Four star caches that should be one star?

[+at play by jc/eaglei]

Other than making a gentle sugestion what can be done about caches that are way over rated? I know of a couple local cachers that rate many of there caches at 3 or 4 stars when they are really 1 or 1.5. I know not a big deal really but it sure bugs me when they can be sooooo far off...

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

Other than making a gentle sugestion what can be done about caches that are way over rated? I know of a couple local cachers that rate many of there caches at 3 or 4 stars when they are really 1 or 1.5. I know not a big deal really but it sure bugs me when they can be sooooo far off...

You will need to be far more specific if you want us -- and particularly me, since I have an Q of under 20 -- to understand what you are talking about. Do you mean Difficulty rating or Terrain rating? There is a big difference between the two. How are you so sure that the caches in question are over-rated?

 

BTW, in general, in my caching experience in the USA, I have seen far more caches underrated for Difficulty and underrated for Terrain than caches that were overrated on either scale.

[+KJcachers]

we found a guardrail cache once that was rated a 4 difficulty. granted it was right next to the stop lights at a very,very busy intersection so we thought that was the reason for the rating.

[+Semper Questio]

My beef is exactly the opposite as it comes from a different perspective.

 

During the past year while have been disabled, I have encountered a very high number of caches rated with a T1 that I could not get to, be it while I was wheelchair bound, in a walker, or while using a cane.

 

While coming across a cache that is, for whatever reason, easier than it's rating, my experience found it FAR more aggravating to encounter caches you simply cannot do when they were minimally to drastically underrated.

 

Mrs. SQ even suggested that, perhaps, we should have a T0 rating to indicate that the cache is, by definition, wheelchair/disabled accessible since not everyone uses T1 in such a way.

[+Vater_Araignee]

I still say a found it T/D rating system would be a good idea.

You can only rate once you found it and as each cacher finds it you start to get a better idea of what the general population thinks the rating is.

 

I don't care if the genpop likes a cache or not, but the t/d is to important to leave up to an individuals skewed perspective.

