Cache Rating

[+M Crane]

I am currently planning a series and am considering the rating for the final. The series will consist of 20 caches through a state park that offers camping to backpackers and boaters. The hike to retrieve all 20 clues will be over a lot of natural terrain and steep topography. The total hike will be a minimum of about 17 miles and should take at least one overnight trip, 20 caches with 2.5 through 3.5 star terrain, and 1.5 to 3 star difficulty to get the clues to the final mystery cache.

 

After finding all 20 caches, should the rating of the final mystery cache incorporate everything a cacher had to go through to get the clues to find the final, or should the final be treated as a separate cache?

[+Chokecherry]

The multi should be rated for the greatest difficulty. So if the most difficult terrain is 3.5 then that's the rating.

[mtbikernate]

Am I correct at understanding that your series is a bunch of individual caches that give parts needed to find the coordinates of the final? And that each of your 20 caches is a separate cache?

 

If that's the case and you need the information for all of the caches in order to find the final, then I would rate it taking all of that into consideration.

 

To get the final, you have to hike 17+ miles to get all of the parts PLUS whatever is involved to get to the final after getting all the parts of the series. Difficulty I'd rate it equal to the hardest stage (which, for all we know, could be the final, right?).

[+M Crane]

Well the final will probably be one of the easier stages, still around 5.5 miles to a car over some pretty hilly terrain. Terrain i understand equal to the hardest terrain of the series. But difficulty I think should be considered what you had to go through; finding the 20 clues, hiking the park, and the fact that most likely it's going to be a 1 to 2 night backpacking or canoeing trip.

[mtbikernate]

Well the final will probably be one of the easier stages, still around 5.5 miles to a car over some pretty hilly terrain. Terrain i understand equal to the hardest terrain of the series. But difficulty I think should be considered what you had to go through; finding the 20 clues, hiking the park, and the fact that most likely it's going to be a 1 to 2 night backpacking or canoeing trip.

 

The terrain rating considers how much hiking has to be done to log the cache. In order to do the final, you have to do the amount of hiking for just the final PLUS all the hiking for each of the segments. You said you anticipate it needing to be done over the course of multiple days. That amount of hiking needs to be accounted for.

[+Sol seaker]

The terrain and difficulty rating should be for the whole cache, not for pieces of the cache.

 

What is the terrain overall?

 

if a multi cache has a 17 mile hike that has large hills, but the final is in the parking lot and handicapped accessible, you would not rate the entire cache a 1/1.

 

The ratings must reflect the entire cache.

 

The cache is more difficult because it has multiple things to find. This is also part of the difficulty.

 

You need to look at the overall picture of the cache.

 

If you are thinking of rating it a 3 then compare it to other 3 caches in the area.

 

Is it more difficult than a 3 difficulty regular cache? Then it should be rated tougher.

 

If you are thinking of rating it a 3 terrain, compare it to single caches with 3 terrain. Is it tougher because you've got to climb 4 hills that are a 3 terrain each? Then the rating should reflect that.

[+narcissa]

Is there a reason this is going to be many traditionals instead of a multi?

[+redsox_mark]

If it is done as a multi cache, then there is no question, the D/T ratings take into account the hardest stage and the overall length.

 

As separate caches with a puzzle bonus, I'm not sure of the right answer. I've seen it done both ways. I've seen some which take into account that you need to find all those other caches first; so the difficulty/terrain of the bonus is as least as much as the hardest of the other caches in the series. I've seen others which purely look at the D/T of that final stage once you have the coordinates.

 

I don't know of any guidelines to give you a "right" answer. I would do it the first way, taking the difficulty/terrain of all the other pre-requisite caches into account.

[+Borst68]

Is there a reason this is going to be many traditionals instead of a multi?

 

My guess would be that the CO would like more people to do it. There are not a lot of people that will undertake 20 part multi for a single smiley. By listing it as a traditional, it becomes 20 smilies rather than 1. This may increase its appeal to a wider audience. Just my guess...

[+M Crane]

Borst68

 

You hit the nail right on the head.

Edited October 26, 2010 by mcrane2653

[+ChileHead]

I'd be more likely to rate the final based purely on that terrain/difficulty of that particular cache. The terrain/difficulty of all the other components has already been accounted for in the individual cache ratings.

[+redsox_mark]

I'd be more likely to rate the final based purely on that terrain/difficulty of that particular cache. The terrain/difficulty of all the other components has already been accounted for in the individual cache ratings.

 

I can see it both ways. The reason I would lean the other way goes back to what the purpose of the D/T rating is - to guide cachers in choosing what caches are suitable for them to find.

 

I recently did a cache series like this (not as hard; it didn't require an overnight). The hardest individual caches were Terrain of 3.5. The bonus cache was listed as Terrain 3.5 - but on it's own it would be a T=1. It was in a parking lot.

