"Official" terrain rating guidelines?

[+TeamPatchwork]

Hello all! I hope this isn't one of those dead horse topics. I'll don protective gear, in case it is.

 

I've recently introduced a friend to Geocaching who is wheelchair bound. I've been told by the local reviewer that anything rated a "1" terrain must be wheelchair accessible, but I'm finding out that isn't the case.

 

Recently, I was caching in another state, and went after a cache that had a "1" terrain rating. The walk to the cache was 2/10 of a mile through a swamp. I mentioned to the CO that it certainly wasn't wheelchair accessible, and he replied to me that "There is nothing in the Groundspeak guidelines that says a 1 terrain should be wheelchair accessible". The led to a long, ongoing discussion and I did find several terrain rating guidelines, however, none of them seem to be official Groundspeak guidelines.

 

Since then, my friend has went after a couple of 1 terrain rated caches that were not even close to being wheelchair accessible.

 

In the case of the one through the swamp, no, there wasn't a "1" terrain way to get to the cache. I checked.

 

So...I'm assuming there is no sure way to determine if a cache is wheelchair accessible, unless it's noted in the cache description?

 

Thanks for any help!

[jholly]

Unfortunately there is no good way to determine accessibility unless it is noted in the description. Markwell's FAQ reserves terrain 1 for wheelchair accessibility, but this is not universal nor do all reviewers enforce this rating. I don't think the clayjar system addresses the accessibility issue. There is a accessibility attribute, but unless the CO uses it or the reviewer enforces it this is not an accurate guide. I've seen terrain 1 caches with the no wheelchair attribute set, but then I've seen a terrain 1 that clearly is not wheelchair accessible. I feel this is something GC should develop and enforce.

 

Jim

[+TeamPatchwork]

I feel this is something GC should develop and enforce.

 

Jim, I'd have to agree. Since my reviewers always told me that a "1" terrain MUST be wheelchair accessible, I assumed that was universal.

 

And, I must admit that my interest in this issues has grown since I now have a friend who caches via wheelchair.

[+briansnat]

The led to a long, ongoing discussion and I did find several terrain rating guidelines, however, none of them seem to be official Groundspeak guidelines.

 

 

The Clayjar system says 1 star terrain is handicap accessible. This website links to the Clayjar site

and suggests you use it to determine your cache ratings (see the cache submission page). While it's not

a guideline per se, it does suggest that Groundspeak endorses the ratings on the Clayjar site.

[+StarBrand]

The real problem is that few folks actually use the clayjar system and many others really have no idea what it means to be "accessible from a wheelshair".

[+Semper Questio]

I ran into this a lot when I was wheelchair bound. My wife thought perhaps they should have a terrain zero rating that specifically meant an average wheelchair bound person could get to, retrieve, and replace the cache by themselves. Of course, you still have to get people to rate their caches appropriately. Good luck with that.

[+gof1]

...many others really have no idea what it means to be "accessible from a wheelshair".

 

I think that this is the larger part of the problem. I certainly have my idea of what I would consider wheelchair accessible but to be honest I don't know if someone forced to hunt caches from one would agree.

 

While I am not a fan of GCvote could something like it be used to help with this problem? Something with a spelled out criteria for what is accessible by wheelchair. Perhaps with an instructional page and a quiz to qualify user to make a determination and rate the cache on its accessibility.

[+Ike 13]

To think a .2 mile hike in a swamp is a 1 under any terrain system shows how out of touch the owner is. That's maybe a 1.5 if there's a good trail a 2+ if it's bush-wacking.

 

It would be great if all owners took time to properly rate the cache, and use the available resources.

[+Renegade Knight]

I feel this is something GC should develop and enforce.

 

Jim, I'd have to agree. Since my reviewers always told me that a "1" terrain MUST be wheelchair accessible, I assumed that was universal.

 

And, I must admit that my interest in this issues has grown since I now have a friend who caches via wheelchair.

