What would you rate this cache ?

[+TeamSeekAndWeShallFind]

I made a red mark ( hope you can see it ), right where the black nano sits.

 

 

[+G & C]

I can't really tell how high that is from the picture, but it looks to be 8-10 feet high.

 

If that's correct, probably around 1.5 or 2 difficulty, 3 or 3.5 terrain.

[+TeamSeekAndWeShallFind]

I can't really tell how high that is from the picture, but it looks to be 8-10 feet high.

 

If that's correct, probably around 1.5 or 2 difficulty, 3 or 3.5 terrain.

Thanks for the reply. Interesting. So let me ask you, how do you come up with a 3 or 3.5 for terrain if the cache can VERY EASILY be had, in hand, 10 seconds, by simply standing there on the paved parking lot using a stick ?

[+SwineFlew]

3 to 3.5 in terrain. Some people got tools to get to it, but not everybody got it so the terrain is higher than norm.

 

I found a number of caches that was on top of road signs and always have to stand on my back on my truck to get to it. Most of those caches was rated 3 to 3.5.

[+TeamSeekAndWeShallFind]

In my opinion I think the difference in opinions with a cache like this is all about what you consider "terrain !!" It's not about how high the sign is, it's about how high or what the elevation is that I have to be at to retrieve the cache ! It's about where I have to be physically, my body !!

 

Let's go crazy...If there was a cache on top of Mt. Everest and you didn't have to climb Mt. Everest to get the cache because you could get it from flat ground with a REALLY LONG STICK, what would the terrain be ? Would it be a 5 or would it be a 1 ?

 

The cache in question is rated a WHOPPING 4-4 !!! For me, considering the fact we only have 5 stars to work with, I would expect a 4-4 to offer me a HUGE challenge and frankly, I would expect to fail miserably. THAT'S my own personal expectations of what a 4-4 should be. Hours of searching and an xtreme physical workout !!

 

NEVER in my wildest dreams would I expect a 4-4 to be a nano stuck to a sign post 6' over my head where all I have to do is stand in the parking lot in front of it and pull it down and put it back up with a stick ! Even if I had to get ontop of that sign to retrieve the cache, it still wouldn't be a 4-4 in my opinion !

 

I just used the official Geocache Rating System for this cache and it rated it a 1 for terrain and that's what I would give it ! IT IS handicapped friendly !! If a physically challenged cacher spotted this cache and grabbed the nearby stick, he or she could easily retrieve it.

[GOF and Bacall]

From the Clayjar system.

 

How is the the most difficult part of the cache? If the cache is within a few feet of a trail, don't worry about the last few feet.

 

I'd rate the reach as part of the difficulty. The terrain rating is for getting to the cache site and the difficulty rating is for once you get there. 4/4 is too high all the way around.

[+emabie]

I always look at the Terrain rating as applying to the path to get to the cache. The Difficulty rating comes into play with the hide. How tough is the cache to find, how tough to retrieve the cache from it's hiding spot.

 

Any cache in a parking lot or roadside that can be driven up to should get a 1 for terrain. The hide on these nano and micros usually is what gets a higher rating. I would give this one a 2 for difficulty and 1 for terrain.

Edited April 4, 2011 by emabie

[GOF and Bacall]

I always look at the Terrain rating as applying to the path to get to the cache. The Difficulty rating comes into play with the hide. How tough is the cache to find, how tough to retrieve the cache from it's hiding spot.

 

Any cache in a parking lot or roadside that can be driven up to should get a 1 for terrain. The hide on these nano and micros usually is what gets a higher rating. I would give this one a 2 for difficulty and 1 for terrain.

 

I'd go 1.5 on terrain. But only because I wouldn't want someone thinking that the cache could be done from a wheelchair. Other than that I am in agreement with you assessment.

[+buttaskotch]

I would say 2-2.5 terrain, since a tool is needed. 1 would be very difficult in a wheelchair to do, even with a stick (besides, even if it could be knocked down with the stick, it would have to be retrieved and then put back in the exact place found) all with a height disadvantage.

[+emabie]

I would say 2-2.5 terrain, since a tool is needed. 1 would be very difficult in a wheelchair to do, even with a stick (besides, even if it could be knocked down with the stick, it would have to be retrieved and then put back in the exact place found) all with a height disadvantage.

 

Why would the hiding spot and the fact you need a tool to get it be related to the terrain? A 2 to me would be a short path down a trail or paved path. Not something I can drive up to. There is an option to say handicapped accessible or not, I thank thats would be wehre you take into account the height of the hide.

[+Isonzo Karst]

Nice example cache for a discussion.

 

Because it's in open sky, I'd assume the coords are sharp, and thus, figuring out it's on the sign is pretty much a no brainer. Locating it visually could be more or less difficult, depending on the paint match, or if it's the same size and shape as existing fasteners on the sign. Still, it shouldn't take too long to eliminate the base of the sign and the post, which leaves you staring up......(on top of the sign out of sight would be exciting )

 

Terrain. If you can drive right up to it, and climb on the car to get it, that's a climbing cache. Climb using hands is terrain 4, but I wouldn't go that far. So modest difficulty, but up the terrain some.

