Another observation on terrain ratings

[+Dread_Pirate_Bruce]

My buddy and I were out riding ATVs in the dessert. We found some caches. We hid some caches, so the question of terrain ratings came up. I know this has been covered before, but I felt like covering it again.

 

To get near some of the caches would take an ATV, motorcycle or jeep. A horse could do it, but it would take several hours. A very rugged hiker could probably do it. But realistically, mechanization is needed. However, once one is within 200 yards of the cache, it is pretty easy terrain. So, what is the proper terrain rating? Is it "5" because special equipment is required? Is it 1.5 because once you are using an ATV, motorcycle or jeep, it is a short, easy walk from the trail? Is it a 3.5 because that is the approximate average of 5 and 1.5?

 

BTW: the ones we hid are essentially P&Gs if you have a suitable machine.

[+narcissa]

I would base the terrain rating on what the walk is like once you arrive at the the trailhead.

 

In a case like this, what it required can't be summed up by the terrain rating, so make sure you write a good cache description and use the attributes.

[+EscapeFromFlatland]

I'd rate the terrain based off of hiking.

Most geocachers dont have vehicles that destroy the desert habitat.

[+Walts Hunting]

I'd rate the terrain based off of hiking.

Most geocachers dont have vehicles that destroy the desert habitat.

 

Sounds like you have heard from the extreme left.

 

Now from a reasonable person

 

The guidelines are clear. If you need special gear it is a 5.

[+Team Cotati]

My buddy and I were out riding ATVs in the dessert. We found some caches. We hid some caches, so the question of terrain ratings came up. I know this has been covered before, but I felt like covering it again.

 

To get near some of the caches would take an ATV, motorcycle or jeep. A horse could do it, but it would take several hours. A very rugged hiker could probably do it. But realistically, mechanization is needed. However, once one is within 200 yards of the cache, it is pretty easy terrain. So, what is the proper terrain rating? Is it "5" because special equipment is required? Is it 1.5 because once you are using an ATV, motorcycle or jeep, it is a short, easy walk from the trail? Is it a 3.5 because that is the approximate average of 5 and 1.5?

 

BTW: the ones we hid are essentially P&Gs if you have a suitable machine.

 

5

[+narcissa]

I'd rate the terrain based off of hiking.

Most geocachers dont have vehicles that destroy the desert habitat.

 

Sounds like you have heard from the extreme left.

 

Now from a reasonable person

 

The guidelines are clear. If you need special gear it is a 5.

 

If you need special gear to retrieve the cache, it's a 5.

 

Transportation to the trailhead is a different matter.

[+bittsen]

4.5

[+narcissa]

Reasonably, I need to use an airplane to get to any cache in Europe, so they should all be terrain 5.

[+dfx]

If you need special gear to retrieve the cache, it's a 5.

 

Transportation to the trailhead is a different matter.

if the trailhead is on an island, a boat would be my transportation to the trailhead. that means it would not be a 5.

[+Team Cotati]

Reasonably, I need to use an airplane to get to any cache in Europe, so they should all be terrain 5.

 

That might be true if it was about you.

 

Since it isn't, there is every possibility that it is not true.

[+Viajero Perdido]

A horse could do it, but it would take several hours.

If that's the case, any reasonably fit walker could do it in a similar time.

 

∴ No special equipment required.

∴ Not automatically "5"

 

In my neck of the woods, we have lots of mountaintop caches that are 4 or 4.5* for terrain. No, a helicopter is not "required". You walk up the frackin' mountain, and it's a heck of a lot more work than walking along an ATV track for a couple of hours.

Edited July 5, 2010 by Viajero Perdido

[+niraD]

My buddy and I were out riding ATVs in the dessert.

Yum, yum!

 

(SICNR)

 

To get near some of the caches would take an ATV, motorcycle or jeep.

If a typical geocacher would need special equipment (ATV, off-road motorcycle, 4x4, etc.), then rate it as 5-star terrain. Yes, a lot of 5-star caches are easier than 4-star caches, if you have the special equipment and know how to use it. That's just a quirk of the ClayJar rating system. However,...

A horse could do it, but it would take several hours. A very rugged hiker could probably do it.

I'd still consider a horse to be special "equipment", but if someone could park a typical passenger vehicle at a trailhead and hike to the cache, then I'd rate it based on the hike from the nearest trailhead. Even if it requires hiking more than 10 miles and an overnight stay, that's still only 4-star terrain.

