Could you post some 5.0 difficulty caches...

[+chrisrayn]

This idea came to me in another thread...I wanted to make a cache difficult, so I thought of having people search through some nuts and bolts to find a "blinkie" nanocache.

 

People said that would just anger them because it was like looking for a needle in a haystack.

 

But every other 5 I've ever seen involves solving a puzzle beforehand.

 

Remember Lord of the Rings...when they got to the mines of Moria and had to speak the word "friend" in Elvish to enter...that was an onsite puzzle. That's okay, I guess...

 

But are there ANY 5 difficulties out there that:

 

A) Aren't difficult because the cache is a "needle in a haystack,"

 

Aren't difficult because the cache requires a puzzle from the info page to be solved beforehand, or

 

C) Don't inherit their difficulty almost SOLELY from a corresponding high terrain?

 

Please post the GCxxxxx code or, even better, post it in [ url ]http://coord.info/GCxxxxx[ /url ] format so we can all just click!

 

I want to study and learn the art of good cache-making.

 

:-) Thanks!

Edited August 21, 2009 by chrisrayn

[+Puppy Dawg]

Yup. Know about where it is now, definitely not a needle in a haystack, QP&G if you've found one like it. As for how its hidden, go find it...

[+chrisrayn]

Yup. Know about where it is now, definitely not a needle in a haystack, QP&G if you've found one like it. As for how its hidden, go find it...

 

I don't know how to ask you what TYPE of hide it is without you giving it away...I'm in Texas and know I'll never make it too California...but...idk.

 

I think this will prove to be more difficult than I thought.

 

lol

[+Allanon]

This one I've done...Check and Recheck

 

This one I haven't...Die Kunst Der Fuge (The Art of the Fugue)

 

Edit: BTW, good caches aren't always hard. Why do you want to make 4-5 difficultly caches?

Edited August 21, 2009 by Allanon

[Tahosa and Sons]

Well I have a few F I V E Difficulty caches out there. And they are not nanos or puzzles.

[+fegan]

I've done a few difficult hides that have absolutely nothing useful on the cache page. So I fail to understand how simply looking at a cache page is going to teach you anything about a 5 difficulty hide?

 

Don't you need to actually visit GZ and Find the cache to understand why it's a 5 difficulty?

[+uxorious]

People said that would just anger them because it was like looking for a needle in a haystack.

 

Small point, but I didn't see anyone say it would anger them, just annoy them. Not sure what anyone else meant by that, but although it would annoy me I would probably still find the blinky and sign the log. It wouldn't anger me.

 

Of course if the cache is properly rated and I had some idea that it was a needle in a haystack hide, I would probably skip it.

If I know a cacher puts out hides that are just needle in a haystack hide, I would tend to skip them. But thats just me.

[+niraD]

I've found puzzle multi-caches that required special equipment to find. If you remove the puzzle aspect, then the remaining multi-cache could still require special equipment. One example of this would be a night cache that requires you to use a UV flashlight to get the coordinates for each stage.

 

I've also found traditional caches that required special equipment to retrieve/open. Note that special equipment required to reach ground zero should be considered part of the terrain rating, not the difficulty rating. To affect the difficulty rating, the special equipment should be required to find/retrieve/open the cache, once you've already reached ground zero.

 

The general rule of 5-star caches applies: If you have the special equipment required and know how to use it, then 5-star caches are actually easier than most 4-star caches.

 

None of the 4-star non-puzzle caches I've really enjoyed have been needle-in-a-haystack hides. Rather, they're the kind where there is no haystack, and it looks like there couldn't possibly be anywhere to hide a cache. In less than 5 minutes, you've checked everywhere a normal cache might be. In less than 10 minutes, you've checked everywhere you can think of. Later, sometimes much later, you realize that the cache is something that you've been ignoring the whole time because "that couldn't possibly be the cache", perhaps even something that you've handled several times without noticing anything unusual.

 

But I think you're approaching this backwards. First, hide the kind of cache that you would enjoy finding. Then rate it. The difficulty (and terrain) ratings are supposed to tell seekers something about the cache. They aren't (or at least, IMHO they shouldn't be) a goal in and of themselves.

[docbosh]

I can't add a lvl 5 difficulty that I know, or have tried, funny we should start similar threads on the same day

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=229719

 

Mine is about cache ratings. I hadn't even wandered into the CCC Thread, until after I wrote it, and I must say, in my own experience, caches are often difficult enough as is without impossible to find containers, and puzzles. That's my opinion of course. It scares me sometimes what I see I'm up against. But it isn't necessarily up to me to question why various people do geocaching, and what they expect from it.