 

Tool, a lot of cachers carry assorted reaching tools. Need for specialty tools generally goes in the difficulty rating.

 

I can see rating this a number of ways.

 

I guess it depends on your expectation, and what's possible or permissible to the property owner. A friend of mine had a cache in a tree. He absolutely expected you to drive to the tree and climb on your car.

I think he rated the difficulty fairly low and added some terrain ++ for climbing on your car. Some people used grabbers instead.

 

Generally knocking stuff down is easy, putting it back is hard. I'd expect this one to end up on the post a lot, as high as the last cacher could reach.

[AZcachemeister]

I see 'mis-rated' caches all the time.

Some of them are intentional, some are due to the owner being a bit inexperienced.

 

I never get worked up over them, I just consider them a gift to my D/T grid and move on.

[+GeoGeeBee]

How would I rate it? "DNF." I'd never find it. I'd pull up, look at all the places I can reach, log the DNF, and get on with my life.

[knowschad]

Both ratings are highly subjective. If your definition of them disagrees with the hiders definition of them, that means only one thing... your definitions don't agree.

[GOF and Bacall]

Both ratings are highly subjective. If your definition of them disagrees with the hiders definition of them, that means only one thing... your definitions don't agree.

 

Perhaps. But I suspect that 4/4 is way beyond what most of us would rate such a cache.

[+Team JDS']

We would rate this cache a 2/1 or 2/1.5 at the most! The only reason most people would rate it more than a 1 terrain is because of the "Handicap Accessible" assumption that is associated with 1 star terrain ratings. However I think most people underestimate the capabilities of handicap people. The area looks like a wheelcair could roll right up to the sign. So if it is reachable/replaceable with a stick from their chair, why couldn't it be a 1 star terrain? I agree that the system only allows 5 stars, so how could this be a 4/4 compared to caches in other states where serious climbing is involved? As long as we are left to rate our own caches, people will continue to overrate their caches, sad but true!

Edited April 4, 2011 by Team JDS'

[+emabie]

Both ratings are highly subjective. If your definition of them disagrees with the hiders definition of them, that means only one thing... your definitions don't agree.

 

True that the ratings are subjective but the OP had asked what we would rate this cache and the majority here say a 4/4 is to high.

[+G & C]

4/4 is definitely too high. But 1.5 on terrain is way too low.

 

Like I said, it would appear as though it's 8-10 ft. high. That would need some climbing, be it a ladder, some big rocks, whatever. That climb counts as terrain too. If a cache is rated a 1.5 terrain, I am not looking up that high (at first, anyway). It doesn't match.

[+Chokecherry]

My mom has mobility issues. We look for 1.5 terrain caches due to this. This has happened to us before where we picked a cache based on terrain which she should be able to do only to find it was way up a tree and unable to be reached from the ground. For those of us who use these ratings to determine if a cache is physically feasible please don't rate this a 1.5. It ends up being an extremely dissapointing trip for some of us when it's not accurate.

[+Panther&Pine]

I'd probably go with a 2/1.5 but that is me. I can get to most 1.5s without worrying about falling/tipping/sliding/climbing- those I can do on low mobility days with my cane. I use a cane sometimes- like yesterday (maybe I shouldn't have tried doing those three hiking caches before the event on Saturday without my cane and knee brace... but I did it anyway. A 2 and I would bring the cane, but decide when I got there if I needed it. In this case my limited ability (and appaling balance) would prevent me from getting to the cache itself.

1.5 for difficulty is subject to the camo job.

[GOF and Bacall]

HeHe! The cane could actually be a benefit on this hide. You could knock it down and then push it back up.

[+Panther&Pine]

HeHe! The cane could actually be a benefit on this hide. You could knock it down and then push it back up.

Naw, this is when I look at Spruce and say "humm, my knee hurts. You go get it."

[+the4dirtydogs]

I would say 1.5 dif and 2.5 for using a ladder or something else to get you that high. Using a stick to knock it down would be easy but how you going to put the nano back?

[+GeoGeeBee]

I would say 1.5 dif and 2.5 for using a ladder or something else to get you that high. Using a stick to knock it down would be easy but how you going to put the nano back?

It's a magnet. Stick it to the pole, use a stick to slide it up.

[+briansnat]

I'd go with 1.5 for terrain and 1.5 or maybe as much as 2 for difficulty because someone may have to return with a stick.

[+StarBrand]

I'd go with 1.5 for terrain and 1.5 or maybe as much as 2 for difficulty because someone may have to return with a stick.

Certainly no more than a 1.5 for terrain. I might go for a 2 for difficulty but certainly no more.

[+OienLabs]

Without having better details I would say that this is a D1 as the nano is hidden in plain view.

Regarding terrain I will say it is a 3 maybe 3.5.

 

Is the pole made of iron, wood or alu (must not be iron pole to be a magnetic cache, or was it Velcro)?

Is the pole covered in grease?

What is the height of the pole?

 

How many beer milk cases have to stabled upon each other to make the hide reachable?

Edited April 4, 2011 by baø

[+the4dirtydogs]

I would say 1.5 dif and 2.5 for using a ladder or something else to get you that high. Using a stick to knock it down would be easy but how you going to put the nano back?

