way is not something that you can control.

I always rate the terrain for the best way to get to the cache. If people want to hike halfway around the world to get to the cache then that's their problem....

[+Renegade Knight]

Also, does this cache make me a jerk?

Placing a nice cache at the end of a nice hike makes you a nice person.

Placing a nano cache under the leaf litter on the forest flore so that nobody could ever find it short of an archaeological dig would make you a jerk.

[+Renegade Knight]

Terrain is for the trail. Difficulty is how hard is it once you are "on-site".

 

Yes, I am aware of that. But, how do you consider the difficulty of finding the correct trail? ...

 

You don't. Some people can't find the parking lot to a wal mart micro. That's part of the challenge. Ratings are for the cache and how you are supposed to get there from where you are supposed to start. Not how you get to the starting point. There is always a way to make something harder than it needs to be. You can't rate that.

[+figtreesky]

Also, does this cache make me a jerk?

Placing a nice cache at the end of a nice hike makes you a nice person.

Placing a nano cache under the leaf litter on the forest flore so that nobody could ever find it short of an archaeological dig would make you a jerk.

 

Ok, so I feel a little better about placing this cache. And no, it's not a micro or nano, it's a ammunation case and I'm going to fill it with outdoor books, pins, foriegn coins, and maybe CDs. I'm kind of hoping the swag will justify the challenge.

[+briansnat]

I was thinking that if you post a note on the cache page that you are giving away the fact that there is a challenge. That takes out some of the fun. So I would bury that advice in the hint section

 

Since hints are generally meant to help you find the cache once you've looked and failed, route information in the hint is useless. I can't count how many times I've been skunked at the cache site and decrypted the hint, only to see "Take the red trail" Hellooo, I got here!I already know that. I want to know where to look.

[+TrailGators]

I was thinking that if you post a note on the cache page that you are giving away the fact that there is a challenge. That takes out some of the fun. So I would bury that advice in the hint section

 

Since hints are generally meant to help you find the cache once you've looked and failed, route information in the hint is useless. I can't count how many times I've been skunked at the cache site and decrypted the hint, only to see "Take the red trail" Hellooo, I got here!I already know that. I want to know where to look.

You must have a lot of red trails out there. I think it's OK to put both types of info the hint if you are trying to make finding the right trail part of the challenge.

[Uberquandary]

This makes a good point. Some cachers, like me, feel that figuring out how to get to the cache is part of the challenge. Others want coordinates for where to park, the trailhead, and even the place to leave the trail to get to the cache. To them the search begins when you get to the cache site.

 

I would put on the page that figuring out how to best get to the cache site is part of the challenge and rate the difficulty accordingly. The terrain is for the "intended" approach to the cache. You might want to add some disclaimer to warn people that if they take the wrong approach this might be dangerous or impossible to do. You may also ask that people don't put spoilers in there logs. Without such a request, many cachers would probably say in their logs what approach they used to find the cache.

 

I'm from the 'finding the right trail is half the challenge' group. I get around it by stating in the description that I'll tell the easiest way up if somebody asks.

[+Miragee]

<snip>

 

Some people will appreciate parking/trailhead coords and others prefer to go it on their own. If you don't want to provide parking or trailhead coords that is your right. Some people might think you are being a jerk, but I think most won't give it a second thought.

Some examples why I appreciate parking or trailhead coordinates.

• Cache is located at the end of a dead-end suburban alley where driveways in the very hilly neighborhood cannot be distinguished from very narrow roads.
  
• Cache is located near a gated community where access looks possible from Google Earth and maps, but the auto-routing GPS unit keeps running into locked gates.
  
• Cache is located in a park locals know about, but a person passing through the small town cannot figure out the access, even with a map. There are two caches in Montrose, CO, I searched for on two separate trips through that small community. I never did figure out how to get to the caches, both owned by the same person. That cache owner missed out on getting "Found It" logs from a non-local cacher because after an hour of searching for access, I gave up and continued down the highway to a cache I could find.
  
• Cache is located on Forest Service land above a developement where the tangle of streets and long driveways caused us to give up the search for access after more than an hour of driving around. On our second attempt, with coordinates from Google Earth, it still took us quite a while to find the elusive trailhead. This is the area where I placed two different "Parking Area" caches, "Don't Find This Cache" and "And so the adventure begins . . . "
  

There are other situations where the lack of a trailhead might be "part of the fun," but in these situations, not getting to the caches, was not fun . . .

