Jump to content

Difficulty & Terrain Ratings


Recommended Posts

I was giving some thought on how to rate a cache I'm going to put out and I began to start to have mixed feelings on how to rate it. So I thought I would get some other view points on the matter.

 

First off the example I'm going to give is not what I plan to do however the principle behind it would still apply, now that being said here is a scenario for you:

 

Lets say a cache takes you down a flat trail no elevation changes or anything like that, just a nice easy short walk but once at GZ you notice that it is high in a tree. Now the fact that it is in a tree, should it effect the terrain rating or the difficulty rating?

 

I have always felt that it being in a tree should impact the terrain rating but now I am having second thoughts. As I was looking at Groundspeak's guidelines for a 5 star difficulty rating and it says the following :

 

***** Extreme. A serious mental or physical challenge. Requires specialized knowledge, skills, or equipment to find cache.

 

I am starting to think that climbing a tree would fall under that physical challenge aspect of the rating or perhaps the fact that some would need a ladder would fit the specialized equipment statement.

 

I would love to hear your thoughts on the matter. Thanks.

Link to comment

To me -

 

terrain is what you have to overcome to get to Ground Zero (or within the error zone anyway (30 to 50 feet).

 

difficulty is what I need to overcome (mental physical etc) to actually locate and retrieve the cache once I have arrived.

that's how i understand it also, with the addition that challenges related to figuring out where to go next (as is the case with puzzle caches and multis) add to the difficulty and not the terrain, and that "getting to GZ" also applies vertically, that is if the cache is up a tree, then the difficulty of getting there adds to the terrain, not the difficulty.

Link to comment

Just my .02

 

I believe that difficulty is determined by how hard you have to search to find the cache. I also believe that terrain is getting close to the cache. Therefore the tree would be considered part of the terrain, and not the difficulty. That is just my opinion though. If it was me I would just contact a local reviewer and ask them. They would be of better help in determining it.

Link to comment

To me -

 

terrain is what you have to overcome to get to Ground Zero (or within the error zone anyway (30 to 50 feet).

 

difficulty is what I need to overcome (mental physical etc) to actually locate and retrieve the cache once I have arrived.

 

I would concur with the above assessment, and as it applies to the specific issue of tree climbing where some may have a mental as well as physical challenge I would consider the following-

 

You (OP) said-high in a tree.

In my book:

10-25' not really that extreme

26-50' getting there

>50' up a tree that requires a free climb-now you are getting extreme and should add a * or two to the ratings.

Link to comment

To me -

 

terrain is what you have to overcome to get to Ground Zero (or within the error zone anyway (30 to 50 feet).

 

difficulty is what I need to overcome (mental physical etc) to actually locate and retrieve the cache once I have arrived.

 

I would concur with the above assessment, and as it applies to the specific issue of tree climbing where some may have a mental as well as physical challenge I would consider the following-

 

You (OP) said-high in a tree.

In my book:

10-25' not really that extreme

26-50' getting there

>50' up a tree that requires a free climb-now you are getting extreme and should add a * or two to the ratings.

 

I agree that the tree is terrain, but 25 feet up a straight trunk if there are no branches would be more extreme to me than 50 feet up an evergreen tree with numerous branches to hoist yourself up on.

Link to comment

The tree is part of the terrain, not the difficulty. Same would apply if the hike was extreme but the cache is on the ground.

 

Difficulty is in reference to "finding the cache". Thus a pine cone cache in a pine tree is "more difficult" than an orange matchstick container.

 

Now, add one more twist. What if there were two caches. The first is up a hill (steep with loose shale) to the ridge, i.e a T-3 or so. The next one is 600' further along the ridge. Thus the hike from #1 to #2 is easy, a T-1.

 

How do you rate the second cache? If they are to be independant, then is each rated from the starting point (the bottom of the hill)? Or is #2 rated for the terrain from #1?

