"Significant Hike" ?

[+Elminster7781]

Simple question...what kinda of distance is a "Significant Hike"?

 

I know this is a subjective question...but I just want to get an idea of what people usually consider for using this attribute?

[+StarBrand]

To me it isn't just a matter of distance. Significant means you will have to put some effort into it and you should be prepared to spend "time" at it. You should bring water with you and let someone know where you will be and what you will be doing. You should wear appropriate footware for off pavement walking. It might be a steep altitude change, rough and rocky trail, significant vegitation overgrowth. Sometimes just a few miles round trip in an out-of the way place. Antime you wil need to be hiking for about an hour or more round trip to get a cache.

[+TrailGators]

To me it isn't just a matter of distance. Significant means you will have to put some effort into it and you should be prepared to spend "time" at it. You should bring water with you and let someone know where you will be and what you will be doing. You should wear appropriate footware for off pavement walking. It might be a steep altitude change, rough and rocky trail, significant vegitation overgrowth. Sometimes just a few miles round trip in an out-of the way place. Antime you wil need to be hiking for about an hour or more round trip to get a cache.

That's a good way to look at it. For me it means the terrain would have to be 3 or above.

[+The Leprechauns]

The answer depends in part on where you live. In some areas it's hard to find a hike where you go more than a mile without crossing a road (and thus, a parking place closer to the cache). In other areas, one mile part way up a mountain to a "warmup" cache would not be considered "significant," while the cache at the summit might bear that attribute.

[+Elminster7781]

The answer depends in part on where you live.

 

About 40 miles from you

Edited January 20, 2008 by Elminster7781

[+Wazat]

A Significant hike for one may be a easy hike for others. Think of how it would feel for a cacher in their 60's or 70's as compared to a cacher in their 20's. I always look at it that way. If I believe that an easy hike for me may be hard for an older person even if it is only a few hundred meters I will log it as a significant hike. Maybe put a comment of the length and terrain type.

[+TrailGators]

A Significant hike for one may be a easy hike for others. Think of how it would feel for a cacher in their 60's or 70's as compared to a cacher in their 20's. I always look at it that way. If I believe that an easy hike for me may be hard for an older person even if it is only a few hundred meters I will log it as a significant hike. Maybe put a comment of the length and terrain type.

I think you need to rate it based on being a significant hike for most people. If you start calling easy hikes for most people "significant" then the attribute loses meaning. I also think people that can't handle hikes generally filter out terrain >2 from their PQs so you don't need to cater to them. By the way, I know people in their 60s and 70s that I have trouble keeping up with. I hope I'm like that when I get to be their age!

[+Wazat]

I rate a Significant on a 30-40 age upwards. But then in a description I would say that it can be easy for fitter people. I would also see a significant hike as one longer than say 30 minutes one way on flat terrain or 30 minutes on steep hills or valleys. Or lets just put it as "You will be walking for some time, maybe far, maybe near."

[+geowizerd]

It depends on a few factors, mainly terrain and weather. Flat easy terrain vs significant grades and/or obstacles or rough terrain. 65 degrees with 20% humidity vs 90 degrees with 85% humidity - or conversely like yesterday, a lot of snow, and wind chills below zero. Yesterday's 1 mile trek in those conditions was a significant hike. If it's a nice day, and the terrain easy, 6 miles might be a significant hike.

[+Harry Dolphin]

I rate a Significant on a 30-40 age upwards. But then in a description I would say that it can be easy for fitter people. I would also see a significant hike as one longer than say 30 minutes one way on flat terrain or 30 minutes on steep hills or valleys. Or lets just put it as "You will be walking for some time, maybe far, maybe near."

 

Why do I feel the need to say "Harrumph!"? My sister and I did the Presi Traverse in our 50's! Now, that's a significant hike! And we found two caches along the way.

 

But as to OP's question: It is subjective. I've got some two-mile round-trip caches that very few people do. They'll take you a few hours, but they are very scenic. And those that do call them a 'work out'. But, I don't know that I'd call them a 'significant hike'. But others might.