 

~~~grammar~~~

Edited January 15, 2009 by Vater_Araignee

[+Proud Soccer Mom]

Not all T/D ratings are able-bodied centric.

[Clan Riffster]

Not everyone interprets the D/T ratings the same way. What you might call a 5/5, Vinny might call a 2/2, etc, etc.

Even using the D/T generator garners different results for different people, because it's way too ambiguous for rigid definition.

I stopped worrying about it long ago. Whatever number the D/T generator spits out gets put on my cache page.

[Mr.Yuck]

My beef is exactly the opposite as it comes from a different perspective.

 

During the past year while have been disabled, I have encountered a very high number of caches rated with a T1 that I could not get to, be it while I was wheelchair bound, in a walker, or while using a cane.

 

While coming across a cache that is, for whatever reason, easier than it's rating, my experience found it FAR more aggravating to encounter caches you simply cannot do when they were minimally to drastically underrated.

 

Mrs. SQ even suggested that, perhaps, we should have a T0 rating to indicate that the cache is, by definition, wheelchair/disabled accessible since not everyone uses T1 in such a way.

 

I just looked at my finds, and I did find exactly that, a 4/1.5 that should have been a 1/1.5 just a couple of weeks ago, actually. I think waaaaay over-rating a cache is a newbie thing, in my experience. I agree with what semper questo says, I see it the other way around much more often, on the difficultyor terrain or both.

[+joranda]

I've been to my share of caches where the T or D could have been different but we all judge things different than others.

[+Walkworthy & Wife]

Other than making a gentle sugestion what can be done about caches that are way over rated? I know of a couple local cachers that rate many of there caches at 3 or 4 stars when they are really 1 or 1.5. I know not a big deal really but it sure bugs me when they can be sooooo far off...

While this is slightly off topic, it may deal with what you are asking. When my son-in-law and I hid our very first cache, we had no idea how to rate the D/T, so we used the helper on the website. You answer questions and it rates your cache for you. As it turned out, our rates were inflated. There were both thorns and poison ivy in the area that seemed to inflate the numbers. We later lower the T rating.

I recently submitted a cache and I gave it an attribute that the cache was not wheelchair accessable. The Reviewer sent me a Reviewer's Note and told me that I had to rate the T at least 1.5 in that case.

My wife and I searched for a micro cache that was rated 5/3. The 5 I can live with, but I questioned the CO about the 3 being that the terrain was a flat paved surface. The CO responded that he rated it that high because the cache was hidden on something that if it fell over could give you a headache. I don't know if he was serious or not, but it still is rated 5/3 to this day. I guess like most things in life we all have different perspectives.

----Spelling----- I am not smarter the a 5th grader []

Edited January 16, 2009 by Walkworthy

[+Renegade Knight]

Not everyone interprets the D/T ratings the same way. What you might call a 5/5, Vinny might call a 2/2, etc, etc.

Even using the D/T generator garners different results for different people, because it's way too ambiguous for rigid definition.

I stopped worrying about it long ago. Whatever number the D/T generator spits out gets put on my cache page.

 

I use the generator and end up having to tweak my T rating based on the descrption. The D rating is just a WAG until I get logs that help me fine tune it.

[Skippermark]

My beef is exactly the opposite as it comes from a different perspective.

This is something I can't stand either. A lot of them are old caches from before the rating system was implemented and the owner doesn't cache anymore and can't change it, but it's frustrating.

 

If we see a cache like this, we'll usually email the owner (especially if they're new) and say something like, "Hi. I just found "whatever cache" and had a fun time looking for it. Thanks for taking the time to place it. Not sure if you're aware, but a 1 terrain is supposed to be..." And then I let them know I'm looking forward to finding other caches that they may place.

 

Most of the time they write back and say they didn't realize the rating was wrong and will adjust it right away. Some won't write back but will adjust it.

[Skippermark]

Mrs. SQ even suggested that, perhaps, we should have a T0 rating to indicate that the cache is, by definition, wheelchair/disabled accessible since not everyone uses T1 in such a way.

SQ, maybe this site would help.

 

http://www.handicaching.com/

[+TrailGators]

My beef is exactly the opposite as it comes from a different perspective.

 

During the past year while have been disabled, I have encountered a very high number of caches rated with a T1 that I could not get to, be it while I was wheelchair bound, in a walker, or while using a cane.

 

While coming across a cache that is, for whatever reason, easier than it's rating, my experience found it FAR more aggravating to encounter caches you simply cannot do when they were minimally to drastically underrated.

 

Mrs. SQ even suggested that, perhaps, we should have a T0 rating to indicate that the cache is, by definition, wheelchair/disabled accessible since not everyone uses T1 in such a way.

I have seen this too. I knew that the lots of people would screw this up. When I run across one of these I'll write something in my log to let wheelchair/disabled people know and to hopefully get the cache owner to change the rating. Edited January 15, 2009 by TrailGators

[+TrailGators]

I still say a found it T/D rating system would be a good idea.

I like this idea but I doubt they will ever do it.

[+J-Way]

About the only time I'll complain in the log or by email is if the cache is under rated. Specifically, I complained once with a new 1* terrain cache where you had to belly-crawl under a wooden deck. Any handicapped cacher attempting that one would get a rude surprise. I actually sent an email to the cache owner explaining this, and many people have complained in logs, but it's still a 1-star to this day.

 