Link to comment

I would include the climbing of the tree as part of the terrain.

 

Once up there, how hard would it be to retrieve? Can I sit down and use both hands? Or do I have to hang on for dear life while getting at the log book? That part I'd put for the difficulty (plus how hard it is to spot it).

Link to comment

If you have to climb a tree and can't reach it from the ground IMO it should be a 5 for terrain. Some people may think nothing of climbing 10-25 feet in a tree, but MOST people would find anything over about 15 feet challenging. I might agree with below 15 feet being a 4 if there were thick branches to stand on. If it was something that you had to climb up a mostly straight trunk then it's a 5. For that almost everyone would need at least a rope which is a tool no matter how you look at it.

 

Why take the chance that you are underrating something. If you think it should be one of 2 ratings go with higher one. There seem to be a lot of people on here who are in great shape and want to hold everyone else to their standards. I don't believe the ratings are supposed to apply to the few, but to the many. Maybe a good rule of thumb would be to ask yourself if I took 10 random people of all ages and abilities off the street and asked them to get this for me how easy or hard would it be them? If 2 could get it easily, 4 had to work at it but managed to get it, 3 had to get equipment and 1 couldn’t get to it at all. It’s a 5. Just because you are one of the 2 who thought it was easy doesn’t mean you have the right to mislead the others.

 

I really think that we need guidelines for trees. Climbs of any kind for that matter. Somewhere I read that if you have to use your hands to get to a cache it’s a 5 (climbing a tree would require using your hands) but I’m not sure that’s an official position. Now if you want to add a handy ladder nearby… As for me even with a ladder I’m not going 40’ up a tree. If I found one that high and it was rated less than a 5 I’d be pretty angry that I wasted my time getting to it. I’d guess that there would be a lot of people who would think nothing of removing a cache that required a climb of over 25’ if it was rated lower than a 5. Me I’d be tempted to contact GROPE and let them know where it is.

Link to comment

I've seen elevated caches rated both ways. Some owners expect seekers to stay on level ground and use special equipment to retrieve the cache, and increase the difficulty rating accordingly. Others expect seekers to use special equipment to get themselves to the cache location, and increase the terrain rating accordingly.

Link to comment

 

You (OP) said-high in a tree.

In my book:

10-25' not really that extreme

26-50' getting there

>50' up a tree that requires a free climb-now you are getting extreme and should add a * or two to the ratings.

 

I sometimes visit a local rock-climbing gym. They have a blue line painted on the walls about six feet off the ground. Anyone who climbs high enough that his/her feet are above that line is required to use safety gear -- a rope, harness, and belayer.

 

If a cache is 10' up, I can reach it with my feet only a couple of feet off the ground. But at 25', I'm getting pretty uncomfortable. Over 25 feet, I, personally, am not going there without a safety harness. But that's just me. All I ask is that the cache page give me some clue as to what to expect, either in terms of terrain rating or by just specifying that it's going to require a climb.

Link to comment

I think it has been outlined well here about tree climbing stuff. It depends on the tree. I'll "climb" a tree that requires me to go a few feet off the ground at best. Anything more and my big ol' butt risks breaking branches and taking a fall.

 

I would say climbing up a tree could be the physical challenge. As mentioned before rating based on the many and not on the few physically fit people would be your better option. If Joe Average cannot reach your cache without some serious physical work up that tree or special equipment then I would say there you go.

Link to comment
What could be the physical challenge mentioned in the 5 difficulty rating?

 

I've read of a cache on a sheer cliff face. Essentially a single set of coords describes a section of the cliff hundreds of feet in elevation. Apparently it's fairly obvious where you belay down that slope - equipment is definitely needed. There's your 5 terrain.

 

But now you have the added difficulty that a small cache is somewhere on that cliff face, at some level vertically, and somewhere within the usual +- 40 feet horizontally. That's a serious bit of difficulty in the find as well.