 

If the cache owner had rated the final as Terrain=1, then that might appear to be wheelchair accessible - which it would be if you knew the coordinates. Someone looking to do a Terrain 1 cache would find this one in their queries. Eventually they would figure out that to do it requires finding Terrain 3.5 caches first and put it aside. But I think it would be more helpful for it not to show as T=1 in the first place; this is why I vote the other way. (And in this example, is what the Cache Owner did).

[+BoMS]

Whatever you decide I think it would be a good idea to explain how you rated it in the cache description. Something like "The D/T rating of this cache is based on having to find all the other 20 caches in the series" or "The D/T rating of this cache is based only on the effort needed once you have the correct coordinates".

 

I can see it both ways too and since there's no rules or guidelines to help decide and interpret the D/T for a cache like this, explaining how you did it will clear away any misunderstandings before they happen.

 

\Mette

Edited October 26, 2010 by BoMS

[+Isonzo Karst]

I'd suggest rating the terrain and difficulty for the cache itself. Note that in the text.

 

I say this because a cacher may work this over time, or they may be nearing the end and thinking about whether to continue.

 

This actually happened to me. I'd worked a series, had final coords - looked at the high terrain rating on that cache page, and went home. Too tired and too hot to handle more 4 terrain.

 

Eventually got back and found it. The real terrain rating for the hide was 1.5 (maybe 2 after rain). Had it been rated to its actual terrain, I'd have finished it that day, instead of over a year later.

[+redsox_mark]

Whatever you decide I think it would be a good idea to explain how you rated it in the cache description. Something like "The D/T rating of this cache is based on having to find all the other 20 caches in the series" or "The D/T rating of this cache is based only on the effort needed once you have the correct coordinates".

 

I can see it both ways too and since there's no rules or guidelines to help decide and interpret the D/T for a cache like this, explaining how you did it will clear away any misunderstandings before they happen.

 

\Mette

 

Excellent point!

[+narcissa]

Is there a reason this is going to be many traditionals instead of a multi?

 

My guess would be that the CO would like more people to do it. There are not a lot of people that will undertake 20 part multi for a single smiley. By listing it as a traditional, it becomes 20 smilies rather than 1. This may increase its appeal to a wider audience. Just my guess...

 

That's unfortunate.

[Clan Riffster]

I would rate the D/T to match what you need to go through in order to find the final.

In this case, it looks like a 20+ mile hike is necessary, as well as hunting for multiple containers.

Not sure about the terrain, as I haven't seen in, but the difficulty should be at least a 4:

* * * * = "Cache likely requires special skills, knowledge, or in-depth preparation to find. May require multiple days or trips to find."

I would include an explanation on the cache page advising that the final, by itself, would have a lower D/T rating.

[+sbell111]

Is there a reason this is going to be many traditionals instead of a multi?

 

My guess would be that the CO would like more people to do it. There are not a lot of people that will undertake 20 part multi for a single smiley. By listing it as a traditional, it becomes 20 smilies rather than 1. This may increase its appeal to a wider audience. Just my guess...

It also gives people the option of not attempting all twenty caches. A person could happily find several of these caches without the intention of ever finding them all.

 

Alternatively, if you list as one incredibly huge multi, few, if any, people will attempt it. (Imagine the angst if stage 19 went mising.)

Edited October 26, 2010 by sbell111

[Dj Storm]

So far the answers can be grouped into two categories:

1. Rate the cache difficulty/terrain for the final;

2. Rate the cache difficulty/terrain as the highest D/T of its components.

 

I would rate it differently:

3. Rate the cache difficulty/terrain for the entire geo-trip. [Edit: Clan Riffster replied as I was typing, we share the same opinion.]

 

For example: a less than 2 miles hike on some trails, with light overgrowth and some elevation changes gives a terrain rating of 2.5 to 3, according to Clayjar's rating system. That would probably be accurate for each component of the cache.

However, to find the bonus cache, one has to hike over 10 miles, and an overnight stay is likely. Clayjar's rating system gives a terrain rating of 5 for this (4 if you don't stay overnight).

I would probably rate it as a 4 or 4.5 for terrain.

 

As for the difficulty, is it necessary to find all the caches in order to find the bonus, or its coordinates can be determined after finding, let's say 18 out of the 20 caches? If it's necessary to find all of them, then I would probably rate it 1.5-2 points higher than the most difficult component (including the final one). If it can be found with less than a perfect strike, then I would rate it equal to the most difficult component (or 0.5 points higher). If it can be found after finding half of the components, then I would rate it as the difficulty for the final cache (maybe 0.5 points higher than that).

Edited October 26, 2010 by Dj Storm

[+redsox_mark]

So far the answers can be grouped into two categories:

1. Rate the cache difficulty/terrain for the final;

2. Rate the cache difficulty/terrain as the highest D/T of its components.

 

I would rate it differently:

3. Rate the cache difficulty/terrain for the entire geo-trip. [Edit: Clan Riffster replied as I was typing, we share the same opinion.]

