Urban Caching Rating Scale

[+fats277]

It seems that the criteria for the rating scale, which is great for nature caching, doesn't seem to extend well to the urban environment.

 

Has anyone created a guide for the 1-5 for urban caches?

 

I'm asking b/c I see some 3s and 4s around here that don't deserve that rating. I'm not faulting the hider, but it would be good to approach some re-rating w/ a measuring stick vs. just saying "Dude, that's not a 4!"

 

Thank you for your continued attention to this matter, and please visit Brooklyn and my latest hides:

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.aspx?u=fats277

 

F277

[+briansnat]

There is no reason the current difficulty scale can't be used for urban settings. In fact it is by many. Difficulty is difficulty whether it is in Central Park, Adirondack park or Park 'n Park. The setting potentially has little bearing on how hard a cache is to find.

 

Though the terrain ratings mention things like hikes, rock climbing, trails and overgrowth, those things also apply to urban caching to an extent. No overgrowth and no rock climbing involved means a lower terrain rating.

 

The problem is that people don't use the current rating system at all and come up with ratings that are unreasonable.

[+fats277]

Urban caching is alleyways, street signs, lots of people, and usually flat ground.

 

There are different criteria for nature and urban criteria, and mutual criteria take on different meanings. Does a sharp decline in a rocky trail and encountering an abandoned homeless camp rate the same thing? I particularly disagree with this statement:

 

No overgrowth and no rock climbing involved means a lower terrain rating.

 

That's true with respect to the nature caching rating system, but becomes invalid when it's a real urban cache. A similar idea is w/ temperature - it's why we have Fahrenheit and Kelvin to describe different sets of temperature.

 

What if the cache is in the middle of a median of a crowded intersection? The streetlights and security cameras are there to protect you, making it safe to walk but hard to find a cache.

 

I'll think on this, and publish my rating system for urban caches, and then hide it in an abandoned building where no one can find it.

 

Thanks.

 

 

 

There is no reason the current difficulty scale can't be used for urban settings. In fact it is by many. Difficulty is difficulty whether it is in Central Park, Adirondack park or Park 'n Park. The setting potentially has little bearing on how hard a cache is to find.

 

Though the terrain ratings mention things like hikes, rock climbing, trails and overgrowth, those things also apply to urban caching to an extent. No overgrowth and no rock climbing involved means a lower terrain rating.

 

The problem is that people don't use the current rating system at all and come up with ratings that are unreasonable.

[+briansnat]

 

What if the cache is in the middle of a median of a crowded intersection? The streetlights and security cameras are there to protect you, making it safe to walk but hard to find a cache.

 

Then you increase the difficulty level a notch. It really wouldn't affect the terrain.

[+brian b]

I have to concur with BS. Terrain ratings and Difficulty ratings should reflect their respective qualities. If that cache is in the middle of a median at a crowded intersection, the terrain rating should most likely be low, but the difficulty be high (but I would also question the validity of such cache, and most likely place it on my ignore list).

 

I think fats277 summed it up perfectly when it was stated that "The streetlights and security cameras are there to protect you, making it safe to walk but hard to find a cache."; hence, the difficulty (not the terrain) ought to be raised.

[+Packanack]

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

 

What is the issue ?

Edited February 24, 2010 by Packanack

[+brian b]

Nice site, John. Thanks.

[+fats277]

Wow - you're all a bit condescending, huh?

 

The point is made that the current 1-5 system works for the types of caching you do. And I don't doubt or debate that. Looking past your editorializing, my feeling still is that you all don't experience the same things we do here in a big city where there are different burdens in deciding how to rate a cache, which causes some confusion, and out of wack ratings.

 

That said, it would be useful to urban cachers to have similar but transposed guidelines in coming to a 1-5/1-5 rating for their cache.

 

There are very few brambles, elevation changes, etc w/ urban caching - why not have an alternate set that speaks to the criteria that make urban caches difficult/easy/fun/hard/so forth.

 

I'd like to close this discussion now - I don't think you get it - or aren't familiar with what I'm talking about, so I'm not getting any benefit here.

[+fats277]

Oh - and I definitely endorse you ignoring urban caches:

 

You said:

 

But I would also question the validity of such cache, and most likely place it on my ignore list

 

I'm guessing that you upstaters would stick out like a sore thumb and get the cache plundered

[+buttaskotch]

Fats! you are back!!!