 

In one instances of a cache that I know, the hiding place is not readily evident. There is a chainlink fence there. The CO likes to dress up his cache description, in this one the image is a snake coming out of a tube. The CO insists to me in a private e-mail it isn't in the fence. Be that as it may, subsequent visits over 2 years has yielded a fence where every end cap to anything that looks like a tube has been removed in the search. I like geocaching, and I love the CITO aspect of it, I am seeing there is a level of destructiveness that surrounds the activity. Not every person who searches is of the same ilk. Some don't mind destroying a fence to search. Now that fence looks horrible. The rest of the fence away from GZ is fine, this is how I made my supposition. Shouldn't the CO have a responsibility to mention where it might not be (but not as the hint because often they say stay away from the flowers when thats where it is), if there is a chance that some fools may damage public property. Of course the problem with fool proof plans, is they don't take into consideration the creativity of fools.

 

But I think you're approaching this backwards. First, hide the kind of cache that you would enjoy finding. Then rate it. The difficulty (and terrain) ratings are supposed to tell seekers something about the cache. They aren't (or at least, IMHO they shouldn't be) a goal in and of themselves.

 

I can't say whether or not the rating should be a goal in and of themselves, it isn't, as I said earlier, our place per se to question why others geocache. We just have to be at the mercy of the CO to rate accordingly. Assuredly there are those that are "extreme" sportsmen, that wouldn't bother doing easy difficulty and terrain caches, a machismo, that exists no matter whether you think it should exist or not.

 

Maybe there is a way to adjust geocaching accordingly. I'm thinking Lava Life or eHarmony style. A geocacher might rate what geocaching is to them, a game, an activity, or a sport, or other (which I can't define). I've seen various people used these descriptions to describe geocaching. The reality, is that it is all of them simultaneously, but it depends on the end user as to what it really is to them. By putting in this feature, gamers could do a search for gamer caches, difficulty and terrain are still an issue, but less so, an opt-out if you want to see all caches. Not perfect, but it might address an existing disparity amongst the players. Maybe yet another questionaire, that rates you as a geocacher.

[+J-Way]

But I think you're approaching this backwards. First, hide the kind of cache that you would enjoy finding. Then rate it. The difficulty (and terrain) ratings are supposed to tell seekers something about the cache. They aren't (or at least, IMHO they shouldn't be) a goal in and of themselves.

Yep. Hide what you enjoy finding.

 

Directly on topic, it's very difficult to hide a correctly-rated 5-star traditional cache without a very hard puzzle (or series of puzzles), using a NIAHS hide technique, or artificially inflating the difficulty because of extremely hard terrain. Some do this by requiring tools that aren't in most caching bags. I know of one that requires a magnet on a long string or long stick to retrieve.

 

The best 5-star difficulty caches are multi-stage (either mystery/unknown or pure multi). The total effort is worth 5-stars, but each stage is only 2-4 star difficulty. But as each stage is found and they move closer to the goal, the cacher has a sense of progress that keeps them on-task. If they run out of time or get bored with the hunt they can leave and come back later; picking up where they left off. Unlike turning over rock after rock after rock on a scree slope; no forward progress, and if you leave you have to start over because the cache can get moved while you're gone.

[+rob3k]

 

The general rule of 5-star caches applies: If you have the special equipment required and know how to use it, then 5-star caches are actually easier than most 4-star caches.

 

 

I thought the special equipment guideline applied to the terrain rating and not the cache difficulty rating?

[+keehotee]

 

The general rule of 5-star caches applies: If you have the special equipment required and know how to use it, then 5-star caches are actually easier than most 4-star caches.

 

 

I thought the special equipment guideline applied to the terrain rating and not the cache difficulty rating?

 

It'll apply to the difficulty rating if specialist training is required to use the specialist equipment - hence, a scuba cache will automatically be a 5/5 even if it's in plain site under 30 metres of water because you need training to use the gear.

[+J-Way]

The general rule of 5-star caches applies: If you have the special equipment required and know how to use it, then 5-star caches are actually easier than most 4-star caches.

I thought the special equipment guideline applied to the terrain rating and not the cache difficulty rating?