 

BTW: the ones we hid are essentially P&Gs if you have a suitable machine.

That sounds like they are easy to find, which affects the difficulty rating, not the terrain rating.

[+roziecakes]

I'd rate the terrain based off of hiking.

Most geocachers dont have vehicles that destroy the desert habitat.

 

Sounds like you have heard from the extreme left.

 

Now from a reasonable person

 

The guidelines are clear. If you need special gear it is a 5.

 

I wouldn't call bramasoleiowa the extreme left, but anyhoo...

 

Yes, if you need special gear, it's a 5 terrain, even if that gear might make it really easy to get to once the person has it.

 

If it *IS* possible to hike to, just difficult for the average person, I would give it a terrain rating of a 3 or 4 depending.

 

But if someone couldn't walk, and absolutely needed another form of transport, a 5 would be it!

[+narcissa]

Base the terrain rating on what the walk is like from the most reasonable parking spot for a regular passenger vehicle. If it's mostly flat with no bushwhacking, make it a 1.5.

 

Distance is not indicated in the terrain rating. If it's a long distance, you indicate that with the appropriate attribute icon. Provide a parking waypoint, and give comprehensive instructions on the cache page.

 

If the road is legally accessible by ATVs, motorcycles, horses, etc., use the attributes to indicate that, and perhaps expand in the description (i.e. note if a permit is required, hours, etc.).

[+narcissa]

If you need special gear to retrieve the cache, it's a 5.

 

Transportation to the trailhead is a different matter.

if the trailhead is on an island, a boat would be my transportation to the trailhead. that means it would not be a 5.

 

It's pretty much universally understood at this point that boat caches are an automatic terrain 5, though I know I'm not alone in seeing that as a major flaw of the terrain rating system.

 

Are ATVs considered special equipment the way boats are? This doesn't seem to be universal with geocachers the way the boat thing is. Caches on ATV trails anywhere I've seen them (Ontario, Quebec, BC, and Arizona, off the top of my head) are rated for the difficulty in walking the trail from the nearest available parking, even though the recommended method of getting to the cache is ATV.

[+JL_HSTRE]

Distance is not indicated in the terrain rating.

 

Actually, it is:

 

1 star needs to be not only handicap accessible but also within a 1/2 mile.

2 stars needs to be within 2 miles

3 stars needs to be less than 10 miles

 

If it is over 10 miles from the nearest trailhead, that is a minimum 4 stars. If an ATV or similiar (i.e. special equipment) is recommended but not required, I would be tempted to make it 4.5 stars.

 

If the cache is easy once you get there then the Difficulty Rating can be low.

[+Team_FussyPants]

Sounds like it should be a 4.5. If it is possible to get to the cache site by hiking, then there is no special equipment required. The 4.5 rating will let the seeker know that it is the hardest rating available without needing special equipment, so they're in for a challenge.

 

Terrain 5 caches should ONLY be used if special equipment is required, such as scuba gear, climbing/repelling gear, etc.

 

Terrain ratings seem to be the rating that people have the hardest time placing on their caches. I've found terrain 4's that I've parked 80' away from in my stock Tacoma TRD, and found 3's that took me 4 hours to hike to.

[+Team Cotati]

If you need special gear to retrieve the cache, it's a 5.

 

Transportation to the trailhead is a different matter.

if the trailhead is on an island, a boat would be my transportation to the trailhead. that means it would not be a 5.

 

It's pretty much universally understood at this point that boat caches are an automatic terrain 5, though I know I'm not alone in seeing that as a major flaw of the terrain rating system.

 

Are ATVs considered special equipment the way boats are? This doesn't seem to be universal with geocachers the way the boat thing is. Caches on ATV trails anywhere I've seen them (Ontario, Quebec, BC, and Arizona, off the top of my head) are rated for the difficulty in walking the trail from the nearest available parking, even though the recommended method of getting to the cache is ATV.

 

Wait, don't tell me. Geocachers can't walk on water? Hard to believe.

Edited July 6, 2010 by Team Cotati

[+narcissa]

Distance is not indicated in the terrain rating.

 

Actually, it is:

 

1 star needs to be not only handicap accessible but also within a 1/2 mile.

2 stars needs to be within 2 miles

3 stars needs to be less than 10 miles

 

If it is over 10 miles from the nearest trailhead, that is a minimum 4 stars. If an ATV or similiar (i.e. special equipment) is recommended but not required, I would be tempted to make it 4.5 stars.