[+briansnat]

<snip>

 

Some people will appreciate parking/trailhead coords and others prefer to go it on their own. If you don't want to provide parking or trailhead coords that is your right. Some people might think you are being a jerk, but I think most won't give it a second thought.

Some examples why I appreciate parking or trailhead coordinates.

• Cache is located at the end of a dead-end suburban alley where driveways in the very hilly neighborhood cannot be distinguished from very narrow roads.
  
• Cache is located near a gated community where access looks possible from Google Earth and maps, but the auto-routing GPS unit keeps running into locked gates.
  
• Cache is located in a park locals know about, but a person passing through the small town cannot figure out the access, even with a map. There are two caches in Montrose, CO, I searched for on two separate trips through that small community. I never did figure out how to get to the caches, both owned by the same person. That cache owner missed out on getting "Found It" logs from a non-local cacher because after an hour of searching for access, I gave up and continued down the highway to a cache I could find.
  
• Cache is located on Forest Service land above a developement where the tangle of streets and long driveways caused us to give up the search for access after more than an hour of driving around. On our second attempt, with coordinates from Google Earth, it still took us quite a while to find the elusive trailhead. This is the area where I placed two different "Parking Area" caches, "Don't Find This Cache" and "And so the adventure begins . . . "
  

There are other situations where the lack of a trailhead might be "part of the fun," but in these situations, not getting to the caches, was not fun . . .

 

For me that's all part of the hunt. Looking at map on my GPS will usually tell me how to approach it. Sometimes it leads me astray which to me is all part of geocaching. If I can't figure out how to approach it,

I log a DNF and move on to the next.

[Ferreter5]

I appreciate parking/trailhead coordinates/instructions if it's not at all obvious how to access the cache area.

 

If I have to drive around the region for 40 minutes trying to figure out where to get out of my car and start enjoying a trek, then I'm not going to be having much fun.

 

One thing you'll find though is that many geocachers just can't control themselves and stay on a trail the moment the GPS arrow starts to veer off to one side -- the misfortune (and sometimes enusing hilarity) of many a geocaching adventure!

[+figtreesky]

I'm getting excited. I'm placing my second cache tomorrow! I bought some books and pins from the army surpluss store to use as swag. This cache is like my baby!

[+TrailGators]

If I have to drive around the region for 40 minutes trying to figure out where to get out of my car and start enjoying a trek, then I'm not going to be having much fun.

The site lets you examine the area around your trek using satellite maps. I can tell that many of you don't take advantage of this very useful feature....

[+ReadyOrNot]

I'm getting excited. I'm placing my second cache tomorrow! I bought some books and pins from the army surpluss store to use as swag. This cache is like my baby!

 

And the hours will seem like weeks while you wait for the cache to get published. And then once it's published, the wait seems even longer for someone to be FTF. If you want to have fun, put a really nice FTF prize in the cache and then request that the reviewer not publish it until around midnight

[+Harry Dolphin]

Hmm... I'd rank terrain as the difficulty of the terrain. Okay, it has a 250' climb over rock ridges, with a few wet spots. Oh, and the rocks can be sharp. 3.5 terrain. Terrain is terrain!

If I choose not to give parking coordinates, then finding the proper egress would be a difficulty problem, not a terrain problem.

I have one where I checked the maps, and found what I thought was the easier way in. I ranked it a 2 for terrain, and a 2 for difficulty. Some people have found an easier way in. Some people have tried to cross a major river on a log! (Okay, this is New Jersey, they could have swum across the river.) Someone else managed to sink waist deep in mud. Duh! That bog isn't that large! Why didn't you walk around it?!?

Nope. Finding the right egress is a difficulty problem, not a terrain problem.

[+figtreesky]

Thanks for all the advice and comments, but unfortunately the map shows the fire road the cache is on on the cache page. I wasn't expecting that. Oh well, I guess I won't get as many people mad at me. Live and learn I guess.

 

Here's the cache:

GC181XX

[+edscott]

Thanks for all the advice and comments, but unfortunately the map shows the fire road the cache is on on the cache page. I wasn't expecting that. Oh well, I guess I won't get as many people mad at me. Live and learn I guess.

