Terrain and Difficulty Ratings

[MagickalElves]

I found it quite difficult rating the difficulty and terrain of my first geocache I hid. Do you think it would be a good idea if people logging their finds could rate these in their logs and the average of these finder ratings could automatically update the overall geocache rating?

[+dfx]

try this first: http://www.clayjar.com/gcrs/

 

asking for feedback is always a good idea, but take it with a grain of salt

 

automatically re-rating a cache based on visitor ratings is a bad idea though, IMO.

Edited May 11, 2010 by dfx

[+briansnat]

Here are the accepted definitions:

 

Difficulty rating:

* Easy. In plain sight or can be found in a few minutes of searching.

** Average. The average cache hunter would be able to find this in less than 30 minutes of hunting.

*** Challenging. An experienced cache hunter will find this challenging, and it could take up a good portion of an afternoon.

**** Difficult. A real challenge for the experienced cache hunter - may require special skills or knowledge, or in-depth preparation to find. May require multiple days / trips to complete.

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

 

Terrain rating:

* Handicapped accessible. (Terrain is likely to be paved, is relatively flat, and less than a 1/2 mile hike is required.)

** Suitable for small children. (Terrain is generally along marked trails, there are no steep elevation changes or heavy overgrowth. Less than a 2 mile hike required.)

*** Not suitable for small children. (The average adult or older child should be OK depending on physical condition. Terrain is likely off-trail. May have one or more of the following: some overgrowth, some steep elevation changes, or more than a 2 mile hike.)

**** Experienced outdoor enthusiasts only. (Terrain is probably off-trail. Will have one or more of the following: very heavy overgrowth, very steep elevation (requiring use of hands), or more than a 10 mile hike. May require an overnight stay.)

***** Requires specialized equipment and knowledge or experience, (boat, 4WD, rock climbing, SCUBA, etc) or is otherwise extremely difficult.

Edited May 11, 2010 by briansnat

[+Vater_Araignee]

I have spotted caches on the map in areas I know very well and consider them completely undeserving of of a level 5 without having to go there. A half mile bushwhack according to my sensibilities is not a 5.

 

As for difficulty.

Under 4 star the "May require multiple days / trips to complete." needs to be rewarded so that distances and search time wont get confused with it.

5 star outright needs "or physical" removed from it and "find cache" should be "sign log".

Finding the cache location and finding but not being able retrieve & sign the log are two different things.

 

Basically letting finders rate T&D will render it even more meaningless.

Heck I would bet that to many would use it as a rating system and skew the results in an attempt to make people ignore the cache.

[+briansnat]

I have spotted caches on the map in areas I know very well and consider them completely undeserving of of a level 5 without having to go there. A half mile bushwhack according to my sensibilities is not a 5.

 

As for difficulty.

Under 4 star the "May require multiple days / trips to complete." needs to be rewarded so that distances and search time wont get confused with it.

5 star outright needs "or physical" removed from it and "find cache" should be "sign log".

Finding the cache location and finding but not being able retrieve & sign the log are two different things.

 

Basically letting finders rate T&D will render it even more meaningless.

Heck I would bet that to many would use it as a rating system and skew the results in an attempt to make people ignore the cache.

 

I think search time is a big part of difficulty. Otherwise I agree that it could have been word-smithed better. Most of us weren't around when this was hashed out here, but it's what we have.

 

Geocaching has grown in ways that Markwell, Clayjar and the others who came up with this probably never imagined at the time, nor did they imagine the ways that people would dissect every word to justify their interpretation of the ratings.

 

I think what people need to do is look at the spirit of the ratings. What did they mean at the time? I'm sure when they talked about specialized equipment in the 5 star terrain category they were thinking SCUBA gear, kayaks and rock climbing equipment, not the kind of stuff you could find in the local hardware store.

 

They refer to the "average geocacher", the definition of which has probably changed significantly since this was created. Back then the average geocacher probably had 10-20 finds. Now 1,000 - 2,000 is common.

[GOF and Bacall]

Basically letting finders rate T&D will render it even more meaningless.

Heck I would bet that to many would use it as a rating system and skew the results in an attempt to make people ignore the cache.

 

I don't think those in favor of a rating system are looking for a way to make others ignore a cache. They just want a better way to search for the cream of the crop.

[+Chokecherry]

I could see how petty squabbles could lead to manipulation of the cache rating.