Another complaint was a 2.5* terrain with about a 3-mile hike, several hundred feet of elevation change, very rough and steep trail, a switch-back section down a cliff with sheer drops, and the cache itself was in a loose-rock area (really old landslide) with large holes bridged by leaves between large boulders.

 

Over-rated caches, while annoying, just help me to easily raise my averages for found caches I might mention this in an extreme case, but typically I ignore it. An under-rated terrain cache can get someone hurt.

 

[Edit: I also like the idea of finders being able to submit D/T ratings, then show both owner and average user ratings in the listing.]

Edited January 15, 2009 by J-Way

[+Vater_Araignee]

I still say a found it T/D rating system would be a good idea.

I like this idea but I doubt they will ever do it.

I have the same doubt "insert smart Alic quote about good ideas"

[+Vater_Araignee]

About the only time I'll complain in the log or by email is if the cache is under[/u] rated. Specifically, I complained once with a new 1* terrain cache where you had to belly-crawl under a wooden deck. Any handicapped cacher attempting that one would get a rude surprise. I actually sent an email to the cache owner explaining this, and many people have complained in logs, but it's still a 1-star to this day.

 

Another complaint was a 2.5* terrain with about a 3-mile hike, several hundred feet of elevation change, very rough and steep trail, a switch-back section down a cliff with sheer drops, and the cache itself was in a loose-rock area (really old landslide) with large holes bridged by leaves between large boulders.

 

Over-rated caches, while annoying, just help me to easily raise my averages for found caches I might mention this in an extreme case, but typically I ignore it. An under-rated terrain cache can get someone hurt.

 

[Edit: I also like the idea of finders being able to submit D/T ratings, then show both owner and average user ratings in the listing.]

The hikes I use to call hard as a young adult I now all easy and my children call anything less a walk.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

Not everyone interprets the D/T ratings the same way. What you might call a 5/5, Vinny might call a 2/2, etc, etc.

Even using the D/T generator garners different results for different people, because it's way too ambiguous for rigid definition.

I stopped worrying about it long ago. Whatever number the D/T generator spits out gets put on my cache page.

I agree (it is getting downright scary how often Clan Riffster seem to agree on almost everything on this forum; it strikes me that perhaps one of us is a sock puppet for the other!), and there is, in particular, a lot of variance from region to region in how D/T ratings are assigned, and I have often noticed when hunting caches along the ID/WY border, for example, that a 1/1 traditional regular-sized cache may easily turn out to involve parking on the side of a dirt road and then bushwacking for six hundred feet straight up a rather steep and heavily forested mountainside to find a large ammo can sitting under a tree! In many of these cases, I would have rated a cache such as perhaps 2/3.5.

 

In one case, my friend Greta (who is a wilderness guide, and in great shape) and I found a 1/1.5 rated traditional regular-sized in that region which involved parking in a small lookout parking lot along a highway and then hiking for a half-mile up an incredibly steep dirt trail which switchbacked up the side of a very steep mountain; much of the trail was very muddy (due to runoff from springs further up the mountainside) and was extremely slippery even for the two of us, both of whom are experienced hikers who have hiked and climbed in some very insane terrain. We finally ended up in a forested glade on a 50 degree slope, where we found an ammo can beneath a tree. I would have rated this cache as a 2/4 or a 2/4.5 (due to the hazardous conditions and relative impassibility of the trail during the wetter parts of the year.)

 

I have also noticed great variance in assignment of ratings across time, where caches placed years ago, in 2001 and 2002, tend to have very low -- and unnaturally low -- ratings, and where cache ratings have grown at least somewhat more realistic with the passage of time, particularly since the Groundspeak cache submission page started to include a link to a cache rating page.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Not everyone interprets the D/T ratings the same way. What you might call a 5/5, Vinny might call a 2/2, etc, etc.

 

 

For example, a cache located on an island a few hundred feet off shore in a lake would currently be rated a 5 for terrain as it requires special equipment. However, as an avid kayaker, in practice it's most likely no more than a 3 for me to access when compared to other caches.

[+Harry Dolphin]

The concept of terrain will vary considerably across the country, to be sure. And, a lot of people have no idea how to rate their caches. Mentioned on logs that the caches were not 1 terrain if climbing a curb were required. Most of those have been changed.

Did one recently listed as 4 terrain. Couple of hundred feet climb up a nice trail. I would have rated that one 2.5 for terrain.

Pondered long and hard on one of my recent hides. If it were near the trail, it would have been a 3.5 for terrain. Only a quarter mile bushwhack off the trail! Through mountain laurel, and greenbriar. With Bear. And 50' cliffs. And swamps between the cliffs. Took me an hour each way for the quarter mile bushwhack. Might be overrated at 4.5 terrain. Might only be a 4. But that was my best guess.

[+TrailGators]

There is a 5 terrain cache on the top of Mount Whitney. It's a 22 mile round trip hike with an elevation gain of 7000 feet. Contrast that with the 4 star terrain mentioned above that was a couple of hundred feet off a nice trail. That's why I always include the round trip distance and elevation gain in the cache description.

 

Maybe what we really need is something that will tell you how many calories you will burn in finding the cache. The Mount Whitney cache would be a ~4000 calorie cache and the cache a couple of hundred feet off a nice trail would be a 20 calorie cache.

