Over rated Terrain

[+skyraider]

Anyone having problems with caches being over rated for terrain? I like to do the more difficult T caches, and lately I have been somewhat dissapointed by what I think are way too high ratings for terrain. There is a local cache that is rated a 4 1/2T that is only 26 feet from the parking area. It is down over about a 10 foot bank, but it could be done in bedroom slippers!!! I have done 2 caches recently that were fun hikes, but they were rated 5T and I needed no equipment or training other than a pair of boots. Am I being too critical, or should I just be happy that they were not as tough as I expected them to be. It is getting hard to write a decent log without coming across as the cache cop!!

[+baloo&bd]

Anyone having problems with caches being over rated for terrain? I like to do the more difficult T caches, and lately I have been somewhat dissapointed by what I think are way too high ratings for terrain. There is a local cache that is rated a 4 1/2T that is only 26 feet from the parking area. It is down over about a 10 foot bank, but it could be done in bedroom slippers!!! I have done 2 caches recently that were fun hikes, but they were rated 5T and I needed no equipment or training other than a pair of boots. Am I being too critical, or should I just be happy that they were not as tough as I expected them to be. It is getting hard to write a decent log without coming across as the cache cop!!

 

I must admit as I started to read your post, my opinion was somewhat clouded by local criticism of cache difficulty and terrain that is unwarranted. However after reading yours I can see the frustration however it is probably more of a issue when a cache is underrated, since coming unprepared doesn't always become evident at the outset.

 

Are these placement by newer cachers that just might need some guidance, privately of course.

[+dfx]

Mention it in your log. Be stern, but polite. Move on.

[AZcachemeister]

You do seem to have a few extreme examples of sand-bagging there, dontcha?

 

Many new cachers don't understand the system, and even a veteran like myself would rather over-rate a cache than under-rate it.

 

If the caches are fairly new, you should contact the owner to make suggestions on YOUR rating.

If the caches have been out a while (with many finders), it's best to just let it go and be happy you were able to conquer such difficult terrain so easily.

[+hukilaulau]

Mention it in your log. Be stern, but polite. Move on.

Couldn't say it much better. Except maybe to be even briefer.

 

Mention it in your log. Move on.

 

Like that...

[+akkatracker]

There's a cache down the road 4.5 Terrain and you park your car 2m away from it. The same owners placed another one 4.5 difficulty and they tell you where it is. On the other hand there is another great cache- haven't gotten around to doing it, 4Terrain which is 1km away from the "4.5 Terrain" and requires a 2km walk and 150m bush bash.

[+luvvinbird]

Anyone having problems with caches being over rated for terrain? I like to do the more difficult T caches, and lately I have been somewhat dissapointed by what I think are way too high ratings for terrain. There is a local cache that is rated a 4 1/2T that is only 26 feet from the parking area. It is down over about a 10 foot bank, but it could be done in bedroom slippers!!! I have done 2 caches recently that were fun hikes, but they were rated 5T and I needed no equipment or training other than a pair of boots. Am I being too critical, or should I just be happy that they were not as tough as I expected them to be. It is getting hard to write a decent log without coming across as the cache cop!!

I know there are caches out there that are very challenging requiring a great deal of athleticism and would be appealing to you but, they're few and far between. Even with the high terrain numbers, most are attainable by the average person. Maybe a new classification of caches specifically designed for the more adventurous cachers wouldn't be a bad idea.

[+BAMBOOZLE]

In general, we tend to find terrain over-rated and cache difficulty under-rated.

[knowschad]

Ratings, both difficulty, but especially terrain, are EXTREMELY subjective. Using the Clayjar system (or the Groundspeak version of it) might help somewhat, but it still requires very subjective answers to the questions, What is a 1.5 for a 20 trim and muscular year-old might be a 2.5 or more for an overweight 50 year old. I just looked at your profile and while it looks like you are no spring chicken, it also looks like you are in uncommonly good shape for your age (either that, or you look awfully old for your physique ) . I think that I am in pretty bad condition for 62, but I can run all over some of my friends of the same age, or even some several years younger.

 

I guess the bottom line is that you can only use the ratings as a general guideline. The attributes, the logs, and the maps will help you find those caches that you are looking for, but even more so... word of mouth.

[+Gan Dalf]

.

 

I guess the bottom line is that you can only use the ratings as a general guideline.

 

so does this shoot the whole idea behind the fizzy challenge out of the water? If it's all just subjective conjecture, what's the point?

[+WarNinjas]

We use the automated system to calculate the terrain and it can be a little fuzzy. I thought one we had put out was a 1 because you could just walk right up to it next to where you parked but then the reviewer said it should be wheelchair accessible then. I didn't think it should be set that way as there is a curb to get over but might be able to reach it if they could figure out where it was. I made it a 1.5. It can vary but I think a 4.5 should be fairly hard to get to.

-WarNinjas

[+Isonzo Karst]

Here's a link to the Clayjar geocache rating system, you could politely and gently mention that the terrain rating is a bit off according to the standard use for geocaching, and put the link in your log. Although often the clueless don't understand that they can edit their cache page, so even if they get this info, the page will remain as is.

 

http://www.clayjar.com/gcrs/

 

A system derived from this, but not quite as detailed, is hosted on this site, and cache owners are offered a link to the Groundspeak version when they fill in a cache report form. However, it's one of a number of links on that page and apparently some cache owners aren't reading it.

