+SeekerOfTheWay Posted December 6, 2010 Share Posted December 6, 2010 Would you rate the same trail a higher Terrain because of distance? For example I have a cache 1.4 miles on a trail rated a 2. I have another cache 2.4 miles down and I rated it a 2.5 because of the added distance. Opinions? Is is correct? Thanks! Quote Link to comment
+ventura_kids Posted December 6, 2010 Share Posted December 6, 2010 Opinions? We have many of them here.... As a cache hunter.... I would expect a higher rating for a longer hike. In our 4 wheel drive areas, a 2 mile drive to the bottom of a hill might be a 2.5 or a 3.5, depending on how tough the drive or the hike is. It also seems that the scale is regional. Perhaps only the 1 and the 5 are clearly defined. As a non-hiker, I'd think anything over a mile is at least a 2.5 or a 3. Quote Link to comment
+SeekerOfTheWay Posted December 6, 2010 Author Share Posted December 6, 2010 Awesome, thanks for the feedback. I suppose I am rating based on comparisons of other local T ratings. I rated the 2.4 mile hike a 2.5 because it's a wide, clearly defined grassy trail. Florida is flat so I think it's a pretty easy hike. I probably would rate it higher in another state! Never thought of that! Thanks! Quote Link to comment
+niraD Posted December 6, 2010 Share Posted December 6, 2010 Well, based on the generally accepted terrain ratings, yes: All else being equal, a hike of less than 2 miles could be 2-star terrain ("Less than a 2 mile hike required"), a longer hike could be 3-star terrain ("more than a 2 mile hike"), and an even longer hike could be 4-star terrain ("more than a 10 mile hike"). If you've ever hiked with kids, then perhaps you can also relate to the descriptions. If the hike is too long to be "suitable for small children", then it isn't 2-star terrain, and so on. But this is a lot fuzzier, since everyone's kids are different. Quote Link to comment
+dfx Posted December 6, 2010 Share Posted December 6, 2010 note that the rating scale is roughly logarithmic and not linear, i.e. the difference between 2.0 and 2.5 is smaller than the difference between 2.5 and 3.0. in other words, you don't just add another .5 to the rating for each additional mile of hike. Quote Link to comment
+ventura_kids Posted December 6, 2010 Share Posted December 6, 2010 .....If you've ever hiked with kids, then perhaps you can also relate to the descriptions. If the hike is too long to be "suitable for small children", then it isn't 2-star terrain, and so on. But this is a lot fuzzier, since everyone's kids are different. I believe they mean the Ventura Kids. Anything over 150' should be a 2.5 Quote Link to comment
+Bear and Ragged Posted December 6, 2010 Share Posted December 6, 2010 Use the correct attribute... Even if they are in Km's, rather than miles! Quote Link to comment
+SeekerOfTheWay Posted December 6, 2010 Author Share Posted December 6, 2010 Yes, I need to add those. I have to look up KM to MI. I wish it showed in miles! Quote Link to comment
jholly Posted December 6, 2010 Share Posted December 6, 2010 Another factor is the type of trail. I would really be hard pressed to give higher terrain ratings to couple mile hike on a level paved trail over the hike on the same trail that is only a mile in length. Now if this same hike was on basically an animal trail in very hilly/mountainous terrain more stars would certainly be appropriate. Take a look at clayjar or Markwell for suggestions. Quote Link to comment
+dreamarcher Posted December 6, 2010 Share Posted December 6, 2010 I say the terrain rating is independent from distance. 1) You could make a note on the cache page. 2) Anybody with a GSP and/or Google maps can see how far the hike is. Quote Link to comment
+Chokecherry Posted December 6, 2010 Share Posted December 6, 2010 I say the terrain rating is independent from distance. 1) You could make a note on the cache page. 2) Anybody with a GSP and/or Google maps can see how far the hike is. Groundspeak doesn't see terrain rating independent from distance. I'd go with the guidelines on this one and if the terrain is rough bump up the rating accordingly. Quote Link to comment
+SeekerOfTheWay Posted December 6, 2010 Author Share Posted December 6, 2010 Thanks for all the input so far. I now agree that distance is a factor when rating the T. The more I thought about it, if my caches takes an hour and a half to complete that's a pretty big commitment. Some planning is needed. I rated that a 3. The other I rated a 2.5. They are my "Take A Hike!" series if anyone cares to look them over and offer further suggestions. Quote Link to comment