 

Check out handicaching.com. If local cachers know that one of their own is in a chair, they would have incentive to use this site, and caches rated there should give your friend better information on caches they can do.

[+Renegade Knight]

...Something with a spelled out criteria for what is accessible by wheelchair. ...

 

The ADAAG does this.

 

http://www.access-board.gov/adaag/about/

 

Naturally the ADAAG isn't binding on folks who use a chair. Skills and ability vary far more than you can capture in a standard. However this does create a standard baseline on what a true 1 would be.

[+Jeep_Dog]

The closest thing to "official" is a link found on the cache online submission form, which suggests trying Clayjar's Geocache Rating System.

 

Within that system, the generally acceptable terrain rating for 1-5 is listed as follows:

 

* 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.

 

Hope this helps!

Edited July 15, 2009 by Jeep_Dog

[gojkgo]

I would favor universal standards for difficulty and terrain ratings for this very reason, but I think they would be beneficial to all geocachers. I haven't been around long enough to know why Groundspeak hasn't adopted these kinds of standards.

 

On a similar note, I wonder why GS doesn't offer any suggestions or additional information on writing logs on the "how to log your find" page. It just says "Enter any comments you wish to share with the owner and/or community regarding your find." As a newbie, it wasn't until I had hung around the forums for a few days that a) I found out that anyone cares one way or another what I include in my logs, and I found suggestions on what type of things people like to see in logs.

[+eaglewings777]

The led to a long, ongoing discussion and I did find several terrain rating guidelines, however, none of them seem to be official Groundspeak guidelines.

 

 

The Clayjar system says 1 star terrain is handicap accessible. This website links to the Clayjar site

and suggests you use it to determine your cache ratings (see the cache submission page). While it's not

a guideline per se, it does suggest that Groundspeak endorses the ratings on the Clayjar site.

 

We are senior cachers. So often we see a rating of 2 and I am sliding down on my rear. His majesty has had a knee replacement and sometimes I shake my head at the climb up and down a high hill that is a 1 1/2. As for our caches, we will use the clay jar system until Geocaching.com sets guideliness.

[+CluelessTwo]

The led to a long, ongoing discussion and I did find several terrain rating guidelines, however, none of them seem to be official Groundspeak guidelines.

 

 

The Clayjar system says 1 star terrain is handicap accessible. This website links to the Clayjar site

and suggests you use it to determine your cache ratings (see the cache submission page). While it's not

a guideline per se, it does suggest that Groundspeak endorses the ratings on the Clayjar site.

 

We are senior cachers. So often we see a rating of 2 and I am sliding down on my rear. His majesty has had a knee replacement and sometimes I shake my head at the climb up and down a high hill that is a 1 1/2. As for our caches, we will use the clay jar system until Geocaching.com sets guideliness.

 

Hi Ya

 

I was just having a conversation about this today on a forum although it wasnt concerning caches that are wheelchair accessible but was to do with the rating system. I have acute asthma and therefore excercise related attacks can occur if Im pushed. Read the following topic to see what people said to me.

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=226656

 

To be honest what I learned from this topic is that its all to do with perception. No one can see from another persons point of view or know their limits and this is the reason that a tick box quideline system should be imposed. Im actually having trouble knowing what it is reviewers are reviewing if they arent making sure that people are setting these things (which after all are the the things we read to see if we will be capable of finding a cache). Hopefully my health will improve when I lose weight however a wheel chair user nor someone who has had an operation on a joint, will need guidelines. In reality very few of the caches I have done would be wheel chair accessible however there is a very good cache owner in NI called mournesrambler who explicitly tells cachers if it is wheel chair accessible and whether a wheel chair user will be able to retrieve the cache (ie how much of a stretch there is or if they will need help).

 

Heres one of his caches for instance.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...bc-fd23b2d27efc

 

It does ocur to me though that since Groundspeak links to the clayjar system that this should the officical one or maybe the good points from all of the rating systems should be brought together to make a Groundspeak official rating.

