Challenge Cache D/T Rating

[+Singletree Expedition]

Looking for a fresh-perspective...

Should a challenge cache that requires you to first find other caches be rated considering only the final cache? Or should the rating be escalated based on the required caches?

 

A hypothetical example:

A cache has a true Difficulty/Terrain rating of D1.5/T3.5. The ALR for eligibility requires you to find 10 caches with the word "banjo" in the title. The rating for each cache could be anything, but finding those caches may require significant planning and dedication.

 

It is clear that due to the involved preparation and effort, the difficulty should increase. Should the terrain rating also increase?

 

This is a hypothetical example used for illustration purposes only. All opinions are appreciated, but no banjo jokes will be tolerated.

[+ThirstyMick]

I would probably increase just the difficulty due to the extra planning. Each of the caches they have to find will have its own terrain rating, and at least in the example you give, if you don't specify which banjo caches they find, you really have no idea what the terrains of the other caches are. They might get lucky and find 10 lamp posts with banjo in the title or they might find 10 5/5's

 

edit for grammar

Edited March 27, 2009 by ThirstyMick

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

Looking for a fresh-perspective...

Should a challenge cache that requires you to first find other caches be rated considering only the final cache? Or should the rating be escalated based on the required caches?

 

A hypothetical example:

A cache has a true Difficulty/Terrain rating of D1.5/T3.5. The ALR for eligibility requires you to find 10 caches with the word "banjo" in the title. The rating for each cache could be anything, but finding those caches may require significant planning and dedication.

 

It is clear that due to the involved preparation and effort, the difficulty should increase. Should the terrain rating also increase?

 

This is a hypothetical example used for illustration purposes only. All opinions are appreciated, but no banjo jokes will be tolerated.

Personally, I feel that the D/T rating for a cache should depend only upon the characteristics of that cache, and not upon any D/T characteristics of any pre-requisite caches. This is the rule of thumb that I follow for each of my 5/5 extreme caches that require that prospective finders must find a certain number of my other extreme caches prior to being allowed to tackle the cache.

 

Of course, in the cases I have cited above, since my caches in question are already 5/5 caches, it is also true that the characteristics of any prerequisite caches cannot possibly raise the D/T ratings any higher!

Edited March 27, 2009 by Vinny & Sue Team

[jholly]

I would definitely raise the difficulty. The Terrain should reflect the cache location.

 

Now for the banjo joke .. (deleted by the banjo police)

 

Jim

[+StarBrand]

I tend to lean toward rating each cache location independant of other caches you have to find.

 

However - at most I would up the difficulty rating due to the other caches and how spread out they are.

[+Taoiseach]

I can't image 'banjo' caches being extremely common, so I would probably call it a difficulty 3 and then just rate the terrain to reflect the actual cache location

 

Now, just make sure that you get the D/T right - If you get it wrong, you'll for ever have to live with the guilt of your epic 'frail-ing'

[+Too Tall John]

I think as long as you specify in the cache description why the terrain rating is what it is, you can make it as high as you deem proper.

[+Kit Fox]

Looking for a fresh-perspective...

Should a challenge cache that requires you to first find other caches be rated considering only the final cache? Or should the rating be escalated based on the required caches?

 

A hypothetical example:

A cache has a true Difficulty/Terrain rating of D1.5/T3.5. The ALR for eligibility requires you to find 10 caches with the word "banjo" in the title. The rating for each cache could be anything, but finding those caches may require significant planning and dedication.

 

It is clear that due to the involved preparation and effort, the difficulty should increase. Should the terrain rating also increase?

 

This is a hypothetical example used for illustration purposes only. All opinions are appreciated, but no banjo jokes will be tolerated.

 

I think the difficulty rating should be increased based on the requirements of the challenge. Here is a glowing example of why I think this.

 

Los Angeles County Quadrangle Challenge requires you to find 81 caches in 81 different quadrangles, in order to log a find. They have the difficulty rating set at two stars.

[+Singletree Expedition]

I can't image 'banjo' caches being extremely common, so I would probably call it a difficulty 3 and then just rate the terrain to reflect the actual cache location

 

Now, just make sure that you get the D/T right - If you get it wrong, you'll for ever have to live with the guilt of your epic 'frail-ing'

Thanks for all of the responses so far. I'm already glad that I asked. To clarify, the "banjo" reference is a totally-random-non-spoiler-example. It fits the potential-real-world-scenario in that finders may choose a subset of any eligible caches that could have any D/T rating.

 

Now, what do you call it when you throw a banjo in a dumpster and it hits an accordian?