It's a magnet. Stick it to the pole, use a stick to slide it up.

I didn't know if it would be too much trouble to push the nano up with the pole being kinda rusty, and looks like the paint is chipping off. If thats the case then I would probably rate this as another lame hide.

Edited April 4, 2011 by the4dirtydogs

[+SwineFlew]

My mom has mobility issues. We look for 1.5 terrain caches due to this. This has happened to us before where we picked a cache based on terrain which she should be able to do only to find it was way up a tree and unable to be reached from the ground. For those of us who use these ratings to determine if a cache is physically feasible please don't rate this a 1.5. It ends up being an extremely dissapointing trip for some of us when it's not accurate.

 

You got it, my brother inlaw got a serious mobility issues and when I rate my caches, I think of him. I am really picky about those low rated terrain caches. I found one a while back and the terrain was a 1 but you have to get on your knees to get to it. To me, thats not a 1.

 

Back on the OP, I see gravel around the sign and its not a terrain 1 even the cache is 3 feet off the ground. Some people dont understand alot of thing about different level of mobilities.

[+secondgunman]

I placed a similar cache to this one last month. Mine is a hide-a-key, so it's a little bigger than this container. The biggest difference between this one and mine is that mine is on top of the object (mine's under the roof of a picnic shelter, on top of a metal beam). Because it's on top, you can't simply knock it down and then slide it back up. To put it back in place, you have to get it back on top of the beam that's 12 feet off the ground. As an aside, it's not visible from below. You have to step back about 20 feet and look up to see it.

 

I rated mine a 4/1.5. My thinking was 1.5 for terrain because it's a bit tricky for a wheelchair to get to. I rated it a difficulty 4 because the container is on top of the beam.

[+Sharks-N-Beans]

We'd use 2.0 terrain/ 1.0 difficulty. There's no need to put it that high unless you are trying to add a level of difficulty to the reach which falls under terrain. We would see it very quickly.

[+DanOCan]

I'd likely have it rated as a D2/T2.5.

I agree 4/4 is too high.

[+Don_J]

Both ratings are highly subjective. If your definition of them disagrees with the hiders definition of them, that means only one thing... your definitions don't agree.

 

Which is the problem. We have two ratings systems, Groundspeak's and Clayjar's. If hiders were to consistently use one or the other, a lot of the subjectivity would be eliminated.

 

Our local octogenarians have an assortment of TOTTs in their car. This cache would be a piece of cake for them, but they would probably pass on it because it is a T4.

 

Both systems rate this a 2/1.

[+LizzyHoops]

 

I just used the official Geocache Rating System for this cache and it rated it a 1 for terrain and that's what I would give it ! IT IS handicapped friendly !! If a physically challenged cacher spotted this cache and grabbed the nearby stick, he or she could easily retrieve it.

 

I think its ridiculous to rate this as a 1 terrain. Its also ridiculous to rate it as a 4. I'd call it a 1.5 or maybe 2. This cache is NOT handicap friendly. Although handicaps come in all levels of impairment and mobility, as someone who has lived with a handicapped person in a mobilized wheel chair for over 20 years, I can tell you with much certainty that this is NOT friendly.

[+Harry Dolphin]

3 for terrain. Terrain is getting your hands on the cache, not getting to 9 feet below it. Difficulty 2.5. I've done similar with a hiking stick and a plastic bag. Unless the guy hiding behind the pole with the stick is the CO who is going to bop you with the stick. Then difficulty is 5.

[+TeamSeekAndWeShallFind]

There are a lot of great comments here !

 

I'd like to add some details about this 4-4 hide...the coords are dead on. There's NOTHING else in the immediate area where a cache could possibly be unless it's in the pavement ( we own one like this ).

 

I got out while my teammate ate lunch. I spotted the black nano on the black post almost immediately, literally 5 seconds. I looked on the ground and found a long piece of white PVC pipe approximately 7' long. It was odd that this perfect tool was just lying right there ! Don't know if a previous finder left it or what. I used the pipe to slide/pull the magnetic nano down to reachable level all while it was still stuck to the sign post.

 

Signed the log. Stuck it back on the post and used the stick to push it back up.

 

Not only is this 4/4 cache THAT EASY, it IS handicap friendly/accessible. The hardest part, if any, about this cache, would be for a person with impaired vision because it is black on black or if the sun was blinding you and you couldn't look up. Other than that, if this was my cache, I'd probably give it a 1.5-1.5.

 

Again, I think the issue is the difference in opinions about what different cachers consider "terrain." To me, a cache's difficulty is all about the brain and the terrain is all about the brawn. One doesn't have anything to do with the other. If I couldn't reach this cache from the ground and I had to physically climb up to the top of the sign, I STILL WOULDN'T RATE IT A 4 FOR TERRAIN. I obviously couldn't climb this sign like I could easily climb a tree of the same height so I would have to use a ladder and if I had to use a ladder, that would be part of the difficulty rating, NOT the terrain because the terrain here is perfectly flat parking lot paved pavement which is a 1.