 

However, I've seen some ratings that were not quite accurate (too low usually is what I see). And for me it really sucks to get my parents all excited that I found a cache they should be able to physically get to only to find out the cache owner lowballed the terrain. I think an average of what other people feel the cache should be would provide me some useful information so I don't have to get my parents all excited to go somewhere and then deal with the let down of having to apologize for a bad terrain rating.

[+mazeophobic]

I have a question on the terrain rating, about the 2 mile hike. Is that one way or round trip? That has never been very clear to me. I am going to be doing a few hides that are about a 3-3.5 miles round trip hike from the parking lot. They are along a hard pack trail, no overgrowth, the only issue is the distance. Just wondering if that would be a 2 or 3? Maybe I'll just call make them 2.5 and be done with it.

Edited May 11, 2010 by mazeophobic

[+Vater_Araignee]

Basically letting finders rate T&D will render it even more meaningless.

Heck I would bet that to many would use it as a rating system and skew the results in an attempt to make people ignore the cache.

 

I don't think those in favor of a rating system are looking for a way to make others ignore a cache. They just want a better way to search for the cream of the crop.

That is not what I said, nor implied. Note the third line in my signature.

I'm saying Dishonest Dave comes along, Finds the 1/1 cache, hates it so applies a finder correction of 5/5.

Now you have a 3/3 that was correctly rated at 1/1 and it is getting filtered out by a large portion of differently abled because they are filtering out T 2.5+.

Maybe a recommendation averaging system for T&D that only the CO can see.

I know that if I come up to a LPC that is rated at 3/3 then...

1. Assume the CO is an idiot.

2. Refuse to log it.

3. Start adding that CO's caches to my ignore list.

4. Give it an automatic 1 rating in GC vote.

5. Fight the urge to rate all the CO's caches as 1.

 

Allowing users to change a CO's T&D would also skew people T&D grid.

Could you just imagine going on a trip with the purpose of getting the last 6 caches to fill the grid then you come home log the caches, get your new myfinds, run the check and find out that you need 8 more caches than when you left? Sure it can happen now but it would be a lot more likely to happen with finder correction.

[+brslk]

I agree with everyone! But here is my dilemma and I'm sure I am not the only one.

 

I live in a city of a million people...

I live downtown in that city.

I live in a 1000 square foot condo on the 15th floor.

I drive a small SUV.

 

A ladder is not common to me or the people I know.

Even if it was... it would not fit in my car.

Sure... i might be able to borrow a 20ft ladder from someone (a ridiculous idea)

but why would I ?

and how would I get it to the cache?

 

A ridiculously long ladder or canoe.. Kayak or 300 ft of rope are not common things.

 

I have two 1000 watt generators in my girlfriends garage... does that mean everyone should?

 

They (one does) get much more use than a 20ft ladder.

 

I have to disagree with you Brian.. but if you ever need to borrow a generator...

[+The Blorenges]

As a general observation, from here in UK, I see a lot of very new geocachers over-rate the Terrain rating of their new cache. If they've only ever found 10 caches they may not realise that there are caches where you have to hike up mountain sides for a few hours, or abseil down cliffs, SCUBA dive into a lake or crawl into caves etc. The fact that you have to scrabble over a bit of an uphill incline, waist deep in ferns for 5 minutes does not equate to a 5*T.

 

MrsB

Edited May 12, 2010 by The Blorenges

[+keehotee]

As a general observation, from here in UK, I see a lot of very new geocachers over-rate the Terrain rating of their new cache. If they've only ever found 10 caches they may not realise that there are caches where you have to hike up mountain sides for a few hours, or abseil down cliffs, SCUBA dive into a lake or crawl into caves etc. The fact that you have to scrabble over a bit of an uphill incline, waist deep in ferns for 5 minutes does not equate to a 5*T.

 

MrsB

 

I agree - and wellies and torches shouldn't count as specialist equipment either !!

[GOF and Bacall]

Basically letting finders rate T&D will render it even more meaningless.

Heck I would bet that to many would use it as a rating system and skew the results in an attempt to make people ignore the cache.

 

I don't think those in favor of a rating system are looking for a way to make others ignore a cache. They just want a better way to search for the cream of the crop.

That is not what I said, nor implied. Note the third line in my signature.

I'm saying Dishonest Dave comes along, Finds the 1/1 cache, hates it so applies a finder correction of 5/5.

Now you have a 3/3 that was correctly rated at 1/1 and it is getting filtered out by a large portion of differently abled because they are filtering out T 2.5+.

Maybe a recommendation averaging system for T&D that only the CO can see.

I know that if I come up to a LPC that is rated at 3/3 then...