 

If the cache is easy once you get there then the Difficulty Rating can be low.

 

What's your source for this? Just curious, because this standard doesn't seem to be widely used here.

[+narcissa]

Distance is not indicated in the terrain rating.

 

Actually, it is:

 

1 star needs to be not only handicap accessible but also within a 1/2 mile.

2 stars needs to be within 2 miles

3 stars needs to be less than 10 miles

 

If it is over 10 miles from the nearest trailhead, that is a minimum 4 stars. If an ATV or similiar (i.e. special equipment) is recommended but not required, I would be tempted to make it 4.5 stars.

 

If the cache is easy once you get there then the Difficulty Rating can be low.

 

What's your source for this? Just curious, because this standard doesn't seem to be widely used here.

 

Answered my own question, hadn't looked closely at the Clayjar system before. Meh.

 

The whole terrain rating system is perhaps too simplistic, especially now that people seem to attach some sort of extraneous value to the terrain rating.

[+thedeadpirate]

Distance is not indicated in the terrain rating.

 

Actually, it is:

 

1 star needs to be not only handicap accessible but also within a 1/2 mile.

2 stars needs to be within 2 miles

3 stars needs to be less than 10 miles

 

If it is over 10 miles from the nearest trailhead, that is a minimum 4 stars. If an ATV or similiar (i.e. special equipment) is recommended but not required, I would be tempted to make it 4.5 stars.

 

If the cache is easy once you get there then the Difficulty Rating can be low.

 

What's your source for this? Just curious, because this standard doesn't seem to be widely used here.

 

Most likely ClayJar's rating sytstem.

 

• What is the length of the hike?
  
• Less than 1/2 mile
  
• 1/2 mile to 2 miles
  
• 2 miles to 10 miles
  
• Over 10 miles
  

*This is the length of the hike from the most logical parking area to the cache.

[+thedeadpirate]

especially now that people seem to attach some sort of extraneous value to the terrain rating.

 

No offense, but that argument is getting old. It really doesn't apply to this thread. The OP is trying to figure out an honest terrain to apply, not how to assign some extra value to his cache.

[+narcissa]

especially now that people seem to attach some sort of extraneous value to the terrain rating.

 

No offense, but that argument is getting old. It really doesn't apply to this thread. The OP is trying to figure out an honest terrain to apply, not how to assign some extra value to his cache.

 

People seem rather quick to assign a 4.5 or 5 terrain rating to a cache that someone could do on foot in a few hours without climbing or bushwhacking. Seems a little ridiculous.

[+fizzymagic]

Distance is not indicated in the terrain rating.

Sorry, but you are incorrect. Distance does indeed factor into the terrain rating. As it should.

[Andronicus]

...

Terrain 5 caches should ONLY be used if special equipment is required, such as scuba gear, climbing/repelling gear, etc. ...

I totaly disagree with this statment. I think that 5 stars means "most difficult". The special equipment is a side bar. A cache that is a 2 day hike including a 1800m elevation gain 'difficult' scramble is a 5 star. The fact that no 'special' equipment is needed is compleatly irrelevent.

 

I think the issue here is that most cachers would never even consider doing a trip like that, so the only way they can think of getting 5 stars is with special equipment.

[+dfx]

I totaly disagree with this statment. I think that 5 stars means "most difficult". The special equipment is a side bar. A cache that is a 2 day hike including a 1800m elevation gain 'difficult' scramble is a 5 star. The fact that no 'special' equipment is needed is compleatly irrelevent.

this leaves room for interpretation. if the hike takes 2 days, it means you most likely need to be camping somewhere. camping stuff can be seen as "special equipment".

[+Team_FussyPants]

...

Terrain 5 caches should ONLY be used if special equipment is required, such as scuba gear, climbing/repelling gear, etc. ...

I totaly disagree with this statment. I think that 5 stars means "most difficult". The special equipment is a side bar. A cache that is a 2 day hike including a 1800m elevation gain 'difficult' scramble is a 5 star. The fact that no 'special' equipment is needed is compleatly irrelevent.

 

I think the issue here is that most cachers would never even consider doing a trip like that, so the only way they can think of getting 5 stars is with special equipment.

 

Ok, maybe I misspoke when I said only. But even the clayjar rating says 5's are for caches that require special equipment, OR that are extremely difficult. So for the vast majority of caches, only those requiring special equipment are actually a 5.