 

Terrain is used as a general term in physical geography, it refers to the lie of the land. THE LAND !!! This is usually expressed in terms of the elevation, slope, and orientation of terrain features. This sign is not a terrain feature like a hill or a mountain or a creek, river, lake, ditch etc... This sign didn't "grow," out of this parking lot ! You don't have to "conquer," the sign to get the cache ! You have to use your head and figure out how to get the cache down from the 1 star terrain you're standing on !

[Dj Storm]

I would rate the terrain as a 3 or 3.5, assuming the cache is more than 10 feet up that pole. And my fellow cachers criticize me for rating the difficulty/terrain on my caches too low!

If there's a fixture on site that allows me to climb the pole, than terrain goes down to 2*.

I would think twice about knocking down the nanocache with a pole. I will have to search for the nano in the grass, and if I don't find it, that's a ruined cache.

As for the difficulty, probably 1.5.

 

If the cache is intended to be lowered using tools found on site, the terrain rating goes down and the difficulty goes up.

[+Isonzo Karst]

.... if I had to use a ladder, that would be part of the difficulty rating, NOT the terrain because the terrain here is perfectly flat parking lot paved pavement which is a 1.

 

I'm going to disagree. Climbing a ladder is a physical act. If your knees/hips/hands are bad, it's not doable. If you're wheelchair bound (terrain 1) you probably can't climb a ladder. So a cache that is paved to a ladder climb, or even a stair climb, isn't terrain 1.

 

I think the problem with ratings as low as some have suggested is that the cache will be easy to knock down, and once down, will be put back in comfortable reach on the post, to correspond with a low difficulty/terrain rating.

 

I'm not advocating any particular rating here. But I can understand the cache owner rating either the difficulty or the terrain higher, even both. I don't know about 4/4. If the terrain is rated 4, you're climbing on the roof of your car (I assume). At that point, the difficulty is maybe 1.5 for seeing the darn thing. Now, if it were on top of sign, out of sight? that might = 4/4 ...

[+baloo&bd]

I won't post the GC# for the original cache mentioned since this thread starts with a spoiler pic, however it is about 90 minutes south of us in an area we frequent. Most on the thread should be able to get a good pic of the site in a few minutes.

 

To give posters details so the comments are somewhat more valid, the cache is next to a paved lot (nearest) that goes from paved to a loose, uneven gravel shoulder for 1.5 to 2 feet then is ultimately in grass. As you can see from the original pic, the sign (12 to 15 feet above ground level) is not small so requires a base of around 2 by 2 foot for the skirt sitting on a around 2.5 x 2.5 foot concrete pad that is about 3 to 4 inches above the grass. Handicap accessible would be a stretch and there is no way to consider this wheelchair accessible.

 

4-4, probably not however since we only have 5 stars to work with and 1.5 would be the minimum this could be rated via the guidelines, it is probably a 2.5 terrain however 3 could also make sense. Taking into account that the overall average cacher still has less than 300 to 500 finds and this is a micro that is up and blends somewhat, a 3.5 to 3 would not be unreasonable for difficulty.

[+TeamSeekAndWeShallFind]

I won't post the GC# for the original cache mentioned since this thread starts with a spoiler pic, however it is about 90 minutes south of us in an area we frequent. Most on the thread should be able to get a good pic of the site in a few minutes.

 

To give posters details so the comments are somewhat more valid, the cache is next to a paved lot (nearest) that goes from paved to a loose, uneven gravel shoulder for 1.5 to 2 feet then is ultimately in grass. As you can see from the original pic, the sign (12 to 15 feet above ground level) is not small so requires a base of around 2 by 2 foot for the skirt sitting on a around 2.5 x 2.5 foot concrete pad that is about 3 to 4 inches above the grass. Handicap accessible would be a stretch and there is no way to consider this wheelchair accessible.

 

4-4, probably not however since we only have 5 stars to work with and 1.5 would be the minimum this could be rated via the guidelines, it is probably a 2.5 terrain however 3 could also make sense. Taking into account that the overall average cacher still has less than 300 to 500 finds and this is a micro that is up and blends somewhat, a 3.5 to 3 would not be unreasonable for difficulty.

Is your signature on the physical logsheet inside this cache container ?

[GOF and Bacall]

I won't post the GC# for the original cache mentioned since this thread starts with a spoiler pic, however it is about 90 minutes south of us in an area we frequent. Most on the thread should be able to get a good pic of the site in a few minutes.

 

To give posters details so the comments are somewhat more valid, the cache is next to a paved lot (nearest) that goes from paved to a loose, uneven gravel shoulder for 1.5 to 2 feet then is ultimately in grass. As you can see from the original pic, the sign (12 to 15 feet above ground level) is not small so requires a base of around 2 by 2 foot for the skirt sitting on a around 2.5 x 2.5 foot concrete pad that is about 3 to 4 inches above the grass. Handicap accessible would be a stretch and there is no way to consider this wheelchair accessible.

 

4-4, probably not however since we only have 5 stars to work with and 1.5 would be the minimum this could be rated via the guidelines, it is probably a 2.5 terrain however 3 could also make sense. Taking into account that the overall average cacher still has less than 300 to 500 finds and this is a micro that is up and blends somewhat, a 3.5 to 3 would not be unreasonable for difficulty.

