Terrain rating with stairs?

[+jhauser42]

I am thinking about placing a cache that is incredibly easy to get to. The entire path is paved and accessible to almost anyone (about .1 to .2 mile walk). However, they would have to climb 40 stairs at the end to get to the actual cache. I was planning to make this a 2 rating due to the climb. Does that sound appropriate or am I off-base here?

 

Thanks,

Joe

[+Castle Mischief]

I am thinking about placing a cache that is incredibly easy to get to. The entire path is paved and accessible to almost anyone (about .1 to .2 mile walk). However, they would have to climb 40 stairs at the end to get to the actual cache. I was planning to make this a 2 rating due to the climb. Does that sound appropriate or am I off-base here?

 

Thanks,

Joe

 

Using the Clayjar rating system (and a few assumptions) I got a 4. It should probably be higher than 2 simply because you cannot roll a stroller or ride a bike up it.

 

Just based on your description, it "feels" more like a 3 - 3.5.

[+ZeroHecksGiven]

I did a cache recently with about 50 feet of walking from the car and forty or so stairs and rated it a two. I'd say 3 if anything

[+bittsen]

I wouldn't complain to see a 2 as a set of stairs. Any more than 40 though and you might have to go up a half of a point.

[+briansnat]

paved path with stairs at the end? 2 at the most. I'd probably go with 1.5. A 3 or higher means serious terrain to me, not something I'd encounter going to my office every day.

Edited October 26, 2009 by briansnat

[+StarBrand]

paved path with stairs at the end? 2 at the most. I'd probably go with 1.5. A 3 or higher means serious terrain to me, not something I'd encounter going to my office every day.

Agreed - anything more than a 2 would seem excessive.

[+Moose Mob]

If these are 8 inch high steps, that is 30 foot gain, almost 3 floors. Even 9 inch steps would give you 36 feet gain. Around here, a terrain 3 would suggest a 100 foot hill without an established trail.

 

Add the 1000 foot walk out to it and I would consider a 2.5 to be representative, 3.0 or higher would be too high.

[+ecanderson]

If these are 8 inch high steps, that is 30 foot gain, almost 3 floors. Even 9 inch steps would give you 36 feet gain. Around here, a terrain 3 would suggest a 100 foot hill without an established trail.

 

Add the 1000 foot walk out to it and I would consider a 2.5 to be representative, 3.0 or higher would be too high.

I like your 2.5. Not a problem for someone in normal physical shape since the grade isn't too terrible, but impossible to roll anything up to.

[+StarBrand]

If these are 8 inch high steps, that is 30 foot gain, almost 3 floors. Even 9 inch steps would give you 36 feet gain. Around here, a terrain 3 would suggest a 100 foot hill without an established trail.

 

Add the 1000 foot walk out to it and I would consider a 2.5 to be representative, 3.0 or higher would be too high.

I like your 2.5. Not a problem for someone in normal physical shape since the grade isn't too terrible, but impossible to roll anything up to.

You never saw my wife and I take our stroller out caching did you?? Or watch me take my bike up the stair at my apartment when I was in college.

[+Cache O'Plenty]

2.5 at best. Those steps are flat so it's just a 50 ft walk with a 36 ft elevation gain. Not like it was a slope. Today I did one that was rated a 3.0 - falsely!!!! All I had to do was walk across 10 feet of turf and reach down a drain pipe behind a block wall. Where they got the idea that would be a 3.0, I have no idea. Shoulda been a 1.5 (wheelchair problem).

Edited October 26, 2009 by Cache O'Plenty

[+Steve and Sara]

Did a cache this summer on Mackinaw Island. As we were finishing biking the about 8 mile road around the island, we came upon this cache, GCQ98C. It had 200 steps up the hill and was rated 2.5 - 2.5. Definitely needed a breather after that one. Maybe the terrain should be increased based on how many steps?

[+DanOCan]

If it were my cache I'd rate it as a 2 at the highest, likely a 1.5. After all, we're just talking some stairs here, even toddlers can navigate stairs.

[+Chrysalides]

Not having any other information, I think 2 is more suitable as well. 40 steps is an elevation change of less than 30 ft.

 

After all, we're just talking some stairs here, even toddlers can navigate stairs.

The tricky part with toddlers (and esp. babies) is getting them not to navigate stairs. Especially going down, on hands and knees, head first.

Edited October 27, 2009 by Chrysalides

[+EscapeFromFlatland]

My geocache GC1N973 Step Right Up, Folks! has either a 99 stair ascent or an 88 stair descent to reach. Rated it a 2-2, but with the multi-story condo building nearby it could be a difficulty 2.5.