[+3doxies]

Relief?

[+Ike 13]

Sounds along the same lines as County, 100 day Streak, Delorme, ABC challenges. From what I've seen if you have to find more than a handful of caches (10ish) it becomes a 5/5. Since youe say 10 idk if a 5/5 is appropriate.

 

Here's what I would do. I would look at all the local 'banjo' caches (I hope the word you use is fairly uncommon). Add all their D/T ratings to yours and take an average. Round that. There's your D/T for the cache page. In the description I would note that the actual cache is a 2/3 or whatever. This covers both bases.

 

P.S. Would this cache be called Dueling Banjos?

[+knabino]

Looking for a fresh-perspective...

Should a challenge cache that requires you to first find other caches be rated considering only the final cache? Or should the rating be escalated based on the required caches?

 

A hypothetical example:

A cache has a true Difficulty/Terrain rating of D1.5/T3.5. The ALR for eligibility requires you to find 10 caches with the word "banjo" in the title. The rating for each cache could be anything, but finding those caches may require significant planning and dedication.

 

It is clear that due to the involved preparation and effort, the difficulty should increase. Should the terrain rating also increase?

 

This is a hypothetical example used for illustration purposes only. All opinions are appreciated, but no banjo jokes will be tolerated.

 

Personal opinion - The Difficulty should be increased to to the need to located other caches in order to log. The Terrain should reflect the location of the cache. The local Alphanumeric Challenge requires a person to find 36 caches in order to log it. The difficulty is rated at 5 because it is time consuming to meet the requirements to log the cache. But the terrain is rated at a 1.5 because that is what the area of the actual cache placement is.

 

Unless you are personally placing all the pre-requisite caches yourself and know that they are all of high difficulty, you can not be sure that the terrains of them are all going to be high numbered terrains.

[+Singletree Expedition]

Relief?

Perfect Pitch.

[+Konnarock Kid & Marge]

Relief?

Perfect Pitch.

 

I wouldn't pitch the banjo. Just place it on a swinging bridge and see if any other local cachers come along and play it!

Be careful, because we had a terrible incident when listening to someone playing a banjo on a swinging bridge. As Marge and I glided under the bridge and were so captivated by the banjo music we didn't realize that 20 yards further was a waterfall! Oh well, the tumble wasn't bad and later on we listed the waterfall as an Earthcache!

P.S. I would use terrain as it actually is for the final cache but adjust the difficulty per the requirements for logging it.

Edited March 28, 2009 by Konnarock Kid & Marge

[CoyoteRed]

I'm going to break with the "norm" and go with the D/T being completely dependent on finding the bonus cache and independent of any other prerequisite cache.

 

Here's my reasoning: say someone creates a "1000 Finds Challenge Cache." If the cache were a normal cache it would be rated a 1/1 and I've already found a thousand caches. I've fulfilled the requirements. No other effort beyond finding the cache is required. Why should the difficulty be raised because of past achievements? What if I had simply been caching for a long time and simply "accidentally" found a cache in every map grid, map quad, and every county? I'm now eligible to find those challenges with no additional effort. So, unless you're specifically attempting a challenge from a completely clean slate a lot of folks will eventually fulfill the requirements merely through the pursuit of the hobby. A real world example is illustrated by the South Carolina Delorme Challenge where the FTF only needed a few caches to complete because of previous activity.

 

With the exceptions of the exceptions allowed by Groundspeak, i.e. the Delorme Challenges, challenge caches are basically ALR's. (Unless something has changed.) I believe all new challenge caches, other than the exceptions, require the cache to be at the listed coordinates. This means anyone can find the cache without having fulfilled the "challenge." It's the logging of the cache that becomes more difficult, not the finding.

 

Additionally, in the past with true bonus caches--the cache you can find if you've gathered enough information from a series of caches to glean where the bonus cache is located--have all been rated independently of the rest of the series. It's not treated as the final of a multi, which, in a way, it really is, but as an independent stage with its own cache page and, thus, rating.

 

Also, if you hide the true difficulty of a cache behind what is the presumed difficulty of other caches then important information is hidden. It's bad enough once you get beyond a traditional and start down the road of puzzles and multis. Is the difficulty for the puzzle or the hide? Which stage is the hard one?

 

With all that said, the paradigm is making such caches 5/5's. It's kind of like making a cache a 5/5 because you need something out of the ordinary in order to reach the cache--regardless of how mundane. In other words, not true 5/5s at all.

 

Me, like a bonus cache, I'd rate it as an independent cache.