Is your signature on the physical logsheet inside this cache container ?

 

What does that have to do with the conversation?

[+CP Columbus]

I'd rate it a 2 for difficulty and a 1 for terrain...

[+TeamSeekAndWeShallFind]

I won't post the GC# for the original cache mentioned since this thread starts with a spoiler pic, however it is about 90 minutes south of us in an area we frequent. Most on the thread should be able to get a good pic of the site in a few minutes.

 

To give posters details so the comments are somewhat more valid, the cache is next to a paved lot (nearest) that goes from paved to a loose, uneven gravel shoulder for 1.5 to 2 feet then is ultimately in grass. As you can see from the original pic, the sign (12 to 15 feet above ground level) is not small so requires a base of around 2 by 2 foot for the skirt sitting on a around 2.5 x 2.5 foot concrete pad that is about 3 to 4 inches above the grass. Handicap accessible would be a stretch and there is no way to consider this wheelchair accessible.

 

4-4, probably not however since we only have 5 stars to work with and 1.5 would be the minimum this could be rated via the guidelines, it is probably a 2.5 terrain however 3 could also make sense. Taking into account that the overall average cacher still has less than 300 to 500 finds and this is a micro that is up and blends somewhat, a 3.5 to 3 would not be unreasonable for difficulty.

Is your signature on the physical logsheet inside this cache container ?

 

What does that have to do with the conversation?

What does that have to do with the converstation ? Seriously ? Ok. I'll respond. The comment states he/she is giving posters details so their comments can be somewhat more valid....distance from his/her house ( which he/she would only know if they went to my profile page and pulled up the only 4/4 I recently found ),lots of measurements which he/she can only attempt to calculate from MY photo. This person hasn't been to this cache, he/she is providing these "details," from information I provided. I found this cache. I signed the log. I was there. Wether his sig is on the logsheet or not has EVERYTHING to do with it if he's going to attempt to enlighten everyone with DETAILS !

 

It's a bit like trying to give the police details of a traffic accident that you saw on the 10 o'clock news while sitting on your living room couch.

 

Who are the police going to listen to ? The armchair spectator or me ?

 

I gave the police my account of the same accident only I was standing on the street corner when it happened.

 

Trust me. This parking lot store sign cache ain't no 4/4. If the GC cache rating scale went to 40 ? Maybe. But it doesn't. It goes to 5....THAT'S THE MOST DIFFICULT, TREACHEROUS, CHALLENGING ! This 30 second parking lot PNG cache is NOWHERE NEAR the upper end of the rating scale. If you rate this parking lot sign a 4, WHERE can you possibly go from there ??

 

We've found almost 2,800 caches and have YET to see a real 4/4. The most challenging cache we've ever found has to be "Ruby's Outstanding Cache," and if you look at the photos, you'll see why. We waded through ice cold, chest high swamp water wearing waders, sinking 1' down into disgusting muck every step we took. You can see our photos on the cache page. I believe we're the only cachers to find this cache while the swamp was water and not solid ice. Everybody else who saw GZ in spring/summer, came back in the winter. I conquered a personal fear of water to sign the log on this cache. Not just water, but disgusting swamp water ! My heart was beating so fast the entire time I was almost hyperventilating !

 

I suppose it all depends on where you've been...

 

Edit: "Ruby's," is rated a 1/3. So there you go. Difficulty and Terrain are ALL in the eye of the beholder !!! Sign the logbook on Ruby's IN THE SPRING, and then sign the logsheet on the ( ahem ), 4/4 parking lot PNG in question, then come back and talk to me about the ratings....

Edited April 12, 2011 by TeamSeekAndWeShallFind

[+Six Little Spookies]

The rating systems are highly subjective. That's life. I think the Clayjar is pretty good for terrain, but practically worthless for difficulty. I'll use it as a starting point, but then I'll add or subtract based on conditions at the hide.

Given the info posted about this hide I'd call it a 2/3 if you could lift a kid il tk grab it, maybe a 2/3.5 if you couldn't. Needing to us a tool to reach it, even if it's a stick, pushes the rating up for me. And for me, the find isthe difficulty, the grab is the terrain. If one of my caches makes you leave the ground to find it, it's going to be at least a T3, more likely a 4.

 

Oh, and you should also consider most likely worst case scenario (yeah, I know, another highly subjective concept), when rating a cache. I have a cache in a retention pond. Occasionally it dries out enough to walk out and stay clean. Count yourself lucky. Usually it's six inches of water and six of mud. Sometimes it's three feet of water. That one got a 2.5/4 if I recall correctly.

[+ZSandmann]

There are a lot of great comments here !

 

I'd like to add some details about this 4-4 hide...the coords are dead on. There's NOTHING else in the immediate area where a cache could possibly be unless it's in the pavement ( we own one like this ).

 

I got out while my teammate ate lunch. I spotted the black nano on the black post almost immediately, literally 5 seconds. I looked on the ground and found a long piece of white PVC pipe approximately 7' long. It was odd that this perfect tool was just lying right there ! Don't know if a previous finder left it or what. I used the pipe to slide/pull the magnetic nano down to reachable level all while it was still stuck to the sign post.