 

For example: a less than 2 miles hike on some trails, with light overgrowth and some elevation changes gives a terrain rating of 2.5 to 3, according to Clayjar's rating system. That would probably be accurate for each component of the cache.

However, to find the bonus cache, one has to hike over 10 miles, and an overnight stay is likely. Clayjar's rating system gives a terrain rating of 5 for this (4 if you don't stay overnight).

I would probably rate it as a 4 or 4.5 for terrain.

 

As for the difficulty, is it necessary to find all the caches in order to find the bonus, or its coordinates can be determined after finding, let's say 18 out of the 20 caches? If it's necessary to find all of them, then I would probably rate it 1.5-2 points higher than the most difficult component (including the final one). If it can be found with less than a perfect strike, then I would rate it equal to the most difficult component (or 0.5 points higher). If it can be found after finding half of the components, then I would rate it as the difficulty for the final cache (maybe 0.5 points higher than that).

 

Good point. I was sort of thinking this too when I said I would rate it "as least as much as the hardest of the other caches in the series". I was thinking it could be rated higher than that to take into account the complete set (but didn't make that clear). So my number 2 was really a number 3....

[+addisonbr]

I would rate the D/T to match what you need to go through in order to find the final.

...

I would include an explanation on the cache page advising that the final, by itself, would have a lower D/T rating.

Rate the cache difficulty/terrain for the entire geo-trip.

...

If it's necessary to find all of them, then I would probably rate it 1.5-2 points higher than the most difficult component (including the final one).

 

I agree with these. Difficulty / Terrain can often be greater than the sum of its parts (or greater than the highest individual components). There is a great 5-star difficulty puzzle in my area with several steps that need to be taken in order before the coordinates are revealed. None of the individual steps would be more than a 3 difficulty as far as puzzles go, but having to complete the parlay of solving each and every one of them in order makes it an accurately-rated 5 difficulty overall in my opinion.

 

I'd feel similarly about the final for a 20-stage multi-cache that requires an overnight stay, etc.

 

I also agree with this:

 

Whatever you decide I think it would be a good idea to explain how you rated it in the cache description. Something like "The D/T rating of this cache is based on having to find all the other 20 caches in the series" or "The D/T rating of this cache is based only on the effort needed once you have the correct coordinates".

[+Ecylram]

Since this is an individual cache, and not a multi, I'd rank it for the last cache itself. If it was a multi, I'd probably rate it AT LEAST as hard as the hardest cache in the series.

 

IMO, listing the last cache harder than it would be otherwise would be misleading to the cachers.

[+Avernar]

I recently did a cache series like this (not as hard; it didn't require an overnight). The hardest individual caches were Terrain of 3.5. The bonus cache was listed as Terrain 3.5 - but on it's own it would be a T=1. It was in a parking lot.

 

If the cache owner had rated the final as Terrain=1, then that might appear to be wheelchair accessible - which it would be if you knew the coordinates. Someone looking to do a Terrain 1 cache would find this one in their queries. Eventually they would figure out that to do it requires finding Terrain 3.5 caches first and put it aside. But I think it would be more helpful for it not to show as T=1 in the first place; this is why I vote the other way. (And in this example, is what the Cache Owner did).

As much as the CO would want it, people don't always visit the entire series. People cache in different groups on different days. In your example, what if a friend with a wheelchair asked to tag along for some caching the day you went for the final?

 

As for me, I'd rather see the real terrain rating. I helps me decide weather or not to do that cache at a particular time and who to bring along. I'd be annoyed if I got a bunch of friends together to do a high terrain rating cache and it ends up being a walk down a flat trail.

 

The final would be listed as an unknown so the wheelchair person would read that they have to do other caches and could put it on their ignore list if they choose not to do it.

[+Avernar]

Whatever you decide I think it would be a good idea to explain how you rated it in the cache description. Something like "The D/T rating of this cache is based on having to find all the other 20 caches in the series" or "The D/T rating of this cache is based only on the effort needed once you have the correct coordinates".

 

I can see it both ways too and since there's no rules or guidelines to help decide and interpret the D/T for a cache like this, explaining how you did it will clear away any misunderstandings before they happen.

How about consistency? All the other info is only for that one cache. The size, the hints, any extra waypoints. They all are for that one cache, not the series. So make the D/T for that one cache only.

 

Then use the description to tell people how to get coordinates like every other unknown cache.

[+Avernar]

As for the difficulty, is it necessary to find all the caches in order to find the bonus

No it's not. You can find the bonus without having to find the other caches. I've already mentioned tagging along with someone who has done the rest. There's also getting the coordinates by asking someone who's done it. Or someone can find the cache by accident. Or the CO can give out the in formation for missing stages.

