Jump to content

1 star terrain


Recommended Posts

 

Surely if a cache is over 5' high or below 12" that will be reflected in the difficulty rating, not the terrain?

 

Um.. not on this side of the pond, it isn't. Difficulty here is rated strictly upon how tough the cache is to locate, not the gymnastics required to find it - with the exception noted in the last entry which leads to the "special equipment clause". Clayjar provides the following to establish difficulty:

 

Cache is in plain sight or location is fairly obvious.

 

 

So how would you rate a cache located on a perfectly flat, 1* terrain, wheelchair friendly path - in plain view, 5 feet up in a tree?

 

The terrain is a definite 1, the cache is "in plain site" so satisfies Clayjars system - but being 5 feet up it wouldn't be accessible to most wheelchair users.....

Link to comment

I try and rate my caches with wheelchair users in mind. Unfortunately I don't have any experience of wheelchair use, and can't really be sure what "wheelchair accessible" actually is. So I tend to only rate a cache 1* terrain if access from the nearest parking area is a short distance via a level hard surface (tarmac or paving) and the cache can be reached whilst sitting in a chair. Is that reasonable?

Link to comment

I try and rate my caches with wheelchair users in mind. Unfortunately I don't have any experience of wheelchair use, and can't really be sure what "wheelchair accessible" actually is. So I tend to only rate a cache 1* terrain if access from the nearest parking area is a short distance via a level hard surface (tarmac or paving) and the cache can be reached whilst sitting in a chair. Is that reasonable?

 

Sounds good to me. :rolleyes:

Link to comment

I try and rate my caches with wheelchair users in mind. Unfortunately I don't have any experience of wheelchair use, and can't really be sure what "wheelchair accessible" actually is. So I tend to only rate a cache 1* terrain if access from the nearest parking area is a short distance via a level hard surface (tarmac or paving) and the cache can be reached whilst sitting in a chair. Is that reasonable?

 

Sounds like a perfect candidate for the "Wheelchair accessible" attribute to let people know for sure - if only there were one........ :rolleyes:

 

Then it wouldn't matter how precisely people rated their terrain :D

Link to comment
However, wheelchair accessability is not limited to those that are permanantly bound to a wheelchair. It could be someone that is only temporarily wheelchair bound, and they will probably not have the expensive, high-tech solution.

 

Yeah, like my step dad who certainly was never bound to his scooter and now doesn't need it at all. :ph34r:

 

I realize "expensive" and "high tech" is relative, but a lot more people, regardless of their prognosis, are seeing the value of all terrain mobility devices even in the short term.

 

Thanks for the link though - interesting read from a couple of years back. :P

 

My brother was stuck in a wheelchair for quite a while after his accident. He is out of it, now, and has been for a good long time.

 

Point is, many people in the Austin area and I jid 1 terrain caches so he could continue caching. His boo-boo made us very aware of the needs of those that are in chairs.

Link to comment

I am sorry but i do not feel that one star = wheel chair accessible. There is an attribute and there is the ability do pocket queries for those attributes. I got a little upset when i placed a cache that was a foot or two from the sidewalk on level grass covered ground just our of reach for someone in a wheelchair and i got flack for giving it a one star rating. I have also had a reviewer ask me to change the rating on one of my caches in a similar situation. I feel they should probably change the guidelines or let it go.

 

Having been in a chair for a while, I tried using the wheelchair attribute in my PQs and very quickly learned that they are often not used or are misleading. The attribute just doesn't cut it.

 

The biggest problem is that there were a great many caches put out with a T1 before the attributes even existed and the COs never went back to add an attribute, one way or the other.

 

Others use the attribute, but apparently assume someone in a wheelchair will either have a motorized scooter or 1 or more persons to help them. This is most certainly not always the case.

 

When considering wheelchair accessibility for a cache, you must consider the person being alone and able to get to, search for, retrieve, and replace the cache on their own. If the cache does not meet those criteria it should be a T1.5 and could have the wheelchair accessible attribute if the description states that someone in a wheelchair may likely need assistance to attain the cache.