+briansnat Posted December 7, 2010 Share Posted December 7, 2010 (edited) Thanks for all the input so far. I now agree that distance is a factor when rating the T. The more I thought about it, if my caches takes an hour and a half to complete that's a pretty big commitment. Some planning is needed. I rated that a 3. The other I rated a 2.5. They are my "Take A Hike!" series if anyone cares to look them over and offer further suggestions. I suggest you place more of these. It appears that there are a dearth of them in your area. As far as the terrain rating it's hard to say for sure without actually visiting the caches, but looking at the topo map (unless there were some challenges that are not apparent on the map) I'd probably knock a half star off of each one. A 35 minute walk to a cache on a trail over flat terrain, I'd have a hard time rating it over 2 or 2.5 stars. Edited December 7, 2010 by briansnat Quote Link to comment
+BlueDeuce Posted December 7, 2010 Share Posted December 7, 2010 I have a cache that is .60 miles out on a flat rails-to-trails, a little brush to wade through, maybe a few brambles depending on your approach rated T2. I had someone tell me that it would have been just as effective closer in. Quote Link to comment
+SeekerOfTheWay Posted December 7, 2010 Author Share Posted December 7, 2010 (edited) Thanks for the feedback. I did lower them a bit and posted a note to finders for their input. The trail is even and easy. I don't require bushwhacking because the trails and park is what it's about for me. I plan on hiding more in there, up to a 10 mile hike if possible. So I'll use higher Ts for those. Thanks for the help. As far as being as effective closer ...not sure what you mean. It's a big park with lots of animals and scenery! I do have one closer to the trailhead than those in another nice spot. Part of the purpose of these caches (to me) is the actual hike in. I want them to be far. I need more ammo cans! Edited December 7, 2010 by SeekerOfTheWay Quote Link to comment
+briansnat Posted December 7, 2010 Share Posted December 7, 2010 Thanks for the feedback. I did lower them a bit and posted a note to finders for their input. The trail is even and easy. I don't require bushwhacking because the trails and park is what it's about for me. I plan on hiding more in there, up to a 10 mile hike if possible. So I'll use higher Ts for those. Thanks for the help. As far as being as effective closer ...not sure what you mean. It's a big park with lots of animals and scenery! I do have one closer to the trailhead than those in another nice spot. Part of the purpose of these caches (to me) is the actual hike in. I want them to be far. I need more ammo cans! I think Blue Deuce was referring to a critique of one of his caches, rather than critiquing yours. The person who critiqued his cache probably thought a walk of over a half mile was a bit much. You may run into that. It seems, at least from looking at the cache map of your area, that your local caching culture is a an urban/suburban one with many park n grabs. The park where you hid yours is surprisingly devoid of caches. In my area a park of that size would have had dozens of caches years ago and the surrounding suburban area would been relatively free of caches - the exact opposite of the situation in your area. Maybe your caches will be popular because they are different, or maybe they will go largely ignored because they take too much work. If the latter happens I'm sure the people who do hunt them will find each one to be far more memorable than a dozen strip mall park and grabs. But if your local caching culture is centered around numbers and quickie micros you are likely to get a few complaints about anything that takes a little effort. Quote Link to comment
+SeekerOfTheWay Posted December 7, 2010 Author Share Posted December 7, 2010 (edited) Surprisingly, my new cache is the longest hike in this town! It's a small town that I'd consider...suburban...I guess is the right word. It's definitely not a city. There are so many parks here that are truly "wild" in that some have large trails that are overgrown with lots of animal paths. The Charlotte Harbor Preserve for example. There are caches in there and they are pretty tough (to me). 