Ah! I did a twelve-mile hike with three caches, something over a thousand feet of climb, on rocky terrain. That was a significant hike! And it was great!! Yup. It took me all day.

[+Miragee]

Simple question...what kinda of distance is a "Significant Hike"?

 

I know this is a subjective question...but I just want to get an idea of what people usually consider for using this attribute?

It is very subjective, but I think I have used it for most of my caches that involve a distance of a mile or more, regardless of the terrain.

 

I would never think of a person's age as a reason for rating a hike. There are people in their 20's who are in such bad shape they cannot make it to my cache locations, and when I made the hike, I carried an ammo can.

[+Cav Scout]

I once hiked 16 miles round trip to find one cache. I could of went further. I guess that could of been significant.

Edited January 21, 2008 by Cav Scout

[+Kit Fox]

This topic was discussed back when the attribute was first created.

 

Significant Hike

 

I've found more than a few "significant hikes:

 

Return to Scab Island was a significant hike, and a humbling experience, when I made it find #900.

 

Throop Peak was a 13 + mile hike, with well over 4000 feet of elevation gain. I would call this a "significant hike."

 

Caches that I haven't found (yet) but I would consider "significant hikes."

 

A long hike with about 6000 feet of elevation gain will get you to the top of Iron Mountain.

 

Ross Mountain is the cache that i'm going to attempt for #1200.

Edited January 20, 2008 by Kit Fox

[Tahosa and Sons]

Well I'm in my 60's and think nothing of a 10 mile hike with elevation gains of over 2,000 ft. So that might be significant for some but its just a normal day hike for me.

[+TrailGators]

Well I'm in my 60's and think nothing of a 10 mile hike with elevation gains of over 2,000 ft. So that might be significant for some but its just a normal day hike for me.

Most people would think that was a significant hike.

[+TexasGringo]

For me...If it ain't a Park-&-Grab...it is a significant hike.

[+KJcachers]

Well I'm in my 60's and think nothing of a 10 mile hike with elevation gains of over 2,000 ft. So that might be significant for some but its just a normal day hike for me.

 

Bragger!

[+joranda]

Depends on the terrain and the length of the hike.

[+briansnat]

It's totally subjective. I'd call anything over 5 miles significant. A couch potato might say anything over half a mile. I know some people for whom 8 miles is just a warm-up.

 

As far as using the significant hike attribute on the cache page, I'll use it for hikes of 3 miles or more, sometimes 2 miles if the terrain is very difficult.

Edited January 21, 2008 by briansnat

[+Isonzo Karst]

Seems terribly subjective, subject to local variation and the fitness level of the hider.

 

I've seen it used on walks that were half a mile one way on flat groomed trail.

 

I don't think I've used it on any of my hides, though I own some that are 12, 13 and 16 mile trips. I just give the mileage in the short description.

[+Ambrosia]

Yes, it is terribly subjective. Like Isonzo Karst just said (and others), it depends on your personal abilities, and the area/outdoor culture of where you live.

 

I just checked my caches, because I wasn't sure if I'd used the attribute. I see that I've marked 4 out of my 32 active caches with "Significant Hike". Here are some stats from the caches that use this attribute, if anyone wants to look over them:

 

 

1. A 3 mile round trip walk that is partially a boulder breakwater that is mostly underwater at high tide. Walk takes maybe 2 hours.

 

117 finders in almost 5 years. This one is the most active cache, as it's in a big tourist area with few caches (and it is not a Multicache).

 

2. A 2 mile walk through a nice wide, flat dirt trail wildlife sanctuary, which takes about an hour or so.

 

In a little over 4 years, 30 people have found it (partly because it's a Multicache and is closed 3 months of the year).

 

3. Maybe a 1 1/2 mile hike up a steep mountainside, walking across loose shale at one point, and the last section is extremely loose rock over hard dirt, straight up. Some people won't do it specifically because of the last part. Maybe 1 - 1 1/2 hours long.