Link to comment

Thanks everyone for entering into the discussion, just to clarify, I am a wheelchair using cacher, I have been since I started.

 

The reason for my asking this question now, is that I recently saw a cache published with a terrain of 1, it's in my district so I took a look at the cache page only to find the no wheelchairs attribute has been engaged as well.

 

I dropped said reviewer a note asking if it was an oversight. Apparently it is not an oversight and he is happy for a 1 star not to be wheelchair accessible ... so after 938 finds and 17 hides, it seems it is getting more confusing playing the game rather than easier! :(

 

Yes, I ran into the same thing when I was temporarily on wheels. It became a daunting exercise to find the truly wheelchair accessible cache. My wife thought that Groundspek should institute a T0 that meant that it was absolutely reachable by someone in a chair without any assistance or reaching tools. The a T1 would mean a simple walk up grab for everyone else.

Link to comment

 

My brother was stuck in a wheelchair for quite a while after his accident. He is out of it, now, and has been for a good long time.

 

Point is, many people in the Austin area and I jid 1 terrain caches so he could continue caching. His boo-boo made us very aware of the needs of those that are in chairs.

 

And I thank you all for them. Kept me going through some bleak times! For the record, I am up to T2.5 caches now. Only took 2 years! :(

Link to comment

I don't understand why anyone would have a problem with rating their cache 1.5 if it's not wheelchair accessible. Why does it matter to them?

 

My first cache was improperly rated by me as a T1. The reviewer pointed out that this meant it was accessible by wheelchair and I changed it to T1.5 without a second thought. Until then I had no idea of the convention. I had a cache in a phonebox with a door and checked on some forum or other whether wheelchair users could manage the door. As some said not, I rated it 1.5 despite it being in the middle of a completely flat paved area.

Link to comment

I don't understand why anyone would have a problem with rating their cache 1.5 if it's not wheelchair accessible. Why does it matter to them?

 

We have a cacher here that rates most a 1 terrain (on trails, over fields, etc) and has at least one that is 10 to 20 feet up a tree rated a 1.5. The cacher also considers film canisters small.

 

Based on this, to answer your question, I think it is to simply be contrary or (I hate this expression) passive/aggressive.

Link to comment

I don't understand why anyone would have a problem with rating their cache 1.5 if it's not wheelchair accessible. Why does it matter to them?

 

We have a cacher here that rates most a 1 terrain (on trails, over fields, etc) and has at least one that is 10 to 20 feet up a tree rated a 1.5. The cacher also considers film canisters small.

 

Based on this, to answer your question, I think it is to simply be contrary or (I hate this expression) passive/aggressive.

 

I suspect that it is most often due to a lack of fully understanding ratings or the abilities of a person in a wheelchair. I suspect that the number of caches improperly rated as accessible by wheelchair by a CO intentionally being contrary is minimal.

Link to comment

We have a cacher here that rates most a 1 terrain (on trails, over fields, etc) and has at least one that is 10 to 20 feet up a tree rated a 1.5. The cacher also considers film canisters small.

 

Based on this, to answer your question, I think it is to simply be contrary or (I hate this expression) passive/aggressive.

 

If that's the case, you either have a really poor reviewer or nobody has bothered to report the caches to the reviewer.

 

Either way, that's a great example of why we need to have a "user ignore" feature in the PQ function.

Link to comment

I suspect that it is most often due to a lack of fully understanding ratings or the abilities of a person in a wheelchair. I suspect that the number of caches improperly rated as accessible by wheelchair by a CO intentionally being contrary is minimal.

 

You are probably right it is in the minority, just seems most of the are where I cache. :(

 

 

If that's the case, you either have a really poor reviewer or nobody has bothered to report the caches to the reviewer.

 

Either way, that's a great example of why we need to have a "user ignore" feature in the PQ function.

 

Agree on the user ignore however not sure what the reviewer would have to do with it. There is no placement guideline for a reviewer to use. They don't police things like attributes, terr/dif, etc.