 

I've done a tree climb cache that was a 4 terrain (climb requiring use of hands)(easy climbing tree, hand and foot holds right where needed), but only a 1 difficulty, because the cache itself was visible from the ground. I thought it was correctly rated.

 

I've seen tree climb caches that I'd rate a 5 terrain, because I wouldn't tackle them without gear (they both had 4 ratings) and one of them was rated a 4 for difficulty, because it was a micro cache. Not visible until you found it, and with a lot of tree to hunt.

Link to comment

I believe that difficulty is determined by how hard you have to search to find the cache. I also believe that terrain is getting close to the cache. Therefore the tree would be considered part of the terrain, and not the difficulty.

This is how I rate a cache.

 

An ammo can on a post is a 1. Put that post on top of a mountain that you have to climb... and the terrain jumps to a 5.

 

Hide a cache that is hard to find on a football field.... it's a 5. Terrain is a 1.

 

So to me Difficulty is "how hard you have to search to find it" and Terrain is "how hard is it to get to the cache".

Link to comment

The tree is part of the terrain, not the difficulty. Same would apply if the hike was extreme but the cache is on the ground.

 

Difficulty is in reference to "finding the cache". Thus a pine cone cache in a pine tree is "more difficult" than an orange matchstick container.

 

Now, add one more twist. What if there were two caches. The first is up a hill (steep with loose shale) to the ridge, i.e a T-3 or so. The next one is 600' further along the ridge. Thus the hike from #1 to #2 is easy, a T-1.

 

How do you rate the second cache? If they are to be independant, then is each rated from the starting point (the bottom of the hill)? Or is #2 rated for the terrain from #1?

 

I always assume the terrain ratings are from the starting point (i.e. from the point where I have to leave my car and walk). So #2 should have a terrain level commensurate with the starting point. I would probably mark it a 3 as well, maybe a 3.5.

Link to comment

I can see most feel that climbing a tree would effect the terrain, so here is what I was tossing around : What could be the physical challenge mentioned in the 5 difficulty rating?

it could be a combined rating. a multi cache that requires to climb many trees, each one by itself maybe rated 3-4, could all add up to a combined 4.5, or a 5 if you toss in some other hazards, such as crossing bodies of water.

 

are or you asking why this particular cache you mentioned has a high difficulty rating but not a high terrain rating while being up in a tree?

Edited by dfx
Link to comment

I was giving some thought on how to rate a cache I'm going to put out and I began to start to have mixed feelings on how to rate it. So I thought I would get some other view points on the matter.

 

First off the example I'm going to give is not what I plan to do however the principle behind it would still apply, now that being said here is a scenario for you:

 

Lets say a cache takes you down a flat trail no elevation changes or anything like that, just a nice easy short walk but once at GZ you notice that it is high in a tree. Now the fact that it is in a tree, should it effect the terrain rating or the difficulty rating?

 

Let's say I walked down a flat trail with no elevation change and walked a short distance to a spot where my GPS said I'was within 20' or so from ground zero. If I checked the D/T values at that point and saw that the terrain was higher then a 2 or so I'ld look up in the tree for the cache. If the difficulty value was higher than a two I'd spend my time searching on/near the ground for a well hidden container.

Link to comment

 

Let's say I walked down a flat trail with no elevation change and walked a short distance to a spot where my GPS said I'was within 20' or so from ground zero. If I checked the D/T values at that point and saw that the terrain was higher then a 2 or so I'ld look up in the tree for the cache. If the difficulty value was higher than a two I'd spend my time searching on/near the ground for a well hidden container.

 

This is kind of my point / concern, I'm worried that if the terrain was higher than a 1 1/2 it will totally give away the cache. You will get to GZ and say "that's not a 3 terrain, oh wait a min... there it is!"

 

Secondly my wife and I are starting to use geocaching as a form of exercise and it is starting to get a little annoying when we use our 3.5 + terrain PQ and we get a 50m walk to a tree.