1. Assume the CO is an idiot.

2. Refuse to log it.

3. Start adding that CO's caches to my ignore list.

4. Give it an automatic 1 rating in GC vote.

5. Fight the urge to rate all the CO's caches as 1.

 

Allowing users to change a CO's T&D would also skew people T&D grid.

Could you just imagine going on a trip with the purpose of getting the last 6 caches to fill the grid then you come home log the caches, get your new myfinds, run the check and find out that you need 8 more caches than when you left? Sure it can happen now but it would be a lot more likely to happen with finder correction.

 

Thanks for the clarification.

[+Ambrosia]

I'm still in the early 2002, Washington State mindset. Since most of the geocachers back then were outdoors people who already owned their own gps and were used to hiking, a lot of us rated our terrain pretty low. A lot of us still do.

 

I own a 3 (physical) stage, 4 mile hiking cache up in the boonies, that I rated a 2* T, in mid 2002. The trail is mostly hard packed dirt, that mildly goes up and down and has an occasional tree root/rock here and there. Parts of it has drop offs nearby to a fast river/creek. But, we took our 5 and 8 year old with us when we placed it, and they had no problems with the terrain, and neither did we. I couldn't bring myself to rate it higher, even though clayjar said that anything over 2 miles should be a 3*.

 

But I do realize that nowadays this may bother some people, so I've clearly stated at the top of the cache page what the distance, time and terrain expectations are.

Edited May 12, 2010 by Ambrosia

[+Fncnca]

As a general observation, from here in UK, I see a lot of very new geocachers over-rate the Terrain rating of their new cache. If they've only ever found 10 caches they may not realise that there are caches where you have to hike up mountain sides for a few hours, or abseil down cliffs, SCUBA dive into a lake or crawl into caves etc. The fact that you have to scrabble over a bit of an uphill incline, waist deep in ferns for 5 minutes does not equate to a 5*T.

 

MrsB

 

Here in south Texas, I see exactly the opposite. New Cachers/COs are under rating their hides. It may be "easy" for the hider, but a lot of people will not be able to get there.

I don't really concern myself with the "D" rating, but the "T" rating is very important I beleive.

[+Chokecherry]

I don't think the CO's terrain rating should be changed but an extra spot where it averages what finders believe it should be rated would be helpful to me. Like they do on most shopping websites these days. Individuals as part of their log could give a rating and then just have a spot where it averages. The original rating stays intact.

[RJHT]

I recently placed a cache and gave it the rating 3.5/5 because I thought it was hard but after acouple of friends spent over 10hours in multiple trips I upped the rating to 5/5 (they have only done step one)

 

Sometimes you have to change the rating after talking to visitors to the cache but varies from case to case I guess...

 

btw the cache is GC26C3G - Crazy by me and ninjatummen

[+briansnat]

I'm still in the early 2002, Washington State mindset. Since most of the geocachers back then were outdoors people who already owned their own gps and were used to hiking, a lot of us rated our terrain pretty low. A lot of us still do.

 

I own a 3 (physical) stage, 4 mile hiking cache up in the boonies, that I rated a 2* T, in mid 2002. The trail is mostly hard packed dirt, that mildly goes up and down and has an occasional tree root/rock here and there. Parts of it has drop offs nearby to a fast river/creek. But, we took our 5 and 8 year old with us when we placed it, and they had no problems with the terrain, and neither did we. I couldn't bring myself to rate it higher, even though clayjar said that anything over 2 miles should be a 3*.

 

But I do realize that nowadays this may bother some people, so I've clearly stated at the top of the cache page what the distance, time and terrain expectations are.

 

Geocaching had the same sort of beginning in NJ and ratings tend to be lower than what I see elsewhere. I've seen 4 and 5 star terrain elsewhere that would merit a 2.5 here. And whenever I receive a complaint about my terrain ratings it's usually from out of staters complaining that the rating it way too low.

 

I do try to follow the Clayjar definitions in my earlier post but may tweak it a half star either way, so I don't know what the others are using.

[+Isonzo Karst]

It can be difficult to correctly rate difficulty on your own hides. Hey, you know exactly where they are! and probably put them in "the place" where it seemed a cache should go..... those ratings can be adjusted after the cache has been out, based on finder's logs.

 

I rate following Clayjar pretty closely on terrain ratings.

 

At my very first event I learned that some of my caches could not be hunted by locals who could not climb gates (climbing pipe gates at the hinge end being the access on quite a few properties here). Cachers with knee and hip replacements and other mobility issues just not up to those climbs. (note, we were the youngest in attendence, in our early 50s, I'd guess that the average age of attendees was mid to late 60s).