 

For the record, from some of the reports I have seen here, we have the BESTESS REVIEWER EVER. (Somebody please get Abe Froman to come read this) :(

Edited by baloo&bd
Link to comment

Agree on the user ignore however not sure what the reviewer would have to do with it. There is no placement guideline for a reviewer to use. They don't police things like attributes, terr/dif, etc.

 

For the record, from some of the reports I have seen here, we have the BESTESS REVIEWER EVER. (Somebody please get Abe Forrman to come read this) :(

 

Yeah, I suppose you are right. If reviewers are going to be selective in what they will, and won't, enforce then there's nothing you can do about it.

 

Again, that adds to the need for a user ignore feature.

Link to comment

I try and rate my caches with wheelchair users in mind. Unfortunately I don't have any experience of wheelchair use, and can't really be sure what "wheelchair accessible" actually is. So I tend to only rate a cache 1* terrain if access from the nearest parking area is a short distance via a level hard surface (tarmac or paving) and the cache can be reached whilst sitting in a chair. Is that reasonable?

 

Yes, that is very reasonable. Unfortunately in my experience, it is rarely used in that context.

Link to comment

Agree on the user ignore however not sure what the reviewer would have to do with it. There is no placement guideline for a reviewer to use. They don't police things like attributes, terr/dif, etc.

 

For the record, from some of the reports I have seen here, we have the BESTESS REVIEWER EVER. (Somebody please get Abe Forrman to come read this) :(

 

Yeah, I suppose you are right. If reviewers are going to be selective in what they will, and won't, enforce then there's nothing you can do about it.

 

Again, that adds to the need for a user ignore feature.

 

Not a matter of being selective when there is no guideline to enforce. Or did I misinterpret what you mean here.

 

And I agree, we need an ignore user feature.

Link to comment

Agree on the user ignore however not sure what the reviewer would have to do with it. There is no placement guideline for a reviewer to use. They don't police things like attributes, terr/dif, etc.

 

For the record, from some of the reports I have seen here, we have the BESTESS REVIEWER EVER. (Somebody please get Abe Forrman to come read this) :(

 

Yeah, I suppose you are right. If reviewers are going to be selective in what they will, and won't, enforce then there's nothing you can do about it.

 

Again, that adds to the need for a user ignore feature.

 

Not a matter of being selective when there is no guideline to enforce. Or did I misinterpret what you mean here.

 

And I agree, we need an ignore user feature.

 

Don't the guidelines explain cache sizes? Or should it be just a loose "suggestion" along with the terrain?

Link to comment

Agree on the user ignore however not sure what the reviewer would have to do with it. There is no placement guideline for a reviewer to use. They don't police things like attributes, terr/dif, etc.

 

For the record, from some of the reports I have seen here, we have the BESTESS REVIEWER EVER. (Somebody please get Abe Forrman to come read this) :(

 

Yeah, I suppose you are right. If reviewers are going to be selective in what they will, and won't, enforce then there's nothing you can do about it.

 

Again, that adds to the need for a user ignore feature.

 

Sorry but the Reviewer was not being selective about enforcing a Guideline in regards to 1* Terrain having to be Wheel chair accessible. Unless you can point to a specific section of the Guidelines that the Reviewer Community has missed?

 

Chances are that the Reviewer did exactly what I do, that is point out the discrepancy before publication. It's not something which can cause the delay of a cache being published.

 

I happen to be one of the Local Reviewers for the OP, and have been lucky enough to meet her and Caesar (whose just sadly crossed the Rainbow Bridge) . And full understand the frustration for Disabled cachers over the usage of the 1* Terrain rating. The best solution is to encourage local cachers owners and finders to rate their caches on Handicaching.com

 

Deceangi UK Reviewer

Link to comment

Agree on the user ignore however not sure what the reviewer would have to do with it. There is no placement guideline for a reviewer to use. They don't police things like attributes, terr/dif, etc.