Edited January 16, 2009 by TrailGators

[+briansnat]

I've found quite a few that where rated waaaaay wrong, too low and too high. In several instances I commented about it in my log and the owner changed the rating.

 

Like others I noticed that there is a wide difference between regions. I was in western NY and did a 4.5 star terrain cache that was 75 feet from parking up a semi steep hill with a down log or two, a narrow ditch to cross and a few bushes in the way. That would be 2.5 stars max around here.

 

Another 4 star terrain cache I found in Virginia involved crossing a brook and walking off trail through widely spaced trees and the cache was in a bush. That would probably be 1.5 or 2 stars here.

 

To me 4 star terrain means that you should be in for quite an adventure. It doesn't mean a cache 50 feet from parking where you have to step over a few logs.

[+Desert Pyrates]

Well I've read about the variations in the D/T ratings. I'm new to geocaching, and the only place I saw that discussed it before this was in the Getting Started section, and it only says 1 is easiest and 5 is hardest. Is there somewhere a newbie can look to be more accurate in judging the D/T before a cache is hidden?

[+TrailGators]

Well I've read about the variations in the D/T ratings. I'm new to geocaching, and the only place I saw that discussed it before this was in the Getting Started section, and it only says 1 is easiest and 5 is hardest. Is there somewhere a newbie can look to be more accurate in judging the D/T before a cache is hidden?

Most people use the Clayjar system.

[+Bergie Bunch]

Having been on crutches for the last 2 months, with 3-4 more to go, I HATE getting to a terrain 1 rated cache, only to find it is N OT handicapped accessible. Having several friends who are wheelchair bound, I have put out several 1T caches, so they can enjoy the sport, and it is aggravating to get there and not be able to make the grab. However, that being said, since I am disabled for a while, I have been playing chauffeur, and doing muggle patrol while my team members make the grabs.

[+TrailGators]

Having been on crutches for the last 2 months, with 3-4 more to go, I HATE getting to a terrain 1 rated cache, only to find it is N OT handicapped accessible. Having several friends who are wheelchair bound, I have put out several 1T caches, so they can enjoy the sport, and it is aggravating to get there and not be able to make the grab. However, that being said, since I am disabled for a while, I have been playing chauffeur, and doing muggle patrol while my team members make the grabs.

It would be nice if they did something to improve this. Maybe they could have a special "H" rating or something, so less people would mess it up. Of course, it's impossible to make it idiotproof. I've always said 'it takes a genius to make something idiotproof.'

 

By the way, you have a really funny avatar!

[+briansnat]

Well I've read about the variations in the D/T ratings. I'm new to geocaching, and the only place I saw that discussed it before this was in the Getting Started section, and it only says 1 is easiest and 5 is hardest. Is there somewhere a newbie can look to be more accurate in judging the D/T before a cache is hidden?

 

Here are the accepted definitions:

 

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.

[+Rockin Roddy]

In Vegas, we climbed Turtlehead which is rated a 4 terrain, this climb was at least a 3 hour tour if you do it quickly, closer to around a 5 hour tour or more. We then went on to find another nearby which was rated a 5/5, expecting this one to be much more difficult than climbing a mountain, we were surprised to find it was actually very near a path and that you merely had to hand over a 10' cliff to get the cache....the Turtlehead was a LOT worse! While I was happy to snag a 5/5, I thought the Turtlehead should have been that rating and possibly the other could have been more like a 3.5/3.5!

[KaralotStables]

On the log placed in the cache, or even on the listing, would it be appropriate to say "This cache has a D/T rating of 1/1.5. If you think the rating needs changing, please post it when you log the find."

Edited January 16, 2009 by KaralotStables

[+Vater_Araignee]

Having been on crutches for the last 2 months, with 3-4 more to go, I HATE getting to a terrain 1 rated cache, only to find it is N OT handicapped accessible. Having several friends who are wheelchair bound, I have put out several 1T caches, so they can enjoy the sport, and it is aggravating to get there and not be able to make the grab. However, that being said, since I am disabled for a while, I have been playing chauffeur, and doing muggle patrol while my team members make the grabs.

It would be nice if they did something to improve this. Maybe they could have a special "H" rating or something, so less people would mess it up. Of course, it's impossible to make it idiotproof. I've always said 'it takes a genius to make something idiotproof.'

 

By the way, you have a really funny avatar!

Nothing is idiot proof for a sufficiently talented idiot.

[+TrailGators]

talented idiot.

"Talented idiot" is an oxymoron...

[+Rockin Roddy]

On the log placed in the cache, or even on the listing, would it be appropriate to say "This cache has a D/T rating of 1/1.5. If you think the rating needs changing, please post it when you log the find."

 

If you were to post that in your log, I see no problem. If you're asking that the PTB make it so we can make the change, I'd say no thanks!

[+Vater_Araignee]

talented idiot.

"Talented idiot" is an oxymoron...

Talent, third MW definition.

My sister-in-law is so accident prone it borders on genius and could probably find a way to hurt herself on a single gradual of coffee.

[+Vater_Araignee]

On the log placed in the cache, or even on the listing, would it be appropriate to say "This cache has a D/T rating of 1/1.5. If you think the rating needs changing, please post it when you log the find."

 

If you were to post that in your log, I see no problem. If you're asking that the PTB make it so we can make the change, I'd say no thanks!

I'm not saying "Let the finders make the change" I'm saying "Display a second set of D/T that is based in the average supplied by foundits"