 

In almost 4 years, it's only been found 13 times (that includes 5 of my family members that I took with me). It was just recently found again after a 2 year break.

 

4. A 3 1/2 - 4 mile easy walk along a relatively even dirt trail. It takes around 2 hours.

 

It's been found 25 times in 5 1/2 years (partly because of other things like coordinate issues, it's a Multicache, and has a long winter).

 

I marked them "Significant Hike", because they're my hardest caches physically, and I assumed that they would be considered that way by some. The only one I consider to be somewhat hard is number 3, although I did it 3 times in less than half a year, one of those times by myself with no problem.

[+egami]

Simple question...what kinda of distance is a "Significant Hike"?

 

I know this is a subjective question...but I just want to get an idea of what people usually consider for using this attribute?

 

Me personally, I'd mark anything that was going to take about an hour or more of pure hiking to do regardless of difficulty or other factors and not including expected search time at GZ.

[Scamp]

I'd probably be disappointed if a "significant hike" cache didn't take up a decent chunk of the afternoon. I'd expect to only be able to fit one or two "significant hike" caches into an outing.

 

More people should set that attribute on their cache pages. >.> I like significant hikes.

[+elmuyloco5]

This is exactly why it is so helpful for owners to list in the description the approximate length of a hike. Significant can vary even within a family. Someone might have medical or physical restraints that makes 1 mile hard. Different ages of kids will find different lengths significant. With our three kids, we have to take this in consideration when we look for hikes. They can easily do 5-6 miles comfortably, but to us, that's just warming up.

[+Confucius' Cat]

For me personally, 53, diabetic, reasonably good condition (to my reckoning), I would consider anything over 3-5 miles round-trip to be "significant."

 

I have no personal mileage or time limit, but seeing the icon I would probably expect "this is the only cache I am doing today", with possible exception of a few P&Gs in route.

[+Cpt.Blackbeard]

I don't think it has to be subjective, just consider what an average person in reasonable condition would call significant and everyone can use their own judgement as to how close to that person they are and allow accordingly. A few years ago I took a 16 mile hike at 11,000 feet on my first day in Colorado. I barely had the strength to finish it and thought I was in lousy shape.

If I tried a two mile hike here at home tomorrow I'd be just as tired, but I know this so i factor it in to my decisions. If I see "significant hike" now I just don't do iy.

[+sataraid1]

Well, as long as there's only one "hiking" attribute to choose from, it's going to have to be rather flexible. If there was also a "moderate hike" attribute, we could get into specifics a lot more.

 

I have a hide that's about a 3-mile round trip on a modestly level forest path. I consider that a significant hike.

 

I have a hide that's about a .6-mile round trip, but it's on such a steep hill that with even a slight dusting of snow on the ground I could barely walk up or down it without turning into a human toboggan. Much shorter but much more strenuous. I consider that a significant hike.

 

I look at it this way: if the hike itself is the dominant factor in getting to the hide, it's significant. Adding the attribute is my way of saying, "you WILL be doing some walking, bear that in mind when you consider your footwear, attire, the weather, bringing the kids, etc".

 

Better to add it and have a few cachers think "what was that for" than to have someone else get a mile or so from the car and think "why didn't he tell me this was going to be so far".

 

FWIW.

[+Kealia]

I have no personal mileage or time limit, but seeing the icon I would probably expect "this is the only cache I am doing today", with possible exception of a few P&Gs in route.

 

I agree with this. It's hard to draw a line but this is generally how I think of it as well.

 

= This ain't no numbers run!!

[+ShmilyNMe]

For me...If it ain't a Park-&-Grab...it is a significant hike.

 

I'm with the drooler...but then again we Bassets have short legs and lazy streaks!

Edited January 25, 2008 by ShmilyNMe

[+TotemLake]

As everybody else has mentioned, a significant hike is a subjective feeling. But with the appropriate hike calculator you can take some of the subjectiveness out. That particular calculator I gleened from Luckykoi on one of her hiking blogs. There are plenty to be had by doing a Google search and some will add the degree of hiker expertise into the equation.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I once hiked 16 miles round trip to find one cache. I could of went further. I guess that could of been significant.