[+Ambrosia]

I'd probably rate it a 1.5. Of course, I have a 4 mile loop hike multi that I placed in 2002 that I rated a 2. That seemed to be the norm for us up in WA back then. I've never changed my opinion about those sorts of things. Gotta toughen up when you're up here.

[+jhauser42]

Thank you for all of the opinions. It looks like it does not matter however, as I cannot get the cache approved for other reasons.

[+eflyguy]

Using the Clayjar rating system (and a few assumptions) I got a 4. It should probably be higher than 2 simply because you cannot roll a stroller or ride a bike up it.

 

What is this 'clayjar' rating?

 

I'm putting together a challenging hike multi, and want to know how to rate appropriately..

 

.. or just take a stab at it, and let the reviewer correct it?

..a

[+briansnat]

Using the Clayjar rating system (and a few assumptions) I got a 4. It should probably be higher than 2 simply because you cannot roll a stroller or ride a bike up it.

 

What is this 'clayjar' rating?

 

I'm putting together a challenging hike multi, and want to know how to rate appropriately..

 

.. or just take a stab at it, and let the reviewer correct it?

..a

 

The Clayjar system is linked to on the cache submission page. You answer a series of questions and it spits out a suggested rating. It is been my experience that for terrain it is usually .5 - 1 star too high when you compare the results of using the automated program with the actual definitions for terrain ratings.

[+eflyguy]

The Clayjar system is linked to on the cache submission page. You answer a series of questions and it spits out a suggested rating. It is been my experience that for terrain it is usually .5 - 1 star too high when you compare the results of using the automated program with the actual definitions for terrain ratings.

 

Found a direct link by searching for all references to 'clayjar', thx! I'd looked in the help and FAQ's both here and on geocaching.com..

 

It rates my planned cache hike as a 3.5, and I walk my dogs there every day..

..a

[Skippermark]

paved path with stairs at the end? 2 at the most. I'd probably go with 1.5. A 3 or higher means serious terrain to me, not something I'd encounter going to my office every day.

I find that a lot of terrain is overrated. To me a 3 is something that has some steep terrain with loose rocks/dirt, roots sticking up on the bumpy trail, maybe a stream crossing, not something you'd want to do in work clothes.

 

I agree with Brian and wouldn't go higher than a 2 unless the stairs aren't normal stairs like I'm picturing in my my mind, something like a climb up the side of a rock wall, where if you slip you're going to fall 100 feet straight down.

Edited October 27, 2009 by Skippermark

[+StarBrand]

Using the Clayjar rating system (and a few assumptions) I got a 4. It should probably be higher than 2 simply because you cannot roll a stroller or ride a bike up it.

 

What is this 'clayjar' rating?

 

I'm putting together a challenging hike multi, and want to know how to rate appropriately..

 

.. or just take a stab at it, and let the reviewer correct it?

..a

http://www.clayjar.com/gcrs/

 

Try it out.

[+bittsen]

I think the differences in opinions on terrain ratings are because some people rate them linear and some rate them on a curve.

 

It would appear that brian rates linear. (I used his example because he's a reviewer)

[Skippermark]

I think the differences in opinions on terrain ratings are because some people rate them linear and some rate them on a curve.

 

It would appear that brian rates linear. (I used his example because he's a reviewer)

I think he's only a moderator, not a reviewer.

[+Moose Mob]

Most of us use a curve. Local situations will show that some are more curved than others.

[+bittsen]

I think the differences in opinions on terrain ratings are because some people rate them linear and some rate them on a curve.

 

It would appear that brian rates linear. (I used his example because he's a reviewer)

I think he's only a moderator, not a reviewer.

 

I thought I had seen a post by a moderator that said all moderators were also reviewers.

I could be wrong. It happens once or twice a year.

[+Harry Dolphin]

I had a cache that required a thirty foot climb down a 200 foot staircase. I rated it a 2 for terrain. No one argued with that rating.

[+bittsen]

I had a cache that required a thirty foot climb down a 200 foot staircase. I rated it a 2 for terrain. No one argued with that rating.

 

I think it should be rated differently.

 

Happy now?

 

[AZcachemeister]

If it were mine, I would probably give it 2*...MAYBE 2.5* if they are really steep stairs.

[AZcachemeister]

Thank you for all of the opinions. It looks like it does not matter however, as I cannot get the cache approved for other reasons.

 

[+paleolith]

Does "40 stairs" mean 40 steps or 40 flights? If 40 steps, I would rate it T1.5, since it's not wheelchair-accessible. If 40 flights, that's about 500', so 2.0 or 2.5. maybe 3.0 if the trail is rough or there's no trail.