 

Claire xx

[Keystone]

I would favor universal standards for difficulty and terrain ratings for this very reason, but I think they would be beneficial to all geocachers. I haven't been around long enough to know why Groundspeak hasn't adopted these kinds of standards.

The ClayJar Geocache Rating System is linked right from the cache submission form. That is as official as Groundspeak is likely to get. Groundspeak doesn't validate the accuracy of the terrain and difficulty ratings, leaving this up to the cache owner -- who visited the site -- and feedback from other visitors.

 

While volunteer cache reviewers can *suggest* that a terrain 1 cache ought to be handicapped accessible, or that a boat-only cache ought to be rated five stars for terrain, we cannot hold up publication over these issues. They are not part of the listing guidelines, and changing that would add a significant burden, slowing down the publication process.

[+CluelessTwo]

I would favor universal standards for difficulty and terrain ratings for this very reason, but I think they would be beneficial to all geocachers. I haven't been around long enough to know why Groundspeak hasn't adopted these kinds of standards.

The ClayJar Geocache Rating System is linked right from the cache submission form. That is as official as Groundspeak is likely to get. Groundspeak doesn't validate the accuracy of the terrain and difficulty ratings, leaving this up to the cache owner -- who visited the site -- and feedback from other visitors.

 

While volunteer cache reviewers can *suggest* that a terrain 1 cache ought to be handicapped accessible, or that a boat-only cache ought to be rated five stars for terrain, we cannot hold up publication over these issues. They are not part of the listing guidelines, and changing that would add a significant burden, slowing down the publication process.

 

That puts some light on it. So reviewers do give suggestions for terrain etc and the guidelines are linked from the form. So what we probably have are people not reading them or heeding advice.

 

Claire xx

[Keystone]

Here for those who haven't seen it before is a typical form letter that I place on caches rated one star for terrain, but without the handicapped accessible attribute:

 

Your new cache submission will be published momentarily. First, however, I'm writing to ask you to make sure the terrain is rated properly. If you used the cache rating system link ( http://www.clayjar.com/gcrs/ ) when you submitted the cache, you will note that a 1 star terrain cache should be wheelchair accessible. If that's the case, great! (Please consider using the handicapped accessible "cache attribute" to let people know this.) If it's not wheelchair accessible, then the terrain should be at least 1.5 stars. For more information, please see this article: http://www.todayscacher.com/2004/sep/outdoors.asp#disable

 

Thanks,

Keystone

Geocaching.com Volunteer Cache Reviewer

[+mfamilee]

While volunteer cache reviewers can *suggest* that a terrain 1 cache ought to be handicapped accessible, or that a boat-only cache ought to be rated five stars for terrain, we cannot hold up publication over these issues. They are not part of the listing guidelines, and changing that would add a significant burden, slowing down the publication process.

I'm puzzled as to why all the volunteer cache reviewers are not up on 'suggesting' all the same things. You'd think even though they are volunteers... there would be guidlines they would need to read and follow.

 

We are lucky to have a great reviewer in our area that does suggest things & reminds people to add attributes if there are none listed. I have noticed that different reviewers in other counties in our state do not do the same.

[Keystone]

Since terrain rating accuracy is not a listing guideline, anything which a reviewer does on this subject is *optional*. A reviewer who stays silent on this issue is doing nothing wrong. So long as he or she fairly applies the listing guidelines, is reasonably responsive, etc., the job expectations are met.

 

There are lots of other examples where reviewers go above and beyond the required task list, in an effort to be helpful. I am one of very few reviewers who "sweeps" the cache pages in my territory to move missing trackables off the page and into an "unknown location." That does not make me "better" than the reviewer who has never done this. That other reviewer may do far more work with park system managers than I do, for example. He might make educational presentations at events -- something I haven't done since 2005. He might be much faster with publishing caches than I am.