It'll apply to the difficulty rating if specialist training is required to use the specialist equipment - hence, a scuba cache will automatically be a 5/5 even if it's in plain site under 30 metres of water because you need training to use the gear.

Actually, that last bit I disagree with. Terrain is terrain. Technically, it requires training to get a license to drive a car, but that's not an automatic 5-star requirement. Any idjiot can fiddle with a tank and respirator enough to breath underwater for a limited amount of time. Heck, most people can hold their breath long enough to find most shallow-water "SCUBA" caches using only snorkeling equipment (maybe not 30-meters, but 10-15 meters is doable).

 

"Very Special equipment" (yes, the clayjar description does use the word "Very") that relates to difficulty would be things like:

- radio capable of receiving a transmission off the commercial frequency range, used to receive instructions

- low-power radio transmitter capable of sending a coded message to open an electronic cache

- custom retrieval tool to bring the cache out of a long narrow pipe

- special lights/glasses to see wavelength-filtered information

[+niraD]

The general rule of 5-star caches applies: If you have the special equipment required and know how to use it, then 5-star caches are actually easier than most 4-star caches.

I thought the special equipment guideline applied to the terrain rating and not the cache difficulty rating?

The clayjar description of 5-star terrain is "Requires specialized equipment and knowledge or experience, (boat, 4WD, rock climbing, SCUBA, etc) or is otherwise extremely difficult."

 

The clayjar description of 5-star difficulty is "Extreme. A serious mental or physical challenge. Requires specialized knowledge, skills, or equipment to find cache."

 

A 5/1 cache could require special equipment to get to GZ. A 1/5 cache could require special equipment to find the cache once you get to GZ. A 5/5 cache could require special equipment to get to GZ, as well as to find the cache once you get there.

[+chrisrayn]

The general rule of 5-star caches applies: If you have the special equipment required and know how to use it, then 5-star caches are actually easier than most 4-star caches.

I thought the special equipment guideline applied to the terrain rating and not the cache difficulty rating?

The clayjar description of 5-star terrain is "Requires specialized equipment and knowledge or experience, (boat, 4WD, rock climbing, SCUBA, etc) or is otherwise extremely difficult."

 

The clayjar description of 5-star difficulty is "Extreme. A serious mental or physical challenge. Requires specialized knowledge, skills, or equipment to find cache."

 

A 5/1 cache could require special equipment to get to GZ. A 1/5 cache could require special equipment to find the cache once you get to GZ. A 5/5 cache could require special equipment to get to GZ, as well as to find the cache once you get there.

 

I believe, as per your description, that it's exactly the opposite of what you said in the last paragraph. Unless you're putting the terrain number before difficulty, which would be...odd.

[+Kit Fox]

The general rule of 5-star caches applies: If you have the special equipment required and know how to use it, then 5-star caches are actually easier than most 4-star caches.

I thought the special equipment guideline applied to the terrain rating and not the cache difficulty rating?

The clayjar description of 5-star terrain is "Requires specialized equipment and knowledge or experience, (boat, 4WD, rock climbing, SCUBA, etc) or is otherwise extremely difficult."

 

The clayjar description of 5-star difficulty is "Extreme. A serious mental or physical challenge. Requires specialized knowledge, skills, or equipment to find cache."

 

A 5/1 cache could require special equipment to get to GZ. A 1/5 cache could require special equipment to find the cache once you get to GZ. A 5/5 cache could require special equipment to get to GZ, as well as to find the cache once you get there.

 

I've alway felt that a 5 star difficulty cache could be a "5" due to knowledge and skills requirements or extreme physical strength requirements in order to access a cache. For example anyone can purchase, or borrow rock climbing equipment, but the mere possession of said items does not mean you are skilled in their use and application. A cache on the side of a two hundred foot cliff can be plainly visible by everyone on the ground but, being able to successfully access the cache (via skills and strength) should make it a 5 difficulty, and a five star terrain.

 

My quote from a previous thread entitled 5/5 rope climbing caches..........?

 

Needing specialized equipment, and possessing the knowledge to use the equipment bumps the difficulty rating upwards.

 

 

Here are two 5 star difficulty caches in Antarctica.

 

Cone Z and Oobleck and the Sea of Ice

Edited August 21, 2009 by Kit Fox

[+niraD]

I believe, as per your description, that it's exactly the opposite of what you said in the last paragraph. Unless you're putting the terrain number before difficulty, which would be...odd.

Oops. You're right, I was using T/D rather than D/T.