 

Terrain is relative. If you're hiding in a city and most caches are on level ground, then 50' of elevation gain may rate a full point of terrain. If the likely finders are hikers in a mountainous area, then 50' rates for nothing at all. This isn't a problem, but you do need to be alert to the surroundings. This kind of flexibility is good because it allows the limited rating scale to be used for varying purposes.

 

There's a cache in Tallahassee that's T3.0. Well, it's off trail, in the woods, more than 100 yards from parking, has an elevation gain of at least 20'. If you rate it by clayjar, it can come out to that. And since the only way you can get harder in Florida is with a long slog through a swamp, or by paddling, or similar excursions, it's reasonable to use a 3.0 for this sort of cache. Otherwise everything in Florida is 2.5 and under (except for the ones that are 5.0 due to requiring a boat, spelunking gear, etc), and you've wasted half the scale. In SoCal, at least in hiking areas, this cache would be a T1.5 -- and only because of the rule that T1 is supposed to mean wheelchair accessible.

 

(The highest point in Florida is about 350' above sea level. A few years ago, I drove with my wife, sister, and mother over to Louisiana. It was after Hurricane Ivan, and the Escambia Bay bridges were still out, so we had to detour north. I noticed we would be going near Florida's high point and suggested we go see it. My mom said OK, but I'll stay in the car and let you "young" people -- ages from 48 to 56 -- hike to the high point. But when we got there, she had to walk past the high point to get to the rest rooms.)

 

Edward

[+power69]

Using the Clayjar rating system (and a few assumptions) I got a 4. It should probably be higher than 2 simply because you cannot roll a stroller or ride a bike up it.

 

What is this 'clayjar' rating?

 

I'm putting together a challenging hike multi, and want to know how to rate appropriately..

 

.. or just take a stab at it, and let the reviewer correct it?

..a

 

The Clayjar system is linked to on the cache submission page. You answer a series of questions and it spits out a suggested rating. It is been my experience that for terrain it is usually .5 - 1 star too high when you compare the results of using the automated program with the actual definitions for terrain ratings.

I tried that for one of my hides that required special tools but was flat enough for a bike, it rates it a 5/5

I ended up rating it a 5/1.

[+brslk]

Using the Clayjar rating system (and a few assumptions) I got a 4. It should probably be higher than 2 simply because you cannot roll a stroller or ride a bike up it.

 

What is this 'clayjar' rating?

 

I'm putting together a challenging hike multi, and want to know how to rate appropriately..

 

.. or just take a stab at it, and let the reviewer correct it?

..a

 

The Clayjar system is linked to on the cache submission page. You answer a series of questions and it spits out a suggested rating. It is been my experience that for terrain it is usually .5 - 1 star too high when you compare the results of using the automated program with the actual definitions for terrain ratings.

I tried that for one of my hides that required special tools but was flat enough for a bike, it rates it a 5/5

I ended up rating it a 5/1.

 

My issue with this topic is that I have extreme arthritis and my ankles and knees just don't bend like they should.

I have never had problems with a 1.5 except when one included climbing up and down about 150 steps.

 

I can climb steps and walk up hill pretty well.... but going down is the killer.

 

It isn't all about being in a wheel chair or pushing a stroller.

 

I don't think everything should be adjusted to fit my disability but, It should be an honest rating.

 

Trust me, I would love to just go hiking like I used to and not understand how fit looking people would complain.

 

Most times I do it anyway... it might hurt or be hard but meh... not gonna let it stop me at the age of 39.

 

Bruce.

[+jhauser42]

Thank you for all of the opinions. It looks like it does not matter however, as I cannot get the cache approved for other reasons.

 

 

It may get approved after all. I should know later today. Considering all of the comments here, I have decided that the walk combined with the stairs will stay at a 2 terrain rating. Thank you for all of the opinions.

[+wenestvedt]

Consider enabling the "no wheelchairs" attribute icon so that the fairly low terrain number doesn't mislead anyone. (That's what I did for a cache on a paved lot that had just three stairs at the very end: T=1.5 and the "no chairs" icon.)

 

You might also mention it in the description

[GOF and Bacall]

Redundancy.

A 1* cache is, by generally accepted usage, wheelchair accessible. 1.5 stars is not.

[+MFLyons]

I recently did a typical light pole cache in a parking lot that was rated 4 for Difficulty and 2.5 for Terrain,so I am not taking the ratings very seriously. I have also found that as far as size goes, "other" usually means micro. I think that a 2 sounds about right for the one under discussion. I must say, however, that I like the idea of someone putting serious thought into their ratings and seeking input.