 

That last one is a good one. Let's say you had the following series:

 

1) 1/1

2) 5/5

3) 1/1

5/5 (really a 1/1)

 

What if stage 2 goes missing and the CO just gives the info out? How can the bonus be a 5/5 when all the finders have done is find 1/1's?

Edited October 26, 2010 by Avernar

[+redsox_mark]

As much as the CO would want it, people don't always visit the entire series. People cache in different groups on different days. In your example, what if a friend with a wheelchair asked to tag along for some caching the day you went for the final?

 

As for me, I'd rather see the real terrain rating. I helps me decide weather or not to do that cache at a particular time and who to bring along. I'd be annoyed if I got a bunch of friends together to do a high terrain rating cache and it ends up being a walk down a flat trail.

 

The final would be listed as an unknown so the wheelchair person would read that they have to do other caches and could put it on their ignore list if they choose not to do it.

 

I take your point. I think there are valid arguments on both sides.

 

 

How about consistency? All the other info is only for that one cache. The size, the hints, any extra waypoints. They all are for that one cache, not the series. So make the D/T for that one cache only.

 

Then use the description to tell people how to get coordinates like every other unknown cache.

 

I don't see an issue of inconsistency. The way I see it, it is all about that single bonus unknown cache, but just like any unknown cache the ratings need to take into account what you need to do to solve it. If I have a puzzle cache which requires you to climb Mt Everest, get some information there and solve a complex cipher, it is a 5/5... even though someone could get lucky and stumble upon it, or a friend could give them the coordinates, and even if he final is in a parking lot.

[+redsox_mark]

That last one is a good one. Let's say you had the following series:

 

1) 1/1

2) 5/5

3) 1/1

5/5 (really a 1/1)

 

What if stage 2 goes missing and the CO just gives the info out? How can the bonus be a 5/5 when all the finders have done is find 1/1's?

 

If I am the CO, either I would not give the information out (and disable the bonus until I could fix 2). Or if 2 was to be archived and I still wanted to keep the bonus, then I would change the D/T rating on the bonus to 1/1. (Understanding that can cause some angst for those working on challenges). The other option would be to archive the bonus if I had to archive 2).

[+Avernar]

I don't see an issue of inconsistency. The way I see it, it is all about that single bonus unknown cache, but just like any unknown cache the ratings need to take into account what you need to do to solve it. If I have a puzzle cache which requires you to climb Mt Everest, get some information there and solve a complex cipher, it is a 5/5... even though someone could get lucky and stumble upon it, or a friend could give them the coordinates, and even if he final is in a parking lot.

You've just proven my point. In your example all the info on the cache page only applies to that one cache. Stages of a multicache are not equivalent to multiple caches. If you could rate the individual stages separately then it would be equivalent. In your Mt Everest example:

 

Stage 1: 5/5

Final: 1/1

 

The terrain rating should always be for that one cache. The difficulty rating gets a little fuzzy as it's a combination of how hard it is to solve the puzzle and how hard it is to find. I wish those two things were separate ratings.

 

So if it takes a long time to collect the info to find the bonus, add a bit to the difficulty. It shouldn't be set to the highest value of the previous caches as the difficulty in finding the bonus will affect the value.

[+redsox_mark]

You've just proven my point. In your example all the info on the cache page only applies to that one cache. Stages of a multicache are not equivalent to multiple caches. If you could rate the individual stages separately then it would be equivalent. In your Mt Everest example:

 

Stage 1: 5/5

Final: 1/1

 

The terrain rating should always be for that one cache. The difficulty rating gets a little fuzzy as it's a combination of how hard it is to solve the puzzle and how hard it is to find. I wish those two things were separate ratings.

 

So if it takes a long time to collect the info to find the bonus, add a bit to the difficulty. It shouldn't be set to the highest value of the previous caches as the difficulty in finding the bonus will affect the value.

 

My hypothetical example was probably a bit silly, but I'm not sure if what you are saying is a rule. Are you saying that the terrain rating for a puzzle cache must only apply to the terrain to reach the final once you have the coordinates? Even if to solve the puzzle itself requires different terrain?

[+Avernar]

If I am the CO, either I would not give the information out (and disable the bonus until I could fix 2). Or if 2 was to be archived and I still wanted to keep the bonus, then I would change the D/T rating on the bonus to 1/1. (Understanding that can cause some angst for those working on challenges). The other option would be to archive the bonus if I had to archive 2).

See the problems that incorrectly rating the bonus can cause? If the bonus was correctly rated as a 1/1 you wouldn't have to worry about any of that.

 

So now we have:

 

1) People may think the cache is harder than it really is (consequences already discussed in this thread).

2) The CO can't give out info on the series without making the bonus's rating be bogus.