 

Here's the cache:

GC181XX

 

People may still have to study a bit just to find that fire road, and some will come right at it from the campground because they don't do much research. FYI the Topozone B/W aerial and infrared photos both show the specific tree it is beside. I'd love to do it if I'm ever get in the area.

[+figtreesky]

Thank you for the comments! Yes, you should give it a try. I tried to put some nice stuff in it.

 

I guess I'm going to have to wait for a FTF tomorrow. I thought someone would have gotten it by now.

Edited December 22, 2007 by figtreesky

[+briansnat]

Thanks for all the advice and comments, but unfortunately the map shows the fire road the cache is on on the cache page. I wasn't expecting that. Oh well, I guess I won't get as many people mad at me. Live and learn I guess.

 

Here's the cache:

GC181XX

 

What you are going to have now is everyone trying to drive right up to it and if their car can't make it, complaining about the road.

[+figtreesky]

That might be the case. Still no one has found it. I don't know if that means it's a success or failure. I thought for sure someone would get it by now. There's not even an DNF entries

[+briansnat]

That might be the case. Still no one has found it. I don't know if that means it's a success or failure. I thought for sure someone would get it by now. There's not even an DNF entries

 

It's only been a few days. I've had new caches go a week before the FTF and this isn't exactly Wyoming.

[+figtreesky]

I just looked at the satellite map of the cache and it appears to be way off. Is it possible the image is off or did I screw up the coordinates? After seeing the satellite image my first instinct was to disable the cache until I can check for myself. yikes.

[+Miragee]

Do you still have the coordinates in your GPSr or on your mapping software on your computer? Check the coordinates on the cache page with the original coordinates to make sure you didn't transpose some numbers.

[+figtreesky]

That was my thought too, but the numbers are the same. Interestingly, the yahoo map is spot on, but the google image is off by about a 150 feet or so. I'm not sure what to make of this.

[+TrailGators]

I just looked at the satellite map of the cache and it appears to be way off. Is it possible the image is off or did I screw up the coordinates? After seeing the satellite image my first instinct was to disable the cache until I can check for myself. yikes.

I would go there and check it out if I were you...

[+figtreesky]

Yea, I will after Christmas. I'm somewhat relieved that the yahoo map shows it to be accurate. How can there be a discrepency between the yahoo map and the google map/image?

 

The suspence of not getting a FTF or even a DNF message is killing me!

[+briansnat]

That was my thought too, but the numbers are the same. Interestingly, the yahoo map is spot on, but the google image is off by about a 150 feet or so. I'm not sure what to make of this.

 

If you are talking about Google Earth, it is notoriously wrong with cache locations. Don't go by it.

[+figtreesky]

Yes, the google earth image appears to be way off, but the topographical map and the yahoo map appear to be correct.

 

But still no takers! The suspense is unbearable!

[+edscott]

Yes, the google earth image appears to be way off, but the topographical map and the yahoo map appear to be correct.

 

But still no takers! The suspense is unbearable!

 

The Yahoo map on the cache page has the star centered across the road (southwest) from the Topozone aerial and infrared photos, but since the marker is so large it covers a huge area which still includes where I would expect to find the cache. The USGS topographical agrees with my aerial photo data. In my experience Topozone has trumped Google or GPS data about 99.9% of the time when there is a difference. As you come north on the road it makes about a 45 degree turn to the NW. About 80 meters beyond the bend there is a somewhat irregular line of trees meeting the road from the NE. I would be expecting to see the cache on the NE side of the first tree from the road. Less than 10 meters beyond the line of trees there is a small area of bare dirt which, if the tree line is not distinct from the ground, would be an alternative attack point. So if your cache is North of the road.. 20-30 feet from the road and 240 or so feet beyond the bend it looks OK to me.

 

PS.. just took the time to look at Google.. which I never depend on for much of anything except finding parking lots. The marker on the satellite image is keyed to the "Map" image, not the satellite image, so it is off to the west of the cache by a significant amount. An interesting exercise is to bring up the Google map, then switch to the satellite image leaving the map in place. You will see the mapped road running parallel to the road in the photo, but off to the west several hundred meters. Somebody in the cartography dept. didn't get his morning coffee.

 

I would bet your coordinates are fine.. USGS is fine.. Topozone is fine... and Google is Google.

Edited December 26, 2007 by edscott