 

"But the idea's the important thing..."

[docbosh]

Sorry to be wasting time here, but as there is a bit of commonality to the question... How would you rate this?

 

Requires a screw driver (I am going to say good Swiss Army knife to avoid people directly fixating on the cache), on a public street near a busy intersection where muggles will be an issue?

 

It's a fake electric junction box that I've attached to an electric pole. I'm going to send some testers, to see what they find. I roughed it up to give it a weathered oxidized look, if I didn't know it was there, I'd ignore it for being totally in place. Except the screws, they're too shiny, going to switch to some dry wall screws.

 

I might just set it up in a quieter area.

Edited August 22, 2009 by docbosh

[+GeePa]

It's a fake electric junction box that I've attached to an electric pole.

 

I personally discourage this kind of cache. The mere existence of these types of hides has geocachers everywhere taking apart real electrical boxes (and leaving them that way) which is a danger to themselves and to others if they leave the box open. I have even seen people hide a fake electrical box amongst several real ones. Now that is just asking for someone to be electrocuted.

[+chrisrayn]

I believe, as per your description, that it's exactly the opposite of what you said in the last paragraph. Unless you're putting the terrain number before difficulty, which would be...odd.

Oops. You're right, I was using T/D rather than D/T.

 

"But the idea's the important thing..."

 

Okay good. lol...I just didn't want to think that I'd been completely misunderstanding ratings this entire time...perhaps a few DNFs could have been a lot easier! lol

 

Wasn't trying to rag on ya. :-)

[docbosh]

It's a fake electric junction box that I've attached to an electric pole.

 

I personally discourage this kind of cache. The mere existence of these types of hides has geocachers everywhere taking apart real electrical boxes (and leaving them that way) which is a danger to themselves and to others if they leave the box open. I have even seen people hide a fake electrical box amongst several real ones. Now that is just asking for someone to be electrocuted.

 

I would generally concur, though in this case there are no other junction boxes to accidently open. It actually has overhead wire only, with a single grounding rod.

 

As for maintenance, I also live 50m from it so this will be my easy to maintain cache.

 

There are hidden dangers to everything we do, but I understand the concern. The cache has the geocaching G scrawled upon it so there is no confusion, though I expect it to throw some around here, I don't think there are else like it. I'm going to have to figure out a way to warn without spoiling it. I also have the fake sprinkler head, and soon the fake pine cone, tree stump, rock, and a few others.

[+uxorious]

Requires a screw driver (I am going to say good Swiss Army knife to avoid people directly fixating on the cache), on a public street near a busy intersection where muggles will be an issue?

 

It's a fake electric junction box that I've attached to an electric pole. I'm going to send some testers, to see what they find.

 

Doing a quick check on three caches in this area that are the same hide, I find they are not rated all that high. One is rated 2.5/1, and is in an area with lots of muggles. The other two are rated 1.5/1 and 1/1.5. None of them have a high rate of DNFs. (One of them has 260 finds and no DNF.)

[docbosh]

Requires a screw driver (I am going to say good Swiss Army knife to avoid people directly fixating on the cache), on a public street near a busy intersection where muggles will be an issue?

 

It's a fake electric junction box that I've attached to an electric pole. I'm going to send some testers, to see what they find.

 

Doing a quick check on three caches in this area that are the same hide, I find they are not rated all that high. One is rated 2.5/1, and is in an area with lots of muggles. The other two are rated 1.5/1 and 1/1.5. None of them have a high rate of DNFs. (One of them has 260 finds and no DNF.)

 

Thanks

[+Bundyrumandcoke]

I co-own a 5/5 cache, GC1N6N4 placed January this year. Its been found, but not cracked. 40 people watching it, FTF prize still awaits collection.

 

Cheers

Bundy

[+The magician & his assistant]

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...5a-f0c6af71a5ce

 

This is my five. Pictures of diff trees, each have a number, match the trees to their names and you get the coords from the numbers

[+NYPaddleCacher]

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...5a-f0c6af71a5ce

 

This is my five. Pictures of diff trees, each have a number, match the trees to their names and you get the coords from the numbers

 

I haven't done that cache so I can't tell how difficult it might be to identify those trees but it doesn't really sound like a 5 star difficulty based on some of the 5 star puzzles I have solved. In fact, there is a tree identification puzzle cache near me that's only rated a 2. Take a look at the Puzzle Masters Challenge cache to get an idea about what other are considering a 5 star difficulty. I solved the Key to Cryptonomicon puzzle and it took over a month to do so. I know someone that's been working on it for 3-4 months now and he hasn't even made it to the most difficult part yet. If people are able to do you're cache in 2-3 hours and it's rated a five, how can that compare with a puzzle which might take 30-40 hours of work to complete?