 

While I haven't hiked that far for a cache one of the most "significant" hikes I have done for a cache was about 400' from where I parked my car. After crossing an icy, narrow bridge over a partially frozen river, the rest of the "hike" was through heavy, wet snow almost 3' deep. It might have been easier if I had snow shoes but in terms of terrain it was much more difficult than some 4/5 terrain caches I've done. Typically any cache which requires a boat to access the cache has a 5 for a terrain rating. Since I own three kayaks and a canoe and have been paddling for 12 years, a mile round trip in my kayak is a lot easier for me than a mile round trip with a steep elevation gain.

[cowcreekgeeks]

 

I trained my faithful dog to open the fridge and get me a beer. It's because the trek from my couch to the kitchen is 'signifigant'

 

 

[+Cedar Grove Seekers]

My only significant hike was a 25km (16 mile) multi cache. Everything else I've found has been only 5 km (3 miles) at most.

 

When placing a cache I'll mention the distance in the write-up if greater than say 2 or 3 km (although I don't consider this significant).

[+Confucius' Cat]

Well, as long as there's only one "hiking" attribute to choose from, it's going to have to be rather flexible.

 

Better to add it and have a few cachers think "what was that for" than to have someone else get a mile or so from the car and think "why didn't he tell me this was going to be so far".

 

FWIW.

Agreed. (This thread is serendipitous. I hope you are not commenting here because of my personal email regarding your cache... you asked for comments and i responded with the only suggestion I had... I did not mean to imply that the icon was wrong, unnecessary or should be removed)

 

Cachers have many tools to check out cache listings before they go forth to hunt. The icon is but one of them.

 

Personally I don't pay a lot of attention to this icon because of the ambiguity of the icon's meaning- it gives little useful information. Besides, I usually don't much care if a cache hunt is going to require a long walk. The only place this factors in is in the question of "will the Narg and Wifemate be able to go on this one or will they end up staying in the car till I get back?" And even for that decision, the icon is of little value since we can all handle substantial distances, but not necessarily steep terrain.

 

I concentrate mostly on other criteria such as "do i have a chance of FTF?" or "Can i get multiple caches in this area?"

 

Ultimately my "go-no go" decision is made at the parking location. (What the hey, my gas is company provided- if I don't hunt the cache at least i had a nice drive to add to my 75,000+ miles per year lol)

 

I use Delorme software on my vehicular navigational computer to do a quick measurement of the "crow flies" distance from parking to cache. I figure about a mile per hour for the time factor, look at the general terrain and decide accordingly. This can also be done fairly well using online maps.

 

The hike icon is a nice "alert" but as with all icons, since they are subjective and optional, I don't put much stock in it.

 

The icons that "get me" are the "snakes" and "thorns" icons... I mean REALLY? Are there any places where these icons could not be used?

[+Jeepergeo]

The trail ratings promulgated in park/forest brochures and on park/forest signage by managers of National Parks and National Forests appear to be more geared towards protecting the NPS/USFS from lawsuits than they are for helping users make optimal trail choice decisions.

 

The generic ratings of Easy, Moderate, and Difficult, or the colored diamonds, simply don't convey sufficient information to aid a reasonably self aware and reasonably intelligent hiker from making wise and fulfilling decisions regarding trail selections.

 

There are many factors that need to be considered in a trail rating, including season (factors of temperature, rain, snow, etc.), trail surface, elevation gain/loss, wildlife, altitude, and more. Armed with just a bit more information, trail users would be able to make much better decisions for themselves, whether said user is an experienced and athletic twenty something individual, a parent with a five year old on their first hike, or a person with a walking disability, etc.

 

I challenge our Nation's park and forest managers to doing a better job of rating trails.

 

Until then, it seems we're basically on our own. When I'm planning a trip or looking into joining one, I study the maps and go on line to read user reviews, and then come to my own conclusion based on my personal abilities and the abilities of the party members. It's a system that has worked well for me.