2 local cahers have that placed locked up! I won't hide in their area. That's cool with me. The caching community here is fairly recent; within the past year new cachers have emerged. It's also probably considered a retirement community. There are a lot of park and grabs but also lots of caches in no man's land. The SnowBirdsVT have around 8000+ finds and have hidden tons around here! The issue with the parks is that they pretty much all need permits. I think that has stopped a lot of hiders. The reviewer for this area (Palmetto) has been SO helpful in giving me contact info when I submit a cache that needs a permit. It's really a simple process and those that issue the permits are very nice. I think I'll get good responses to my hiking/park caches. So far I have. I know there's a few local cachers who won't be able to do them because of physical limitations. I'm sorry for that. But I have to hide what I like. I have a few easy T caches too though. I know a few cachers that just don't like rural hides. There's room for all kinds imo. What I'm finding is a lot of abandoned caches. I think I've had 7 or so archived so far. 1 I took over the spot. I'm not sure why that is happening... Also, my new caches may get melted in the next controlled burn so I have to replace them with ammo cans asap and watch them closely! I can't believe how many new parks I've discovered through geocaching. That's why I love this game. As for my rating, I'll watch the feedback. It seems that it's a bit subjective! The more experience I get, the lower I'd rate harder hikes! Edited December 7, 2010 by SeekerOfTheWay Quote Link to comment
+dreamarcher Posted December 7, 2010 Share Posted December 7, 2010 I say the terrain rating is independent from distance. 1) You could make a note on the cache page. 2) Anybody with a GSP and/or Google maps can see how far the hike is. Groundspeak doesn't see terrain rating independent from distance. I'd go with the guidelines on this one and if the terrain is rough bump up the rating accordingly. I take that back. You're correct. Quote Link to comment
+NYPaddleCacher Posted December 7, 2010 Share Posted December 7, 2010 I think I'll get good responses to my hiking/park caches. So far I have. I know there's a few local cachers who won't be able to do them because of physical limitations. I'm sorry for that. But I have to hide what I like. I have a few easy T caches too though. I know a few cachers that just don't like rural hides. There's room for all kinds imo. That's the way I see it, and considering how prolific park-n-grabs have become, there's a lot more room for caches that require a bit a hike. I read your recent log on the older cache in the park. Important Safety Tip!!! Mark your car. I've only had one instance when I got turned around a bit and followed what I thought was the trail I took into a heavily wooded area. The trail brought me out to a dirt road, but I didn't see my care parked near the trailhead where I left it. Turns out I was on a different road. Even though I *didn't* mark my car I was able to figure out which way to go after looking at my current location relative to a couple of earlier caches I found but I would have saved quite a bit of time if I had marked a location when I got out of my car. Turning on track logs can be very helpful as well and it's fun to look at them later on. Quote Link to comment
+Tape worm Posted December 7, 2010 Share Posted December 7, 2010 I have a cache that is .60 miles out on a flat rails-to-trails, a little brush to wade through, maybe a few brambles depending on your approach rated T2. I had someone tell me that it would have been just as effective closer in. Your cache is just fine where it is. I liked it. I wish there was more out there with a good hike and with a similar container. Quote Link to comment
+J the Goat Posted December 8, 2010 Share Posted December 8, 2010 I think I'll get good responses to my hiking/park caches. So far I have. I know there's a few local cachers who won't be able to do them because of physical limitations. I'm sorry for that. But I have to hide what I like. I have a few easy T caches too though. I know a few cachers that just don't like rural hides. There's room for all kinds imo. Exactly. The good thing about something like this is that maybe you'll inspire other cachers in your area to seek permits to hide other quality caches for you to find. It's a win/win. Quote Link to comment
+SeekerOfTheWay Posted December 11, 2010 Author Share Posted December 11, 2010 So far the finders seem to think they're rated good. Got good feedback in logs and email. I have to take into consideration the summer months too. The T will be harder because of the heat and the rain will make some flooded trails. So using an average seems correct. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.