 

Signed the log. Stuck it back on the post and used the stick to push it back up.

 

Not only is this 4/4 cache THAT EASY, it IS handicap friendly/accessible. The hardest part, if any, about this cache, would be for a person with impaired vision because it is black on black or if the sun was blinding you and you couldn't look up. Other than that, if this was my cache, I'd probably give it a 1.5-1.5.

 

Again, I think the issue is the difference in opinions about what different cachers consider "terrain." To me, a cache's difficulty is all about the brain and the terrain is all about the brawn. One doesn't have anything to do with the other. If I couldn't reach this cache from the ground and I had to physically climb up to the top of the sign, I STILL WOULDN'T RATE IT A 4 FOR TERRAIN. I obviously couldn't climb this sign like I could easily climb a tree of the same height so I would have to use a ladder and if I had to use a ladder, that would be part of the difficulty rating, NOT the terrain because the terrain here is perfectly flat parking lot paved pavement which is a 1.

Terrain is used as a general term in physical geography, it refers to the lie of the land. THE LAND !!! This is usually expressed in terms of the elevation, slope, and orientation of terrain features. This sign is not a terrain feature like a hill or a mountain or a creek, river, lake, ditch etc... This sign didn't "grow," out of this parking lot ! You don't have to "conquer," the sign to get the cache ! You have to use your head and figure out how to get the cache down from the 1 star terrain you're standing on !

I disagree with the bolded bit. If you HAD to use a ladder, and I've done one very recently that this was exactly the case, then that is a Terrain 5 because specialized equipment is REQUIRED. Same as a climbing harness would be required for a repelling cache, same as a kayak would be required for a cache on an island. Yes, I understand there are ALWAYS other ways to get a cache. Instead of a ladder, repelling gear, or kayak you hire a helicopter to get to GZ. But reasonably 99.9% of cachers will need that equipment, this is Terrain 5. The terrain is not just the walk to the cache, it is the entire trip from vehicle to cache in hand. That includes the grab. You made creative use of a found item at GZ, I applaud you for that. In doing so you lowered your terrain, no doubt. The Difficulty is how well the cache is concealed, how hard it is to derive the coordinates, or how well the cache is protected. IE, lock, inside a building, etc.

 

I would rate the OPs cache in question a 2D/2T.

 

2 Difficulty because it is a black nano, on a black sign, not in a normal nano spot, and in public.

2 Terrain because it is not handicap accessable (I doubt many wheelchair bound cachers could lift a 7 ft length of PVC), it is not a PnG lampskirt, it is out of normal reach and requires a bit of creativity to grab and replace correctly.

[+ZSandmann]

Oh btw, and sorry for the double post. I have met ClayJar, he is a true old schooler, and his system is very much based on finding 5 gallon buckets in the woods of South Louisiana. Urban hides don't easily classify within his rating schema.

[+nittanycopa]

There are a lot of great comments here !

 

I'd like to add some details about this 4-4 hide...the coords are dead on. There's NOTHING else in the immediate area where a cache could possibly be unless it's in the pavement ( we own one like this ).

 

I got out while my teammate ate lunch. I spotted the black nano on the black post almost immediately, literally 5 seconds. I looked on the ground and found a long piece of white PVC pipe approximately 7' long. It was odd that this perfect tool was just lying right there ! Don't know if a previous finder left it or what. I used the pipe to slide/pull the magnetic nano down to reachable level all while it was still stuck to the sign post.

 

Signed the log. Stuck it back on the post and used the stick to push it back up.

 

Not only is this 4/4 cache THAT EASY, it IS handicap friendly/accessible. The hardest part, if any, about this cache, would be for a person with impaired vision because it is black on black or if the sun was blinding you and you couldn't look up. Other than that, if this was my cache, I'd probably give it a 1.5-1.5.

 

Again, I think the issue is the difference in opinions about what different cachers consider "terrain." To me, a cache's difficulty is all about the brain and the terrain is all about the brawn. One doesn't have anything to do with the other. If I couldn't reach this cache from the ground and I had to physically climb up to the top of the sign, I STILL WOULDN'T RATE IT A 4 FOR TERRAIN. I obviously couldn't climb this sign like I could easily climb a tree of the same height so I would have to use a ladder and if I had to use a ladder, that would be part of the difficulty rating, NOT the terrain because the terrain here is perfectly flat parking lot paved pavement which is a 1.

Terrain is used as a general term in physical geography, it refers to the lie of the land. THE LAND !!! This is usually expressed in terms of the elevation, slope, and orientation of terrain features. This sign is not a terrain feature like a hill or a mountain or a creek, river, lake, ditch etc... This sign didn't "grow," out of this parking lot ! You don't have to "conquer," the sign to get the cache ! You have to use your head and figure out how to get the cache down from the 1 star terrain you're standing on !