[+TexasGringo]

Somtimes they are listed on Handicaching.com.

 

Here is one of my caches that is for Handicap People.....click on the Handicaching.com link or gold seal to see info about it.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...95-e5cea5cfc365

[+mfamilee]

Check out handicaching.com. If local cachers know that one of their own is in a chair, they would have incentive to use this site, and caches rated there should give your friend better information on caches they can do.

Great link we were never aware of.

Just added one of our handicapped accessible caches to the site.

[+popokiiti]

Thank you for an extremely valuable topic. Only have one hide, but now know that I want my next one to be accessible for those cachers using wheelchairs/scooters. No ifs, ands, or buts.

[+gof1]

...Something with a spelled out criteria for what is accessible by wheelchair. ...

 

The ADAAG does this.

 

http://www.access-board.gov/adaag/about/

 

Naturally the ADAAG isn't binding on folks who use a chair. Skills and ability vary far more than you can capture in a standard. However this does create a standard baseline on what a true 1 would be.

 

I was thinking something more geocaching specific.

[Keystone]

I was thinking something more geocaching specific.

Did you read the article I linked in my prior post?

[+power69]

If it ain't on sidewalk or blacktop[parking lot], I give it a 1.5 on T.

that would be bad to give a 1 star T and a wheelchair couldn't reach that low or that high[put yourself in their place]

now i'm not saying a wheelchair bound person hasn't found one of my 1.5T caches but its better to overrate than to underrate and have frustrated cacher.

[+Renegade Knight]

...

I was thinking something more geocaching specific.

 

I have the same problem in my work.

 

However a rule of thumb is that if you can easily ride your bike on it, a chair should be able to use it. Assuming the transitions aren't bad (big drop from asphalt to hardpan ground for example).

 

When I hit sand or grass on my bike I have to drop gears to keep going.

 

Some folks forget that an easy trail with a 10' climb at the end isn't a 1.

 

What you can glean from that overly complicated manual is the reach. Wheelchair bound cachers have a range they can reach things. Outside that and technically it's not going to be a 1, but the caching community hasn't discussed this concept as it applies to ratings much.

[Alan White]

The post from Michael in this thread may help. Or it may not .

 

"Handicapped" isn't a term we use in England - it's frowned upon as being derogatory - so I suspect that there are cultural differences in play here. Whatever, reviewers have always made it clear that T1=Wheelchair accessible. Unless I or they have misunderstood...

[knowschad]

The post from Michael in this thread may help. Or it may not .

 

"Handicapped" isn't a term we use in England - it's frowned upon as being derogatory - so I suspect that there are cultural differences in play here. Whatever, reviewers have always made it clear that T1=Wheelchair accessible. Unless I or they have misunderstood...

 

Here's another thread on the subject that I found very interesting: Where Can You Wheel?

 

As for the term "handicapped"... some of these folks are doing things that make the rest of us look handicapped by comparison: http://www.apparelyzed.com/support/sport/x...air_sports.html

Edited July 16, 2009 by knowschad

[+slukster]

Slighty off topic but along the same lines. Under the attributes, what would you put down as not accessible for dogs/kids? If you have a dog or a kid then an adult will most likely be along for the ride. But many of my cache groud zeros are accessible to all but you have to make a climb up a tree or a wall that obviously a dog won't be going up and a kid might not be able to climb but they sure can come along for the ride and wait at the bottom. Would you rate these as not accessible to dogs/kids?

[+bittsen]

Slighty off topic but along the same lines. Under the attributes, what would you put down as not accessible for dogs/kids? If you have a dog or a kid then an adult will most likely be along for the ride. But many of my cache groud zeros are accessible to all but you have to make a climb up a tree or a wall that obviously a dog won't be going up and a kid might not be able to climb but they sure can come along for the ride and wait at the bottom. Would you rate these as not accessible to dogs/kids?