 

I left the terrain ratings alone, at 2, but mention the gate climb in the Short Description. I could have rated those 4 (climb using hands) but that seems extreme for climbing a pipe gate, then walking on flat, overgrown but somewhat maintained trails.

 

In this area, rating those caches at 4, for the local "average geocacher", might not be out of line.

[+IdahoRenegade]

I need some advice on this too. I am placing some caches on some of our ATV routes. Certainly all of these are accessable by hiking, but it would be a LONG hike. Yet the ATV trail might be pretty easy, and the actual hiking from the ATV trail to the cache may be easy. By the standard of "specialized equipment required" these would all be highly rated for terrain. Is this appropriate, or should I just make a note in the description that ATV/dirt bike is required/suggested?

Edited May 12, 2010 by IdahoRenegade

[+bflentje]

I agree with everyone! But here is my dilemma and I'm sure I am not the only one.

 

I live in a city of a million people...

I live downtown in that city.

I live in a 1000 square foot condo on the 15th floor.

I drive a small SUV.

 

A ladder is not common to me or the people I know.

Even if it was... it would not fit in my car.

Sure... i might be able to borrow a 20ft ladder from someone (a ridiculous idea)

but why would I ?

and how would I get it to the cache?

 

A ridiculously long ladder or canoe.. Kayak or 300 ft of rope are not common things.

 

I have two 1000 watt generators in my girlfriends garage... does that mean everyone should?

 

They (one does) get much more use than a 20ft ladder.

 

I have to disagree with you Brian.. but if you ever need to borrow a generator...

 

While I own four ladders living in the suburbs, I would consider a ladder special equipment because in geocaching terms, a ladder is not conducive to an every day search. A bicycle however, would be. I own three of them.

[+Chokecherry]

I need some advice on this too. I am placing some caches on some of our ATV routes. Certainly all of these are accessable by hiking, but it would be a LONG hike. Yet the ATV trail might be pretty easy, and the actual hiking from the ATV trail to the cache may be easy. By the standard of "specialized equipment required" these would all be highly rated for terrain. Is this appropriate, or should I just make a note in the description that ATV/dirt bike is required/suggested?

 

Here is the knowledge book page on difficulty/terrain ratings:

 

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?p....page&id=82

 

You will see that distance of hike is covered in there as an and/or situation.

 

Tons of caches are hidden here on ATV trails. It is not assumed you need an ATV to get to them but rather that you'll hike. And then most people will use the attribute to indicate that ATV's are allowed at them. I know of a couple that say they're not necessary but make the trip easier in the description as well. But when rating it rate it on the distance of the hike required to get to it.

[+briansnat]

I agree with everyone! But here is my dilemma and I'm sure I am not the only one.

 

I live in a city of a million people...

I live downtown in that city.

I live in a 1000 square foot condo on the 15th floor.

I drive a small SUV.

 

A ladder is not common to me or the people I know.

Even if it was... it would not fit in my car.

Sure... i might be able to borrow a 20ft ladder from someone (a ridiculous idea)

but why would I ?

and how would I get it to the cache?

 

A ridiculously long ladder or canoe.. Kayak or 300 ft of rope are not common things.

 

I have two 1000 watt generators in my girlfriends garage... does that mean everyone should?

 

They (one does) get much more use than a 20ft ladder.

 

I have to disagree with you Brian.. but if you ever need to borrow a generator...

 

While I own four ladders living in the suburbs, I would consider a ladder special equipment because in geocaching terms, a ladder is not conducive to an every day search. A bicycle however, would be. I own three of them.

 

There are many items that are not part of an every day search. I've encountered caches that required screwdrivers, wrenches, flashlights and in one case, a chair or similar object to stand on. I found some caches that required a ski pole or broomstick to reach. I don't think any of that rises to the level of 5 star terrain.

 

The question isn't whether you are likely to have the required equipment with you. The question is can

it be reasonably assumed that you can obtain it AND are there specialized skills necessary to use it it?

 

I think most people have access to a ladder. If they don't own one, they can borrow one and if they can't borrow one they can rent one.

 

To a lesser exent the same could be said for climbing equipment or canoes and kayaks, but a ladder takes no specialized skill to use. The others do.

Edited May 13, 2010 by briansnat

[+bittsen]

To a lesser exent the same could be said for climbing equipment or canoes and kayaks, but a ladder takes no specialized skill to use. The others do.