I disagree with the bolded bit. If you HAD to use a ladder, and I've done one very recently that this was exactly the case, then that is a Terrain 5 because specialized equipment is REQUIRED. Same as a climbing harness would be required for a repelling cache, same as a kayak would be required for a cache on an island. Yes, I understand there are ALWAYS other ways to get a cache. Instead of a ladder, repelling gear, or kayak you hire a helicopter to get to GZ. But reasonably 99.9% of cachers will need that equipment, this is Terrain 5. The terrain is not just the walk to the cache, it is the entire trip from vehicle to cache in hand. That includes the grab. You made creative use of a found item at GZ, I applaud you for that. In doing so you lowered your terrain, no doubt. The Difficulty is how well the cache is concealed, how hard it is to derive the coordinates, or how well the cache is protected. IE, lock, inside a building, etc.

 

I would rate the OPs cache in question a 2D/2T.

 

2 Difficulty because it is a black nano, on a black sign, not in a normal nano spot, and in public.

2 Terrain because it is not handicap accessable (I doubt many wheelchair bound cachers could lift a 7 ft length of PVC), it is not a PnG lampskirt, it is out of normal reach and requires a bit of creativity to grab and replace correctly.

 

There are probably (by this system) 4 and 4.5 caches that may be considerably more challenging that many "5" terrain caches because of the equipment aspect.

 

When I see a 4 or 4.5 terrain, I know it's going to be a tough one - be it a very grueling (or long) hike or a non-gear required climb, ascent/descent.

 

(and I know it's gonna be a kick-a** time )

[+ZSandmann]

There are a lot of great comments here !

 

I'd like to add some details about this 4-4 hide...the coords are dead on. There's NOTHING else in the immediate area where a cache could possibly be unless it's in the pavement ( we own one like this ).

 

I got out while my teammate ate lunch. I spotted the black nano on the black post almost immediately, literally 5 seconds. I looked on the ground and found a long piece of white PVC pipe approximately 7' long. It was odd that this perfect tool was just lying right there ! Don't know if a previous finder left it or what. I used the pipe to slide/pull the magnetic nano down to reachable level all while it was still stuck to the sign post.

 

Signed the log. Stuck it back on the post and used the stick to push it back up.

 

Not only is this 4/4 cache THAT EASY, it IS handicap friendly/accessible. The hardest part, if any, about this cache, would be for a person with impaired vision because it is black on black or if the sun was blinding you and you couldn't look up. Other than that, if this was my cache, I'd probably give it a 1.5-1.5.

 

Again, I think the issue is the difference in opinions about what different cachers consider "terrain." To me, a cache's difficulty is all about the brain and the terrain is all about the brawn. One doesn't have anything to do with the other. If I couldn't reach this cache from the ground and I had to physically climb up to the top of the sign, I STILL WOULDN'T RATE IT A 4 FOR TERRAIN. I obviously couldn't climb this sign like I could easily climb a tree of the same height so I would have to use a ladder and if I had to use a ladder, that would be part of the difficulty rating, NOT the terrain because the terrain here is perfectly flat parking lot paved pavement which is a 1.

Terrain is used as a general term in physical geography, it refers to the lie of the land. THE LAND !!! This is usually expressed in terms of the elevation, slope, and orientation of terrain features. This sign is not a terrain feature like a hill or a mountain or a creek, river, lake, ditch etc... This sign didn't "grow," out of this parking lot ! You don't have to "conquer," the sign to get the cache ! You have to use your head and figure out how to get the cache down from the 1 star terrain you're standing on !

I disagree with the bolded bit. If you HAD to use a ladder, and I've done one very recently that this was exactly the case, then that is a Terrain 5 because specialized equipment is REQUIRED. Same as a climbing harness would be required for a repelling cache, same as a kayak would be required for a cache on an island. Yes, I understand there are ALWAYS other ways to get a cache. Instead of a ladder, repelling gear, or kayak you hire a helicopter to get to GZ. But reasonably 99.9% of cachers will need that equipment, this is Terrain 5. The terrain is not just the walk to the cache, it is the entire trip from vehicle to cache in hand. That includes the grab. You made creative use of a found item at GZ, I applaud you for that. In doing so you lowered your terrain, no doubt. The Difficulty is how well the cache is concealed, how hard it is to derive the coordinates, or how well the cache is protected. IE, lock, inside a building, etc.

 

I would rate the OPs cache in question a 2D/2T.

 

2 Difficulty because it is a black nano, on a black sign, not in a normal nano spot, and in public.

2 Terrain because it is not handicap accessable (I doubt many wheelchair bound cachers could lift a 7 ft length of PVC), it is not a PnG lampskirt, it is out of normal reach and requires a bit of creativity to grab and replace correctly.

 

There are probably (by this system) 4 and 4.5 caches that may be considerably more challenging that many "5" terrain caches because of the equipment aspect.

 

When I see a 4 or 4.5 terrain, I know it's going to be a tough one - be it a very grueling (or long) hike or a non-gear required climb, ascent/descent.

 

(and I know it's gonna be a kick-a** time )

I don't disagree with any of that statement. All Terrain 5 caches are not created equal. If I have to scuba to a cache 25 feet under water that is a Terrain 5, but if I know Scuba and have the equipment, it isn't a tough cache. If there were a cache on top of Mt Everest, that would most certainly be Terrain 5 but no matter what I could never achieve it. Same for the cache on The International Space Station.