3) If a difficult cache in the series is archived the bonus has to be rerated (causing issues for previous finders) or archived as well.

4) Skews peoples stats

5) May be disqualified from certain challenges for bogus ratings (which can mess up people who think they've completed the challenge)

6) Cache no longer has a real terrain rating.

7) It's based on some made up rule that's nowhere in the guidelines or rating system.

 

So it puzzles me that people still think this is a logical way to rate a bonus cache. Just rate it as if it was a stand alone cache (possibly with the difficulty raised a bit) and all those issues go away.

[+Avernar]

My hypothetical example was probably a bit silly, but I'm not sure if what you are saying is a rule. Are you saying that the terrain rating for a puzzle cache must only apply to the terrain to reach the final once you have the coordinates? Even if to solve the puzzle itself requires different terrain?

I'm also making the ratings a little extreme to highlight my point as well.

 

While not a rule, it makes the most sense. When I pull up the listing to the bonus, I want to know the terrain for that one cache. I already know what the terrain was to the caches I've been to. Having those mixed in to this rating just hides the info I need to know.

 

Then to solve this problem the CO's have to add "This cache is really a terrain 1" in the description. As I pointed out this messes up stats and challenge qualifications and makes the PQ filtering useless.

 

And most don't bother telling you so now you have to make an educated guess on how hard it really is. We already mentioned the wheelchair aspect. What if someone wants to bring the kids along? Are they going to miss out on a cache because it was incorrectly rated too high?

 

The terrain rating affects peoples decisions on whether to go for a cache or not way more than the difficulty does. The difficulty rating tends to be a mixture of several different things anyway.

 

Here's another example. I do the series but not the bonus a month ago. A week ago I severely sprain my leg. I now set my PQ filter to terrain 1.5 or less. Why shouldn't the bonus be excluded from that PQ when I can physically get to it.

[+addisonbr]

When I pull up the listing to the bonus, I want to know the terrain for that one cache. I already know what the terrain was to the caches I've been to.

...

Here's another example. I do the series but not the bonus a month ago. A week ago I severely sprain my leg. I now set my PQ filter to terrain 1.5 or less. Why shouldn't the bonus be excluded from that PQ when I can physically get to it.

It's interesting, because when I pull up the listing to a bonus cache, a challenge cache, a mystery or a multi, I personally find it more useful to know what the overall / difficulty is for the challenge in total. It helps me a lot when deciding whether or not to pursue it. I'll certainly read the description to see if there are any tidbits that clarify the final.

 

I personally wouldn't use a PQ to decide when to go for the final of a 20-stage challenge, and would use a lot more manual discretion - for a variety of reasons. One of the most important is that in many cases the coordinates in the geocaching.com system won't reflect the coordinates I actually need to search for the final container. Relying on a PQ to decide what caches to search for in those cases could have me in the wrong area, so I'm likely to be referring to my notes and to the cache description for all of those caches anyway.

[+Avernar]

It's interesting, because when I pull up the listing to a bonus cache, a challenge cache, a mystery or a multi, I personally find it more useful to know what the overall / difficulty is for the challenge in total. It helps me a lot when deciding whether or not to pursue it. I'll certainly read the description to see if there are any tidbits that clarify the final.

But you only have to worry about that at the start of the hunt for the series. Most people do this in front of their computer. So just pull up the pages for all the caches in the series and you have detailed D/T ratings for them all. No need to muddle the bonus's D/T when you have all that info easily available.

 

I assume you don't make your decision to go for a series by just reading the page for the bonus, do you? So since you've read the other pages you now do know the overall difficulty for the entire series.

 

I personally wouldn't use a PQ to decide when to go for the final of a 20-stage challenge, and would use a lot more manual discretion - for a variety of reasons. One of the most important is that in many cases the coordinates in the geocaching.com system won't reflect the coordinates I actually need to search for the final container. Relying on a PQ to decide what caches to search for in those cases could have me in the wrong area, so I'm likely to be referring to my notes and to the cache description for all of those caches anyway.

I was keeping it simple. More than likely GSAK would be involved. The corrected coordinates for the puzzles would already be entered and the 1.5 or less terrain filter would be on the load to the GPSr from GSAK.

[Clan Riffster]

It makes the most sense.

To you, yes. But apparently not to everybody.

[+dfx]

You can find the bonus without having to find the other caches. I've already mentioned tagging along with someone who has done the rest. There's also getting the coordinates by asking someone who's done it. Or someone can find the cache by accident. Or the CO can give out the in formation for missing stages.

 

That last one is a good one. Let's say you had the following series:

 

1) 1/1

2) 5/5

3) 1/1

5/5 (really a 1/1)

 

What if stage 2 goes missing and the CO just gives the info out? How can the bonus be a 5/5 when all the finders have done is find 1/1's?

but that is true for any cache. if you have a multi that requires a 35 km hike and is rated T4 or whatever, you can also find it if someone gives you the coords to the final, potentially without doing any hiking at all if the final is at the parking.