 

There is a place I go camping that has a trail that is fine for kids who don't typically fall (older than 4 or so) but not recommended (In fact, highly discouraged) for dogs. Why? I't an obsidian flow, in other words, volcanic glass.

 

If I were to place a cache on or near that trail, I would put in BIG BOLD letters that it was not recommended for dogs as well as giving it the appropriate "no dogs" attribute.

Other than that, I would rate the trail accordingly which is about a 2 or maybe a 2.5 as I have seen people with canes walking the trail.

[+Tobias & Petronella]

For me, when I see the word "Terrain" I think of the ground and what it is made of and how hard it is to move through the area for the average person. Too bad we don't have a symbol someone could use to indicate that the area and cache is wheelchair accessible . And another to be used when the ground is flat and hard but the average person in a chair won't be able to reach the cache . If icons like those existed and we could do a search for those icons, wouldn't that make things a lot easier? Maybe the people at Groundspeak could work on this.

Edited July 17, 2009 by Tobias & Petronella

[+Semper Questio]

For me, when I see the word "Terrain" I think of the ground and what it is made of and how hard it is to move through the area for the average person. Too bad we don't have a symbol someone could use to indicate that the area and cache is wheelchair accessible . And another to be used when the ground is flat and hard but the average person in a chair won't be able to reach the cache . If icons like those existed and we could do a search for those icons, wouldn't that make things a lot easier? Maybe the people at Groundspeak could work on this.

 

When I was in a wheelchair I tried doing queries using these very attributes, but they are not used very often and when they are they are oftentimes incorrect. And that does not even begin to take into account all of the pre-attribute caches that the owners never went back and added attributes to. Using T1 alone was the best way to get a good list of candidate wheelchair accessible caches. I still had to review descriptions to be sure, but it yielded a far more comprehensive list. That experience taught me to not rely on the attributes for any kid of PQ selection or filtering.

 

Now that I am out of the chair, I still encounter terrain rating issues. I am still disabled and have to limit the caches I go for but I find a very large number of caches that are either far under- or over-rated on terrain.

 

Without making hiders answer a series of questions and the site assigning the ratings based on those answers (which I would not mind seeing but would still only be as good as the answers) there's really not much to be done about it.

[+eaglewings777]

For me, when I see the word "Terrain" I think of the ground and what it is made of and how hard it is to move through the area for the average person. Too bad we don't have a symbol someone could use to indicate that the area and cache is wheelchair accessible . And another to be used when the ground is flat and hard but the average person in a chair won't be able to reach the cache . If icons like those existed and we could do a search for those icons, wouldn't that make things a lot easier? Maybe the people at Groundspeak could work on this.

 

When I was in a wheelchair I tried doing queries using these very attributes, but they are not used very often and when they are they are oftentimes incorrect. And that does not even begin to take into account all of the pre-attribute caches that the owners never went back and added attributes to. Using T1 alone was the best way to get a good list of candidate wheelchair accessible caches. I still had to review descriptions to be sure, but it yielded a far more comprehensive list. That experience taught me to not rely on the attributes for any kid of PQ selection or filtering.

 

Now that I am out of the chair, I still encounter terrain rating issues. I am still disabled and have to limit the caches I go for but I find a very large number of caches that are either far under- or over-rated on terrain.

 

Without making hiders answer a series of questions and the site assigning the ratings based on those answers (which I would not mind seeing but would still only be as good as the answers) there's really not much to be done about it.

[+eaglewings777]

Thanks for your input. We will try our best to keep the ratings correct and sure to be sure to check the handicap symbol.

[7rxc]

I've been following this topic for a while... I do not have any hides yet, but help maintain a couple.

 

One concern has been the terrain/difficulty ratings... Many 1 ratings are simply NOT.

 

Terrain can also be a bad indicator of accessability. One I've been looking out for, has fairly good surface for wheels (yes, I have been in a chair in the past, and it can stay that way!), it is easily accessed from paved paths, is close to parking and washrooms, all accessable.