 

For the record, from some of the reports I have seen here, we have the BESTESS REVIEWER EVER. (Somebody please get Abe Forrman to come read this) :(

 

Yeah, I suppose you are right. If reviewers are going to be selective in what they will, and won't, enforce then there's nothing you can do about it.

 

Again, that adds to the need for a user ignore feature.

 

Not a matter of being selective when there is no guideline to enforce. Or did I misinterpret what you mean here.

 

And I agree, we need an ignore user feature.

 

Don't the guidelines explain cache sizes? Or should it be just a loose "suggestion" along with the terrain?

 

What does cache size have to do with it?

Link to comment

For the record, from some of the reports I have seen here, we have the BESTESS REVIEWER EVER. (Somebody please get Abe Froman to come read this) B)

 

When trying to butter up your reviewer, it's best to spell their name correctly. :huh:

 

1/2 a star for trying, though. :(

 

What??? Not sure what you mean. :mellow:

 

(got to learn how to multitask better.)

Link to comment

Maybe I'm missing something, but to me Handicapped Accessible and Wheelchair Accessible are not the same thing, so some with a handicap could do a cache that is not wheelchair accessible, while someone in a wheelchair might be able to do a cache that someone else with a different handicap might not be able to do. Perhaps before guidelines are set there needs to be some consensus on the definitions of the words used in those guidelines.

Link to comment

Maybe I'm missing something, but to me Handicapped Accessible and Wheelchair Accessible are not the same thing, so some with a handicap could do a cache that is not wheelchair accessible, while someone in a wheelchair might be able to do a cache that someone else with a different handicap might not be able to do. Perhaps before guidelines are set there needs to be some consensus on the definitions of the words used in those guidelines.

 

If you need consensus to the definition of the words used in the guidelines, look no further than the accepted symbol for handicap accessible.

 

To save you the trouble of looking it up, it's a wheelchair.

Link to comment

I'd always understood, that a one star terrain cache should be wheelchair accessible; i.e accessible by reasonable paths and not at the top of a really steep hill etc.

 

I've even chatted with reviewers in the past and they have suggested certain caches were a 1.5 if this was not the case, however, I am recently told that attitudes have changed and that a 1 star terrain no longer is required to be wheelchair accessible. :mellow:

 

Is this really true?

 

No. Some attitudes may have changed but wheelchairs are about like they were before and the definition of 1 star terrain being wheelchair accessable hasn't.

Link to comment

Maybe I'm missing something, but to me Handicapped Accessible and Wheelchair Accessible are not the same thing, so some with a handicap could do a cache that is not wheelchair accessible, while someone in a wheelchair might be able to do a cache that someone else with a different handicap might not be able to do. Perhaps before guidelines are set there needs to be some consensus on the definitions of the words used in those guidelines.

 

1 start terrain = wheel chair assessable. That is the concencus.

 

As you note that's different than all the shades of abilities that people have. Some folks with a heart condition can do amazing things in very short bursts but they won't be walking 2 miles down a wheel chair assessable trail.

Link to comment

I'd always understood, that a one star terrain cache should be wheelchair accessible; i.e accessible by reasonable paths and not at the top of a really steep hill etc.

 

I've even chatted with reviewers in the past and they have suggested certain caches were a 1.5 if this was not the case, however, I am recently told that attitudes have changed and that a 1 star terrain no longer is required to be wheelchair accessible. :mellow:

 

Is this really true?

 

No. Some attitudes may have changed but wheelchairs are about like they were before and the definition of 1 star terrain being wheelchair accessable hasn't.

 

Actually your response is incorrect in that there is no requirement for it to be a one star. Lets not muddy the waters by making it sound like there are set rules regarding this. Again, this is not a reviewers issue.

 

More correctly is that it is generally accepted among geocachers is that 1 star is set aside to be wheelchair acceptable and as a result is expected to be such when someone goes out. As a common courtesy you should consider this when placing a cache as it is inconsiderate to do otherwise.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...