 

or a D5 puzzle cache, you never solved the puzzle but someone gave you the coords.

 

or a T5 canoeing traditional cache. you don't have a canoe, but just go with someone who has. you hop into the canoe and let the others do the paddling.

 

or any high-difficulty traditional cache. you place a PAF and get a hint to its location.

 

should every cache be rated 1/1 only then?

Edited October 26, 2010 by dfx

[+Avernar]

but that is true for any cache. if you have a multi that requires a 35 km hike and is rated T4 or whatever, you can also find it if someone gives you the coords to the final, potentially without doing any hiking at all if the final is at the parking.

I've already written why a multi is not the same as a series. You can't rate the individual stages. If you could then the comparison would be valid. In your example the final stage would be rated less if you could get it easy.

[+addisonbr]

I assume you don't make your decision to go for a series by just reading the page for the bonus, do you?

It certainly helps me filter, anyway.

[+redsox_mark]

Ok. So In terms of the Difficulty rating for such a bonus cache, I think there is general agreement that this can (should?) take into account the overall difficulty of the pre-requisite caches. E.g. in this example from the OP, as it is a long hike, probably needs an overnight stay, etc; that will impact the Difficulty of the bonus.

 

As for the Terrain, we have both views:

1. that it should take into account the overall terrain of the series

 

2. or, that it should only reflect the terrain for this final cache, once the other caches have been completed and you have the coordinates.

 

I think what makes the most sense changes, depending when you look at the ratings. If you haven't yet found any in the series yet, I think 1 makes the most sense. If you have found everything except the bonus, then 2 makes the most sense.

 

I'm still not sure which is the best overall answer. I still lean towards 1, as usually when looking at ratings I haven't done the series. Or to put it another way, I would normally find the bonus when doing the series, so I seldom have the case where I've done all the caches except the bonus and want to see the rating just for the bonus.

[Dj Storm]

Let's see this from another perspective: a geocacher usually goes through these phases:

1 - he is about to stumble on the cache listing;

2 - he read the cache listing and knows what to expect;

3 - he's out in the field searching for the cache;

4 - he found the cache.

 

In which of these phases the D/T rating is most useful?

 

In the first phase, the D/T rating is useful if the geocacher uses filters or scans the listings using some automatic methods. If you list the D/T for the final (let's say D 2 T 1.5), avid hikers might ignore the listing, while park-and-grabbers will read further.

In the second phase, the geocacher already read the listing. A hiker will go for this cache (if he didn't ignore the cache during the previous step). A geocacher who avoids walking long distances will probably ignore the cache at this point.

In the third phase, the geocacher collected the necessary information and is looking for the final. Here, knowing the D/T of the final is useful.

In the last phase, the D/T rating is useful only for fizzy challenges or other personal goals (if any).

 

If I would place such a cache, it will be placed mostly for the enjoyment of hikers. I would rate the D/T to reflect the entire trip. By rating the cache only for the final will cause it to be missed by some of those who would hunt it.

In the description I would say that the D/T rating is for the entire trip, and mention the D/T rating for the final only.

I consider this approach the best, because:

- cachers who seek caches with high terrain and/or difficulty rating will find the listing easier. Cachers who avoid such caches will filter it out (and will not waste time reading the listing for a cache they wouldn't hunt anyway).

- once at the final location, the cacher (having read the listing) will know the D/T rating for the final and will be able to make informed decisions about where to search.

[+redsox_mark]

Let's see this from another perspective: a geocacher usually goes through these phases:

1 - he is about to stumble on the cache listing;

2 - he read the cache listing and knows what to expect;

3 - he's out in the field searching for the cache;

4 - he found the cache.

 

In which of these phases the D/T rating is most useful?

 

In the first phase, the D/T rating is useful if the geocacher uses filters or scans the listings using some automatic methods. If you list the D/T for the final (let's say D 2 T 1.5), avid hikers might ignore the listing, while park-and-grabbers will read further.

In the second phase, the geocacher already read the listing. A hiker will go for this cache (if he didn't ignore the cache during the previous step). A geocacher who avoids walking long distances will probably ignore the cache at this point.

In the third phase, the geocacher collected the necessary information and is looking for the final. Here, knowing the D/T of the final is useful.

In the last phase, the D/T rating is useful only for fizzy challenges or other personal goals (if any).

 

If I would place such a cache, it will be placed mostly for the enjoyment of hikers. I would rate the D/T to reflect the entire trip. By rating the cache only for the final will cause it to be missed by some of those who would hunt it.

In the description I would say that the D/T rating is for the entire trip, and mention the D/T rating for the final only.