 

However... I'd say that nothing indicates that there is headroom... many spots here do have it, and some don't. Many searchable spots are simply too low for chairs, scooters etc. Heck I have trouble bending over due to a bad back. Not everywhere, but some of it. Other spots are higher than reachable from sitting. Add lower than reachable as well. I see no reason for a chair-bound not to participate in the hunt, but I advise that assistance might be needed to seek/reach.

 

I've recently decided that the existing hide was a bit to exposed to muggles, as it keeps getting 'lost'. The hide spot has been moved a bit (only a few feet, coords OK). It now is in an improved spot for seeking from a chair, maybe not enough yet, but much better. Still a big question about reaching it, but at least it is now accessable from a stand up position. So that some chair/scooter types who can stand should be able to do it. Those who cannot, still require some sort of assistance. Basically, it has become a lot easier, and I will try to see that it improves. I don't own it, so can't do much except ask the owner to redo the various ratings, attributes and so on.

 

One thing that I've thought about would be another rating... based entirely on the access issue.

A for accessability. That would make Difficulty / Terrain / Accessability with some scale for what is the issue. Not entirely sure what that would be though, although low overhead would be one, and width.

Other complications? Tools, Visibility, Minor interferences/hazards???

 

Just thinking... but this isn't the place to request the changes... that would be the GC Site Forum, I think.

 

Doug 7rxc

[+Tobias & Petronella]

This game, just like other outdoor activities are designed for a person in average to above average physical fitness. There are too many people with physical and mental limitations to make a simply rating system that everyone will follow and understand.

 

To say that a T-1 means that someone in a chair can get it is being very naive. Just as 7rxc pointed out, just because you can get your chair to GZ doesn't mean you can reach it. Some can't reach up high while others can't reach down low. I know people that are not in a chair that have those same problems, so what do we do about them?

 

The current rating system (as I understand it) simply will not work for those that have problems. I have knee and other problems myself. There have been times that my wife had to make the grab, since I couldn't. Even at that, there have been times when we have gone out caching that I have ended up in extreme pain that has lasted for a few days. But that is the price I pay for playing this game.

 

Since another group (handicaching.com) has already come up with a rating system, if someone wants to use the this icon , then they should include the "Handicaching Rating System" on there cache page. For me, a T-1 means flat, hard, level surface, T-1.5 soft dirt, grass or packed sand but still it's a level surface. D-1 means that the average person will see it and can get it with out moving anything. D-1.5 the cache is lightly covered or is camouflage, but once they see the cache it will be easy to get. Nowhere in this rating system does it deal with how far off of the ground the cache is or if you need to lean or bend over something to reach the cache.

 

It's up to the cache owner to add the icon and "H" code found at http://www.handicaching.com/ratingsystem.html. I believe that Groundspeak should send out a notice asking everyone to update their cache pages to include the correct icons to make it easier on everyone. The reviewers should ask for the "H" code on all new caches that include .

 

The clayjar rating system is a good basic system but it has gaps. I think it's time we should have a more comprehensive and detailed understanding of what the D&T 1-5 stars mean.

 

Tobias

Edited July 18, 2009 by Tobias & Petronella

[CoyoteRed]

I'm not in favor of this increasingly finite granularity of cache data. Personally, I say, "so what" to 1 star caches that a wheelchair-bound person was unable to reach. Sometimes I'm not patient enough to find the evilly hidden cache or smart enough to figure out that puzzle--both of which I may have invested some time and effort. The cache rating aren't supposed to be a guarantee that any single individual is able to complete the hunt with x amount of effort--or at all.

 

Many times when a person is not able to complete a puzzle they enlist (or tag along with) someone who can. They team up. A 1 star, being generally accepted that the typically wheelchair-bound person can wheel to, does not in itself guarantee that same person can actually reach the cache itself, only reach the spot the cache is located. If they're not able to reach low enough or high enough to reach the cache then another team member can.