Don't get heated by the lack of understanding of the point you are trying to get to.

The terrain shouldn't be affected, but difficulty should definitely be cranked way up. Especially due to the lack of a good lock on GPSr. Looking forward to seeing new crafty hides from you in the hood!

Cheers!

[+Harry Dolphin]

Misrated caches are misrated caches whether they be urban or suburban or rural. Terrain is terrain. Difficulty is subjective. I don't see why or how urban caching is different. (I do wonder what the people watching the security cameras thought of me carrying my caching partner down the street on my shoulders!) Yes. I have done quite a bit of urban caching. 12% of my finds are in New York City.

What I find to be a major problem there is that some caches are not maintained. Hide a cache. When it disappears quickly: "Oh, Well. Cannot be bothered with maintenance." That is definitely against geocaching maintenance guidelines.

[+Packanack]

I love New York, I love New Yorkers, I went to school in New York City for 4 years, but New Yorkers tend to view the world parochially. (They forget that it is not all about them, occassionally.) Urban areas exist west of the Hudson, and special rating systems for urban caches should not be addressed to the Mid Atlantic forum, but to the Groundspeak forum, where tptb can acually , and perhaps make the change, although I see no real need for a change.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/map/default.aspx...p;lng=-87.63892

[+ConkDonk]

Being a new cacher and in a relatively suburban area, I've seen a blend of my ~100 caches.

 

Some are in highly trafficked areas with flat ground / pavement, and some are in parks / preserves that are quite wooded and densely forested.

 

I do agree with the thread starter, that maybe a slightly different system could be used for strictly urban caches. Personally I will be in Manhattan during the week of Apr 5th for some training courses during which I hope to get at least a few caches done. I'm looking forward to experiencing Manhattan caching in this aspect.

 

But the current rating system does offer a range of 1-5 with halves. There have been some caches I've found that I was screaming about the difficulty level for. I once obtained a 1.5 that I thought was at LEAST a 2.5.

 

So if you feel that a cache deserves a higher rating for such things like security cameras and human traffic, up that difficulty! Terrain in this aspect is probably much lower considering the urban environment.

Edited March 7, 2010 by ConkDonk

[+fats277]

True - I didn't really look where I was posting this. Probably doesn't pertain to just the Mid-Atlantic.

 

To clarify: I'm not asking for a change, or even anything official. I came up with this thread after seeing a "3" difficulty cache in my area, disagreeing with it, and then realizing that there's no easy way for a new cacher to correctly judge an urban cache.

 

In short, this "3" cache is more of a "1". It's a magnet on a guard rail. You can walk a short distance on asphault from a main sidewalk, bend your neck slightly, and find it. Not hard at all.

 

Anyway, like I said, I'm over this idea anyway. Topic closed. Just reading the initial responses I got made me realize I'm dealing with folks with so much caching expertise and brilliance that I'm clearly out of my MFing league.

 

If anyone wants to do some urban caching, message me - I've got a bunch of unpublished caches y'all might find fun.

 

FATS277

 

Inaugural member of the Urban Caching Hall of Fame (2010 Inductee)

2001 Mid Atlantic Co-Geocacher of the Year (were you even caching then?)

2008 Comeback GeoCacher of the Year

2009 Comeback GeoCacher of the Year

 

I love New York, I love New Yorkers, I went to school in New York City for 4 years, but New Yorkers tend to view the world parochially. (They forget that it is not all about them, occassionally.) Urban areas exist west of the Hudson, and special rating systems for urban caches should not be addressed to the Mid Atlantic forum, but to the Groundspeak forum, where tptb can acually , and perhaps make the change, although I see no real need for a change.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/map/default.aspx...p;lng=-87.63892

[+Packanack]

Were coming to Brooklyn real soon, our plan de jur is to park in Manhattan, ride the bikeway south around the Battery, up and over the Brookly Bridge and to ride to find the Promenade. Seeing the Brooklyn Promenade is one of those life list things, as is the Brooklyn Bridge, but we have done that several times.

[+fats277]

Totally worth the trip. Enjoy.

 

Were coming to Brooklyn real soon, our plan de jur is to park in Manhattan, ride the bikeway south around the Battery, up and over the Brookly Bridge and to ride to find the Promenade. Seeing the Brooklyn Promenade is one of those life list things, as is the Brooklyn Bridge, but we have done that several times.