I consider this approach the best, because:

- cachers who seek caches with high terrain and/or difficulty rating will find the listing easier. Cachers who avoid such caches will filter it out (and will not waste time reading the listing for a cache they wouldn't hunt anyway).

- once at the final location, the cacher (having read the listing) will know the D/T rating for the final and will be able to make informed decisions about where to search.

 

This makes a lot of sense to me!

[+Avernar]

1. that it should take into account the overall terrain of the series

 

2. or, that it should only reflect the terrain for this final cache, once the other caches have been completed and you have the coordinates.

 

I think what makes the most sense changes, depending when you look at the ratings. If you haven't yet found any in the series yet, I think 1 makes the most sense. If you have found everything except the bonus, then 2 makes the most sense.

Nope. In both cases 1 makes sense. If I have found everything except the bonus, I know what all the other cache's ratings are. I want to know what the rating of the bonus is only.

[+Avernar]

Let's see this from another perspective: a geocacher usually goes through these phases:

1 - he is about to stumble on the cache listing;

2 - he read the cache listing and knows what to expect;

3 - he's out in the field searching for the cache;

4 - he found the cache.

 

In which of these phases the D/T rating is most useful?

1 and 3. A lot of people look at the listings on their GPSr or PDA. On my new 62s I can now filter by D/T right on the GPSr.

 

If I would place such a cache, it will be placed mostly for the enjoyment of hikers. I would rate the D/T to reflect the entire trip. By rating the cache only for the final will cause it to be missed by some of those who would hunt it.

First of all, you're assuming the hikers would want to find the bonus. The local cachers I know that like the long hikes would be severely disappointed if the final/bonus was only a parking lot smash and grab. They'd want the last one to be just as good as the rest. Rate the final properly and let the cachers decide if they want to go for it or not.

 

Second, the final/bonus is going to be an Unknown/Puzzle/Mystery cache type. Most people will ignore these caches anyways. They'll probably find the listing by seeing the other caches in the series first. By that time they've already determined if the want to do the series or not.

 

If you're worried about the bonus being filtered out, put a link on the other cache pages to it. You're probably already telling the cachers to record the code or coordinates of the final/bonus in the other listings anyways. The series around here usually have the first part of the cache name be the series name. It's very easy to see the entire series on the map and cache lists.

Edited October 27, 2010 by Avernar

[+addisonbr]

I personally wouldn't use a PQ to decide when to go for the final of a 20-stage challenge, and would use a lot more manual discretion - for a variety of reasons. One of the most important is that in many cases the coordinates in the geocaching.com system won't reflect the coordinates I actually need to search for the final container. Relying on a PQ to decide what caches to search for in those cases could have me in the wrong area, so I'm likely to be referring to my notes and to the cache description for all of those caches anyway.

I was keeping it simple. More than likely GSAK would be involved. The corrected coordinates for the puzzles would already be entered and the 1.5 or less terrain filter would be on the load to the GPSr from GSAK.

Oh, in that case if you are already comfortable with GSAK and that's how you're navigating to the final, there is a great strategy available.

 

When you are to the point of entering the corrected coordinates for the bonus cache, you can also right click on the cache in the database and select "Edit..." From there you can adjust the Difficulty and Terrain to match the information about that particular stage that you personally are interested in having reflected. You can easily turn a 5/5 into a 1/1 with the click of a mouse.

 

That way you could ensure that after you've sprained your leg and decide to filter to a 1.5 terrain or less, you won't exclude any final containers that you would be comfortable hunting.

[+Avernar]

When you are to the point of entering the corrected coordinates for the bonus cache, you can also right click on the cache in the database and select "Edit..." From there you can adjust the Difficulty and Terrain to match the information about that particular stage that you personally are interested in having reflected. You can easily turn a 5/5 into a 1/1 with the click of a mouse.

 

That way you could ensure that after you've sprained your leg and decide to filter to a 1.5 terrain or less, you won't exclude any final containers that you would be comfortable hunting.

Nope, sorry. The next PQ with that cache will just change it back. And if you lock the cache in GSAK then it will prevent all changes including changed coords, descriptions, hints, etc.

 

How about just rating the cache as a 1/1? Then nobody has to edit it in GSAK (assuming they see the real rating buried in the description).

 

I'm amazed that after all these problems have been pointed out about rating the cache for the entire series, people still think it's a good idea. I have yet to see a good reason why rating it properly with "This is a quick bonus to a long hiking series" in the description is not the best way to do things.

[+addisonbr]

Nope, sorry. The next PQ with that cache will just change it back. And if you lock the cache in GSAK then it will prevent all changes including changed coords, descriptions, hints, etc.

 

How about just rating the cache as a 1/1? Then nobody has to edit it in GSAK (assuming they see the real rating buried in the description).

 

I'm amazed that after all these problems have been pointed out about rating the cache for the entire series, people still think it's a good idea. I have yet to see a good reason why rating it properly with "This is a quick bonus to a long hiking series" in the description is not the best way to do things.