[+narcissa]

It is open for interpretation. Groundspeak recommends the Clayjar system, but it's not enshrined in the guidelines.

[+Chokecherry]

From the knowledge books on terrain and difficulty ratings for 5 star difficulty in terrain:

 

"Requires specialized equipment and knowledge or experience

(boat, 4WD, rock climbing, SCUBA, etc.) or is otherwise extremely difficult."

 

The other ratings have distance suggestions as well. I would think it would be safe to assume anything more than the 10 mile hike in the 4 star rating would likely fall into the 5 star category.

[Dj Storm]

While I agree that "special equipment required" caches are 5 stars, I don't agree with rating every ATV accessible cache 5*. You can walk anywhere an ATV can go (actually, you can walk in places where ATV's cannot go) - so in these cases the vehicle is not required, only recommended. Mark the terrain according to the hike for an average person. I wouldn't mark it 5* unless the hike takes more than 36 hours roundtrip on flat terrain, or more than 24 hours on a trail with significant gradient.

 

If a cache is on an island in a lake 15-20 feet from the shore, it isn't automatically a 5* terrain - swimming in this case is a valid option for the average person. If the island is 1 mile off shore, swimming is no longer a valid option, so that's 5* for terrain; even if someone fit will swim to it, it's still 5*.

 

If public transportation exists to the "trailhead", I will take that into account. If there's a ferry to the island, mark the cache according to the terrain encountered while walking from the port. You can hike up the mountain to a 4* cache, but if there's a cable car and from there the terrain is 1.5, I will rate the cache as 1.5, maybe 2*. If I want to place a 4* terrain cache, I will find a different peak with no cable car or road nearby - or find a deserted island for a 5* terrain cache.

[Andronicus]

so for islands, what about walking accross the ice in the winter? Do you need to change the terrain rateing in the winter?

[+hukilaulau]

I'd rate the terrain based off of hiking.

Most geocachers dont have vehicles that destroy the desert habitat.

When I was working in the Phonex area for a few months, I found MANY caches that were rated 1.5 or 2 for difficulty because the hiders assumed that everyone owned, or at least had access to, an ATV. Most of these caches should have been rated 3 to 4 based on the hike from the nearest regular vehicle access.

This seemed to be especially true around Wickenburg.

I don't know what kind of deserts you have around Portland, but keep in mind that in some parts of the country most geocachers do indeed "have vehicles that destroy the desert habitat."

Some of them are responsible ATV enthusiasts, some, not so much...

On topic: I agree with "rate it for the hike from the nearest regualr car parking."

[knowschad]

My buddy and I were out riding ATVs in the dessert.

Yum, yum!

 

(SICNR)

LOL! I caught that, too. Had me wondering how they avoided getting their ATVs stuck in the frosting!

[+dfx]

When I was working in the Phonex area for a few months, I found MANY caches that were rated 1.5 or 2 for difficulty because the hiders assumed that everyone owned, or at least had access to, an ATV. Most of these caches should have been rated 3 to 4 based on the hike from the nearest regular vehicle access.

yep, and this works the other way around too. anyone who has ever been caching in NL knows that. as there's no chance of any elevation changes at all, there's also no chance of having any real high-terrain caches there, unless you need a boat in which case it's a 5. so many caches there have a "compressed" rating scale, which means a cache that requires a 2 km walk on a straight paved path would already be rated as a 3 terrain. all ratings, especially the terrain ratings, are "locally adjusted" to fit the environment and the community they apply to.

Edited July 6, 2010 by dfx

[+narcissa]

so for islands, what about walking accross the ice in the winter? Do you need to change the terrain rateing in the winter?

 

No.

[+narcissa]

When I was working in the Phonex area for a few months, I found MANY caches that were rated 1.5 or 2 for difficulty because the hiders assumed that everyone owned, or at least had access to, an ATV. Most of these caches should have been rated 3 to 4 based on the hike from the nearest regular vehicle access.

yep, and this works the other way around too. anyone who has ever been caching in NL knows that. as there's no chance of any elevation changes at all, there's also no chance of having any real high-terrain caches there, unless you need a boat in which case it's a 5. so many caches there have a "compressed" rating scale, which means a cache that requires a 2 km walk on a straight paved path would already be rated as a 3 terrain. all ratings, especially the terrain ratings, are "locally adjusted" to fit the environment and the community they apply to.

 

This is a very good point. Probably a big reason why Groundspeak has never defined the terrain ratings in any official way.