Link to comment

 

Let's say I walked down a flat trail with no elevation change and walked a short distance to a spot where my GPS said I'was within 20' or so from ground zero. If I checked the D/T values at that point and saw that the terrain was higher then a 2 or so I'ld look up in the tree for the cache. If the difficulty value was higher than a two I'd spend my time searching on/near the ground for a well hidden container.

 

This is kind of my point / concern, I'm worried that if the terrain was higher than a 1 1/2 it will totally give away the cache. You will get to GZ and say "that's not a 3 terrain, oh wait a min... there it is!"

 

Secondly my wife and I are starting to use geocaching as a form of exercise and it is starting to get a little annoying when we use our 3.5 + terrain PQ and we get a 50m walk to a tree.

 

 

 

 

So what you are saying is that because you want to make the difficulty higher but you can't figure out a good way to hide it where you want to put it; you want to fudge about the terrain so people don’t find it too easily?

 

fixed typo

Edited by wolfslady
Link to comment

Secondly my wife and I are starting to use geocaching as a form of exercise and it is starting to get a little annoying when we use our 3.5 + terrain PQ and we get a 50m walk to a tree.

 

I can see how that could be an issue. Maybe we need hike length attributes (round trip):

  • driveby
  • 500m-1km
  • 1-5km
  • >5km

Link to comment

To me -

 

terrain is what you have to overcome to get to Ground Zero (or within the error zone anyway (30 to 50 feet).

 

difficulty is what I need to overcome (mental physical etc) to actually locate and retrieve the cache once I have arrived.

 

For your method of determining terrain, (ignoring the second part) this would be a very high terrain rating, because ground zero would likely be IN the tree!

 

Secondly my wife and I are starting to use geocaching as a form of exercise and it is starting to get a little annoying when we use our 3.5 + terrain PQ and we get a 50m walk to a tree.

 

I can see how that could be an issue. Maybe we need hike length attributes (round trip):

  • driveby
  • 500m-1km
  • 1-5km
  • >5km

 

I am all for this idea

Edited by ADTCacheur
Link to comment

 

Let's say I walked down a flat trail with no elevation change and walked a short distance to a spot where my GPS said I'was within 20' or so from ground zero. If I checked the D/T values at that point and saw that the terrain was higher then a 2 or so I'ld look up in the tree for the cache. If the difficulty value was higher than a two I'd spend my time searching on/near the ground for a well hidden container.

 

This is kind of my point / concern, I'm worried that if the terrain was higher than a 1 1/2 it will totally give away the cache. You will get to GZ and say "that's not a 3 terrain, oh wait a min... there it is!"

 

Secondly my wife and I are starting to use geocaching as a form of exercise and it is starting to get a little annoying when we use our 3.5 + terrain PQ and we get a 50m walk to a tree.

 

 

 

 

So what you are saying is that because you want to make the difficulty higher but you can't figure out a good way to hide it where you want to put it; you want to fudge about the terrain so people don’t find it too easily?

 

fixed typo

 

Here's another point of view for your wanting to fudge the terrain rating. I take my mom with me sometimes caching. I have to have caches that are terrain rated 1-2 at the most because she has mobility issues. She takes great joy in finding and being able to reach a cache.

 

I would likely be pretty annoyed if I took my mom out caching only to find that she would have to climb a tree to reach the cache that was supposedly supposed to be a 1.5.

 

And in my limited caching experience now, including today when I was out with her, I have some really under rated caches which is really disheartening to her and then I feel pretty bad when I'm out with her because I try to design our trips so that she is able to reach the places that the caches are.

 

I think fudging those terrain ratings as a way to camouflage the cache is just a yucky idea. If there are numerous trees near by hide the cache well in one of the trees and it will still be difficult. It will still be difficult if you hid the cache well in a a single standing there but manipulating the terrain ratings is just wrong.

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...