 

I have never come close to dying with a kayak or canoe or climbing gear but the last time I used a 20 foot ladder I almost met my proverbial maker.

[+roziecakes]

I could see how petty squabbles could lead to manipulation of the cache rating.

 

However, I've seen some ratings that were not quite accurate (too low usually is what I see). And for me it really sucks to get my parents all excited that I found a cache they should be able to physically get to only to find out the cache owner lowballed the terrain. I think an average of what other people feel the cache should be would provide me some useful information so I don't have to get my parents all excited to go somewhere and then deal with the let down of having to apologize for a bad terrain rating.

 

This is a good point. I've gotten in the habit, since I personally know a lot of the local geocachers and know what physical shape they are in, I adjust my thinking about their terrain rating based on the person. "Oh so-and-so hid this, it's not really a terrain 3, it's really a 1.5, or OH, that guy does A LOT of hiking, his terrain 2 is really a terrain 4, etc etc.

 

I think there are just too many exceptions to the rule, and diff/terrain ratings are subjective based on who is placing them, so it will be somewhat common to find them off by your standards. As someone who is 'getting into shape.' I am sometimes disappointed that a cache listed as terrain 2 will turn out to be something impossible for me to get to... for now

[+redsox_mark]

I agree the ratings are highly subjective, and are influenced by the experience of the cache owner, as well as regional factors. An average terrain 4 cache here in the south of England, where we have hills but not mountains, is likely different from that in the Rocky Mountains. Some of the guidelines are specific - e.g. "greater than 2 mile hike", but many are open to interpretation. I like getting exercise and climbing hills. The other day I found a terrain 4 cache, where the walk to it was nearly level, except the last 30 feet were up a very steep bank. One of the criteria for terrain 4 is "very steep elevation (requiring use of hands)", and I did need to use my hands... but only for 30 feet... I was disappointed as I wanted more of a physical challenge. But I can see how the CO came up with that rating.

[+Chokecherry]

I agree with everyone! But here is my dilemma and I'm sure I am not the only one.

 

I live in a city of a million people...

I live downtown in that city.

I live in a 1000 square foot condo on the 15th floor.

I drive a small SUV.

 

A ladder is not common to me or the people I know.

Even if it was... it would not fit in my car.

Sure... i might be able to borrow a 20ft ladder from someone (a ridiculous idea)

but why would I ?

and how would I get it to the cache?

 

A ridiculously long ladder or canoe.. Kayak or 300 ft of rope are not common things.

 

I have two 1000 watt generators in my girlfriends garage... does that mean everyone should?

 

They (one does) get much more use than a 20ft ladder.

 

I have to disagree with you Brian.. but if you ever need to borrow a generator...

 

While I own four ladders living in the suburbs, I would consider a ladder special equipment because in geocaching terms, a ladder is not conducive to an every day search. A bicycle however, would be. I own three of them.

 

There are many items that are not part of an every day search. I've encountered caches that required screwdrivers, wrenches, flashlights and in one case, a chair or similar object to stand on. I found some caches that required a ski pole or broomstick to reach. I don't think any of that rises to the level of 5 star terrain.

 

The question isn't whether you are likely to have the required equipment with you. The question is can

it be reasonably assumed that you can obtain it AND are there specialized skills necessary to use it it?

 

I think most people have access to a ladder. If they don't own one, they can borrow one and if they can't borrow one they can rent one.

 

To a lesser exent the same could be said for climbing equipment or canoes and kayaks, but a ladder takes no specialized skill to use. The others do.

 

Again for a 5 star difficulty rating the guideline in the knowledge book doesn't get into if you can obtain said equipment or if a reasonable person owns it. The guideline is simply if that special equipment is needed to get the cache. End of story. There's very little room in the guidelines to spread it out for people's personal shopping/ownership habits. The guidelines does not say, "5 star is only for equipment that a reasonable person does not own or cannot obtain"

[+redsox_mark]

Again for a 5 star difficulty rating the guideline in the knowledge book doesn't get into if you can obtain said equipment or if a reasonable person owns it. The guideline is simply if that special equipment is needed to get the cache. End of story. There's very little room in the guidelines to spread it out for people's personal shopping/ownership habits. The guidelines does not say, "5 star is only for equipment that a reasonable person does not own or cannot obtain"

 

True, though I think that how common/available the equipment is can be part of what makes it "specialized" (and that will be open to individual interpretation).

 

A screwdriver probably isn't special equipment to most people; a specific screwdriver which you can only purchase in Tibet might be.