[Mr.Yuck]

True - I didn't really look where I was posting this. Probably doesn't pertain to just the Mid-Atlantic.

 

To clarify: I'm not asking for a change, or even anything official. I came up with this thread after seeing a "3" difficulty cache in my area, disagreeing with it, and then realizing that there's no easy way for a new cacher to correctly judge an urban cache.

 

In short, this "3" cache is more of a "1". It's a magnet on a guard rail. You can walk a short distance on asphault from a main sidewalk, bend your neck slightly, and find it. Not hard at all.

 

Anyway, like I said, I'm over this idea anyway. Topic closed. Just reading the initial responses I got made me realize I'm dealing with folks with so much caching expertise and brilliance that I'm clearly out of my MFing league.

 

If anyone wants to do some urban caching, message me - I've got a bunch of unpublished caches y'all might find fun.

 

FATS277

 

Inaugural member of the Urban Caching Hall of Fame (2010 Inductee)

2001 Mid Atlantic Co-Geocacher of the Year (were you even caching then?)

2008 Comeback GeoCacher of the Year

2009 Comeback GeoCacher of the Year

 

 

Is that the same comittee that keeps naming BrianSnat U.S. Geocacher of the year, and Geocacher of the decade?

 

What do you mean unpublished caches? We're they rejected by Geocaching.com? There are other websites where you can list them.

[+fats277]

True - I didn't really look where I was posting this. Probably doesn't pertain to just the Mid-Atlantic.

 

To clarify: I'm not asking for a change, or even anything official. I came up with this thread after seeing a "3" difficulty cache in my area, disagreeing with it, and then realizing that there's no easy way for a new cacher to correctly judge an urban cache.

 

In short, this "3" cache is more of a "1". It's a magnet on a guard rail. You can walk a short distance on asphault from a main sidewalk, bend your neck slightly, and find it. Not hard at all.

 

Anyway, like I said, I'm over this idea anyway. Topic closed. Just reading the initial responses I got made me realize I'm dealing with folks with so much caching expertise and brilliance that I'm clearly out of my MFing league.

 

If anyone wants to do some urban caching, message me - I've got a bunch of unpublished caches y'all might find fun.

 

FATS277

 

Inaugural member of the Urban Caching Hall of Fame (2010 Inductee)

2001 Mid Atlantic Co-Geocacher of the Year (were you even caching then?)

2008 Comeback GeoCacher of the Year

2009 Comeback GeoCacher of the Year

 

 

Is that the same comittee that keeps naming BrianSnat U.S. Geocacher of the year, and Geocacher of the decade?

 

What do you mean unpublished caches? We're they rejected by Geocaching.com? There are other websites where you can list them.

 

I just figured that dude named himself all that stuff, so I went ahead and gave myself some sweet-a** awards too.

 

I listed one on TerraCaching. I think I might just post em on Twitter or something moving forward.

[+briansnat]

I just figured that dude named himself all that stuff, so I went ahead and gave myself some sweet-a** awards too.

 

The awards were legit and bestowed on me by the Society of US Geocaching Enthusiasts (SOUSGE)

[+Coldgears]

I think that they shouldn't change anything. It is fine the way it is.

 

Coldgears

 

2002 Best Geocacher In-Training.

2003 Second Best Geo-hider. Creative Hides.

2005 Best designer of Geocaching Merchandise.

2006 Most LPC's found on the east coast.

2007 Best urban cache to nature cache ratio. (Categorized by not being in the woods.)

2008 Geocacher of the year. (nominated in a poll and not by SOUSGE which is rigged)

2010 The best comeback geocacher of the year.

 

These awards are legit and bestowed on me by the Federal bureau of Geocaching activities. (FBGA)

 

EDIT: just realized briansnot was being serious. 0_o

Edited April 14, 2010 by Coldgears

[+buttaskotch]

Fats, have been thinking a lot about the thread you opened. Mostly, since I have been finding caches lately that are technically good caches with decent ratings but not of high caliber (IMO).

I think more to the point, instead of changing things for urban caches such as those in our area, there should be a local Admin that understands the area. Reason I say local is that many times with cache submissions I get weird questions about my chosen area that instantaneously tells me that the person resides no where near our area or even comes down this way or understands our (admittedly, NY-centric) view of things in our big, bad city.

 

Anyways, as I said glad to see you are back and I found Shakedown, truly evil!