[+nittanycopa]

There are a lot of great comments here !

 

I'd like to add some details about this 4-4 hide...the coords are dead on. There's NOTHING else in the immediate area where a cache could possibly be unless it's in the pavement ( we own one like this ).

 

I got out while my teammate ate lunch. I spotted the black nano on the black post almost immediately, literally 5 seconds. I looked on the ground and found a long piece of white PVC pipe approximately 7' long. It was odd that this perfect tool was just lying right there ! Don't know if a previous finder left it or what. I used the pipe to slide/pull the magnetic nano down to reachable level all while it was still stuck to the sign post.

 

Signed the log. Stuck it back on the post and used the stick to push it back up.

 

Not only is this 4/4 cache THAT EASY, it IS handicap friendly/accessible. The hardest part, if any, about this cache, would be for a person with impaired vision because it is black on black or if the sun was blinding you and you couldn't look up. Other than that, if this was my cache, I'd probably give it a 1.5-1.5.

 

Again, I think the issue is the difference in opinions about what different cachers consider "terrain." To me, a cache's difficulty is all about the brain and the terrain is all about the brawn. One doesn't have anything to do with the other. If I couldn't reach this cache from the ground and I had to physically climb up to the top of the sign, I STILL WOULDN'T RATE IT A 4 FOR TERRAIN. I obviously couldn't climb this sign like I could easily climb a tree of the same height so I would have to use a ladder and if I had to use a ladder, that would be part of the difficulty rating, NOT the terrain because the terrain here is perfectly flat parking lot paved pavement which is a 1.

Terrain is used as a general term in physical geography, it refers to the lie of the land. THE LAND !!! This is usually expressed in terms of the elevation, slope, and orientation of terrain features. This sign is not a terrain feature like a hill or a mountain or a creek, river, lake, ditch etc... This sign didn't "grow," out of this parking lot ! You don't have to "conquer," the sign to get the cache ! You have to use your head and figure out how to get the cache down from the 1 star terrain you're standing on !

I disagree with the bolded bit. If you HAD to use a ladder, and I've done one very recently that this was exactly the case, then that is a Terrain 5 because specialized equipment is REQUIRED. Same as a climbing harness would be required for a repelling cache, same as a kayak would be required for a cache on an island. Yes, I understand there are ALWAYS other ways to get a cache. Instead of a ladder, repelling gear, or kayak you hire a helicopter to get to GZ. But reasonably 99.9% of cachers will need that equipment, this is Terrain 5. The terrain is not just the walk to the cache, it is the entire trip from vehicle to cache in hand. That includes the grab. You made creative use of a found item at GZ, I applaud you for that. In doing so you lowered your terrain, no doubt. The Difficulty is how well the cache is concealed, how hard it is to derive the coordinates, or how well the cache is protected. IE, lock, inside a building, etc.

 

I would rate the OPs cache in question a 2D/2T.

 

2 Difficulty because it is a black nano, on a black sign, not in a normal nano spot, and in public.

2 Terrain because it is not handicap accessable (I doubt many wheelchair bound cachers could lift a 7 ft length of PVC), it is not a PnG lampskirt, it is out of normal reach and requires a bit of creativity to grab and replace correctly.

 

There are probably (by this system) 4 and 4.5 caches that may be considerably more challenging that many "5" terrain caches because of the equipment aspect.

 

When I see a 4 or 4.5 terrain, I know it's going to be a tough one - be it a very grueling (or long) hike or a non-gear required climb, ascent/descent.

 

(and I know it's gonna be a kick-a** time )

I don't disagree with any of that statement. All Terrain 5 caches are not created equal. If I have to scuba to a cache 25 feet under water that is a Terrain 5, but if I know Scuba and have the equipment, it isn't a tough cache. If there were a cache on top of Mt Everest, that would most certainly be Terrain 5 but no matter what I could never achieve it. Same for the cache on The International Space Station.

 

There are some that probably deserve more than a "5" terrain out there, to be honest. Scale just doesn't work that way unfortunately.

[+TeamSeekAndWeShallFind]

Here's a photo of the latest 4/5 cache in my area. The red mark is where the cache is. It's one of those containers that some cachers refer to as a Bison but it's not actually a Bison, it's more of a pill FOB. It's burgundy in color, shiny, hanging/swinging from a silver-tone keyring.

 

This VERY YOUNG pine tree sits approximately 20' off a paved parking lot behind a church.

 

What do you think ? Would you rate this cache a 4/5 ?

 

 

 

I speak out A LOT about overrated caches and my intent is not to be mean or disrespectful to those cache owners but to understand where they're coming from. Caches like this are rampant where I live and I often wonder what other cachers from other states would think if they came upon this EXTREME RATED cache 8' up in a pine tree ? I've seen what other cachers in other states consider EXTREME...rock climbing, mountain climbing, scuba diving shipwrecks, trekking trails with Black Bears etc...and frankly, I'm embarrassed because I don't want cachers like that to think all cachers from NE IL are lame !!!

Edited April 24, 2011 by TeamSeekAndWeShallFind