[+Steve&GeoCarolyn]

I solved the Key to Cryptonomicon puzzle and it took over a month to do so. I know someone that's been working on it for 3-4 months now and he hasn't even made it to the most difficult part yet.

 

Thank you for mentioning this. It looks like a very exciting challenge and it's in Tennessee!!! It is now on my list of difficult puzzles to work on. I love the challenges that take a long time to solve. (Of course, with me some of the easier ones take a long time to solve.)

 

Carolyn

[+The magician & his assistant]

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...5a-f0c6af71a5ce

 

This is my five. Pictures of diff trees, each have a number, match the trees to their names and you get the coords from the numbers

 

I haven't done that cache so I can't tell how difficult it might be to identify those trees but it doesn't really sound like a 5 star difficulty based on some of the 5 star puzzles I have solved. In fact, there is a tree identification puzzle cache near me that's only rated a 2. Take a look at the Puzzle Masters Challenge cache to get an idea about what other are considering a 5 star difficulty. I solved the Key to Cryptonomicon puzzle and it took over a month to do so. I know someone that's been working on it for 3-4 months now and he hasn't even made it to the most difficult part yet. If people are able to do you're cache in 2-3 hours and it's rated a five, how can that compare with a puzzle which might take 30-40 hours of work to complete?

 

The final hide is very tough and that adds alot of difficulty along with a hard puzzle. I suppose if your an arborist it would be a breeze. 30 minutes to complete vs. 30 hours is irrelevant, both can very well be a 5. It takes "special knowledge or tools" to solve the above tree puzzle. Knowing the diff and the names of 4 diff types of pine is not easy at all. Pine looks like pine, unless you know the cones or needle structures. I typed this, being a little defensive then I remembered, you havent done the cache so you have no idea how hard it is or isnt.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...5a-f0c6af71a5ce

 

This is my five. Pictures of diff trees, each have a number, match the trees to their names and you get the coords from the numbers

 

I haven't done that cache so I can't tell how difficult it might be to identify those trees but it doesn't really sound like a 5 star difficulty based on some of the 5 star puzzles I have solved. In fact, there is a tree identification puzzle cache near me that's only rated a 2. Take a look at the Puzzle Masters Challenge cache to get an idea about what other are considering a 5 star difficulty. I solved the Key to Cryptonomicon puzzle and it took over a month to do so. I know someone that's been working on it for 3-4 months now and he hasn't even made it to the most difficult part yet. If people are able to do you're cache in 2-3 hours and it's rated a five, how can that compare with a puzzle which might take 30-40 hours of work to complete?

 

The final hide is very tough and that adds alot of difficulty along with a hard puzzle. I suppose if your an arborist it would be a breeze. 30 minutes to complete vs. 30 hours is irrelevant, both can very well be a 5. It takes "special knowledge or tools" to solve the above tree puzzle. Knowing the diff and the names of 4 diff types of pine is not easy at all. Pine looks like pine, unless you know the cones or needle structures. I typed this, being a little defensive then I remembered, you havent done the cache so you have no idea how hard it is or isnt.

 

I would certainly understand a bit of defensiveness as this is your cache we're talking about.

 

I do, however, think the amount of time required to solve/find the cache *is* relevant although an arborist would very likely take much less time to solve it than someone with not prior experience with plant identification (btw, I like the idea for your cache as is provides an educational opportunity in the form of a puzzle) . I don't recall where I've seen it but one of the guidelines I've seen for rating the difficulty specifically talks about how much time is required to find the cache, and that for a 4-5 star rating, many attempts, and several visits may be required before eventually finding the cache. In any case, how long it might take for the "layperson" or "average" geocacher to solve your puzzle I think is a valid metric for determining the difficulty rating.

 

I also think it's generally a good idea to find several 4-5 star difficulty puzzles before rating your own puzzle that high as it gives you a sense of what other consider 4-5 stars.

[+The magician & his assistant]

I also think it's generally a good idea to find several 4-5 star difficulty puzzles before rating your own puzzle that high as it gives you a sense of what other consider 4-5 stars.

 

Fair enough