I can understand that you have a different opinion, but I would humbly suggest that some valid reasoning for rating the final as it reflects the overall challenge have been put forth.

 

At the end of the day, there are some unavoidable trade-offs here. Your preference may cause the cache to get missed by a lot of people who avidly search on Mystery Caches with high D/T combos. Other preferences expressed here might cause the final to get skipped after an otherwise avid hiker sprains his leg but doesn't want to lock an edit into GSAK before he runs his PQ.

 

I can understand where you're coming from, but I have to raise my eyebrows a bit at the claim that no valid perspectives have been brought up on the other side of the issue. It seems to me that when dealing with a mystery cache listing like this there is room for a judgment call by the CO, as long as the description is sufficiently clear.

[+redsox_mark]

While I still like Dj Storm's analysis the most, I'm coming to the conclusion that it really doesn't matter much. The bonus is a puzzle/unknown type; finders will need to read the cache page. Whether it is rated for the series (with a note in the cache page which says what the rating is for this cache alone), or the other way round doesn't matter a whole lot. Which ever way you choose, make it clear on the cache page.

 

The OP said the bonus will also be a challenging walk (just not the most challenging). I don't think the hikers doing it are going to be disappointed either way. It won't be in a parking lot.

 

Hopefully the range of opinion will give the OP enough insight to make their own decision.

Edited October 27, 2010 by redsox_mark

[+Avernar]

I can understand that you have a different opinion, but I would humbly suggest that some valid reasoning for rating the final as it reflects the overall challenge have been put forth.

And I've presented the problems each of them causes. Yet you and others still want to use the method with all the problems instead of the one with none of the problems.

 

Your preference may cause the cache to get missed by a lot of people who avidly search on Mystery Caches with high D/T combos.

This is one of the biggest reasons AGAINST yet you seem to think it's a good thing. If someone is looking for a Mystery cache with a high D/T rating, why would they want to be fooled into finding one that's a 1/1?

 

I already stated that if it's part of a series and mentioned in the other listings, people will know of its existence.

 

I can understand where you're coming from, but I have to raise my eyebrows a bit at the claim that no valid perspectives have been brought up on the other side of the issue.

The only good argument I've see is that people could use it to find a hard series. I've pointed why that's not the case and also the secondary problems it would cause.

 

What other good arguments do you think there are other than that one?

 

It seems to me that when dealing with a mystery cache listing like this there is room for a judgment call by the CO, as long as the description is sufficiently clear.

I agree there is room for rating the difficulty higher based on the fact it's hard to get the coordinates. But rating the terrain higher than it really is just causes way too much problems and ambiguity.

[+Avernar]

While I still like Dj Storm's analysis the most, I'm coming to the conclusion that it really doesn't matter much. The bonus is a puzzle/unknown type; finders will need to read the cache page. Whether it is rated for the series (with a note in the cache page which says what the rating is for this cache alone), or the other way round doesn't matter a whole lot. Which ever way you choose, make it clear on the cache page.

Now that you think that it doesn't mater which way it is, wouldn't it make sense to use the one that has the least side effects?

[+addisonbr]

I already stated that if it's part of a series and mentioned in the other listings, people will know of its existence.

Not if they're searching on Mystery Caches. Which I often do when visiting new areas, especially to look for unusual or difficult Challenge Caches and other special listings.

 

Is it a huge problem? Not really. But on the other hand, I also don't see editing the ratings in GSAK as a huge inconvenience for the hiker with a sprained knee. I see them both as mild negatives to their respective approaches, and agree with previous posters that the CO being clear in the description takes care of the imperfections.

[+Avernar]

Not if they're searching on Mystery Caches. Which I often do when visiting new areas, especially to look for unusual or difficult Challenge Caches and other special listings.

You have strange logic there. If you want to find a challenging series, it makes more sense to look for traditionals and multis with a high terrain rating. Not all series have a mystery bonus at the end so you'll actually end up missing those series.

 

Challenge caches are not the same as bonus caches as they don't have a specific list of prerequisites. The difficulty rating on a difficult challenge would be high so I don't see a problem not being able to find the listing.

 

Instead of subverting the terrain rating, how about suggesting a "cache series" attribute in the Feedback site? That way you can find a cache series with a high D/T with a direct PQ search. Makes more sense than trying to find one indirectly through artificially rated bonus caches.

 

Is it a huge problem? Not really. But on the other hand, I also don't see editing the ratings in GSAK as a huge inconvenience for the hiker with a sprained knee. I see them both as mild negatives to their respective approaches, and agree with previous posters that the CO being clear in the description takes care of the imperfections.

The sprained knee example was just one of many. And the description only works for humans. PQs, statistic generators and Challenge Cache qualification validators use the machine readable fields.