[+EscapeFromFlatland]

I'd rate the terrain based off of hiking.

Most geocachers dont have vehicles that destroy the desert habitat.

 

Sounds like you have heard from the extreme left.

 

Now from a reasonable person

 

The guidelines are clear. If you need special gear it is a 5.

 

You didnt show any opposing view, you just used the Right's tactic of trying to claim someone with a mainstream viewpoint is from a fringe group.

[+EscapeFromFlatland]

 

I don't know what kind of deserts you have around Portland, but keep in mind that in some parts of the country most geocachers do indeed "have vehicles that destroy the desert habitat."

Some of them are responsible ATV enthusiasts, some, not so much...

 

Lots of deserts for the eastern 2/3rd of Oregon.

 

The facts are out there, a sizeable portion of ORV users have responded in surveys that they go off legal trails (in violation of state laws) and do not go around riparian areas (in violation of federal law).

 

They're too busy leaving the 21st century's version of the Nazca lines to care about the habitats they destroy.

 

And I will still object to the "most geocachers do indeed have" as that is highly doubtful.

Edited July 6, 2010 by bramasoleiowa

[+hukilaulau]

When I was working in the Phonex area for a few months, I found MANY caches that were rated 1.5 or 2 for difficulty because the hiders assumed that everyone owned, or at least had access to, an ATV. Most of these caches should have been rated 3 to 4 based on the hike from the nearest regular vehicle access.

yep, and this works the other way around too. anyone who has ever been caching in NL knows that. as there's no chance of any elevation changes at all, there's also no chance of having any real high-terrain caches there, unless you need a boat in which case it's a 5. so many caches there have a "compressed" rating scale, which means a cache that requires a 2 km walk on a straight paved path would already be rated as a 3 terrain. all ratings, especially the terrain ratings, are "locally adjusted" to fit the environment and the community they apply to.

 

This is a very good point. Probably a big reason why Groundspeak has never defined the terrain ratings in any official way.

Yep. Good follow-ups. I've found this "local adjustment" in many areas. Here in Long Island, if you see a 3.5 or 4 terrain you can pretty much bet you're going to have to climb a tree!

[+Team Cotati]

When I was working in the Phonex area for a few months, I found MANY caches that were rated 1.5 or 2 for difficulty because the hiders assumed that everyone owned, or at least had access to, an ATV. Most of these caches should have been rated 3 to 4 based on the hike from the nearest regular vehicle access.

yep, and this works the other way around too. anyone who has ever been caching in NL knows that. as there's no chance of any elevation changes at all, there's also no chance of having any real high-terrain caches there, unless you need a boat in which case it's a 5. so many caches there have a "compressed" rating scale, which means a cache that requires a 2 km walk on a straight paved path would already be rated as a 3 terrain. all ratings, especially the terrain ratings, are "locally adjusted" to fit the environment and the community they apply to.

 

This is a very good point. Probably a big reason why Groundspeak has never defined the terrain ratings in any official way.

Yep. Good follow-ups. I've found this "local adjustment" in many areas. Here in Long Island, if you see a 3.5 or 4 terrain you can pretty much bet you're going to have to climb a tree!

 

And that is clearly explained in the description, of course.

[+narcissa]

 

I don't know what kind of deserts you have around Portland, but keep in mind that in some parts of the country most geocachers do indeed "have vehicles that destroy the desert habitat."

Some of them are responsible ATV enthusiasts, some, not so much...

 

Lots of deserts for the eastern 2/3rd of Oregon.

 

The facts are out there, a sizeable portion of ORV users have responded in surveys that they go off legal trails (in violation of state laws) and do not go around riparian areas (in violation of federal law).

 

They're too busy leaving the 21st century's version of the Nazca lines to care about the habitats they destroy.

 

And I will still object to the "most geocachers do indeed have" as that is highly doubtful.

 

I'd like to see more cache owners using multi-caches as a way to get cachers to follow an intended route. Cachers going off trail - with or without vehicles - is a concern for land manager and park authorities pretty much everywhere, and multi-caches could be a good solution to their concerns.

[+Dread_Pirate_Bruce]

Thanks everyone for your input. I'm going with a 3.5 and a good description. My concern over the terrain is so that the cache is picked up by an appropriate PQ.

 

What I've noticed from all the input is that a 9 mile hike on flat ground is about the same terrain as a very rough climb 1/4 mile up a mountain where you can park right at the base.