[+Don_J]

Anyone having problems with caches being over rated for terrain? I like to do the more difficult T caches, and lately I have been somewhat dissapointed by what I think are way too high ratings for terrain. There is a local cache that is rated a 4 1/2T that is only 26 feet from the parking area. It is down over about a 10 foot bank, but it could be done in bedroom slippers!!! I have done 2 caches recently that were fun hikes, but they were rated 5T and I needed no equipment or training other than a pair of boots. Am I being too critical, or should I just be happy that they were not as tough as I expected them to be. It is getting hard to write a decent log without coming across as the cache cop!!

I know there are caches out there that are very challenging requiring a great deal of athleticism and would be appealing to you but, they're few and far between. Even with the high terrain numbers, most are attainable by the average person. Maybe a new classification of caches specifically designed for the more adventurous cachers wouldn't be a bad idea.

 

Actually, if people would just use the available rating system and remove their subjectivity from the equation, all would be fine. I should be able to look at the system and determine that I am capable of finding a T4 cache and not higher. If everyone used the system available from the website that is based on the Clayjar system, I could look at a cache rating and know just what I was getting myself into.

 

As I said, I'm good up to a T3.5 to 4. I just looked at the two recent T5 caches that the OP completed and am absolutely sure that I could get there with no problem.

 

My biggest problem in my area is one certain cacher that tends to under-rate his caches. One of his T3.5 caches could easily end with a helicopter cliff recuse.

[+Don_J]

Ratings, both difficulty, but especially terrain, are EXTREMELY subjective. Using the Clayjar system (or the Groundspeak version of it) might help somewhat, but it still requires very subjective answers to the questions, What is a 1.5 for a 20 trim and muscular year-old might be a 2.5 or more for an overweight 50 year old. I just looked at your profile and while it looks like you are no spring chicken, it also looks like you are in uncommonly good shape for your age (either that, or you look awfully old for your physique ) . I think that I am in pretty bad condition for 62, but I can run all over some of my friends of the same age, or even some several years younger.

 

I guess the bottom line is that you can only use the ratings as a general guideline. The attributes, the logs, and the maps will help you find those caches that you are looking for, but even more so... word of mouth.

 

I underlined the key word that I was just getting ready to post on. he OP just did a 3.5/5 that has no attributes attached to it. I feel as a cache owner, placing the proper attributes on a cache can help people get the best overall picture of what is in store for them. Unfortunately, most CO's cant be bothered and others want to use them for a joke.

[+Don_J]

.

 

I guess the bottom line is that you can only use the ratings as a general guideline.

 

so does this shoot the whole idea behind the fizzy challenge out of the water? If it's all just subjective conjecture, what's the point?

 

I've done a 3/5 that was an event in a bowling alley. I've also done a 5/5 that was an event 2 miles up a T2.5 trail. I'll still NEVER complete the Fizzy grid, (unless this event holder starts taking requests).

[+Don_J]

Here's a link to the Clayjar geocache rating system, you could politely and gently mention that the terrain rating is a bit off according to the standard use for geocaching, and put the link in your log. Although often the clueless don't understand that they can edit their cache page, so even if they get this info, the page will remain as is.

 

http://www.clayjar.com/gcrs/

 

A system derived from this, but not quite as detailed, is hosted on this site, and cache owners are offered a link to the Groundspeak version when they fill in a cache report form. However, it's one of a number of links on that page and apparently some cache owners aren't reading it.

 

I think that you are on to something here.

I remember my first cache. I wanted it, and it's listing to be as perfect as I could make it. I did not want to make a mistake. I mean, my peers were going to the people finding it and evaluating it. I felt that the cache represented me and I wanted the listing to be as accurate as possible. I read every link I possibly could. I used the Clayjar system to rate my very first cache in 2005.

 

As a first time CO, I'm filling out the form and it asks, "Rate your cache" and there is the line below it that reads:

(1 is easiest, 5 is hardest. Try this system to rate your cache.)

Click the darn link and use the system.

[+DanOCan]

In our area, I find caches which are rated incorrectly tend to be rated too high.

 

A recent example was a cache we almost skipped because it was rated at a Terrain 3.5. We were coming home from a long road trip and weren't interested in anything that hard but I noticed that it appeared to be right beside the road according to the map.

 

We detoured and pulled up and parked no more than 3m from the cache which was just across a small ditch. No more than 2 feet of total elevation gain/loss.

 

I noticed it was a new cacher so I mentioned in my log that we almost skipped it because of the Terrain rating and felt it was a 1.5 under most circumstances and maybe a 2 if there was water in the ditch after a rain.

 

I got an email from the cache owner saying he used the Clayjar system and it said it should be a 3.5 and, in nicer terms, telling me to mind my own business,. I opted not to reply back and mention that he seemed to miss a key phrase from the Clayjar site: "If the cache is within a few feet of a trail, don't worry about the last few feet."

 

Oh well, can't win 'em all.

[+wildchld97]

:lol:

Anyone having problems with caches being over rated for terrain? I like to do the more difficult T caches, and lately I have been somewhat dissapointed by what I think are way too high ratings for terrain. There is a local cache that is rated a 4 1/2T that is only 26 feet from the parking area. It is down over about a 10 foot bank, but it could be done in bedroom slippers!!! I have done 2 caches recently that were fun hikes, but they were rated 5T and I needed no equipment or training other than a pair of boots. Am I being too critical, or should I just be happy that they were not as tough as I expected them to be. It is getting hard to write a decent log without coming across as the cache cop!!

 

I'm one of the guilty ones I suppose when it comes to rating a terrain higher than it probably is. This is my personal reasoning for it. I'm a mom...and I have personally witnessed some people taking their toddlers on some really difficult hikes. Yes, it's their right as a parent. No, I never say a word to them. I'd rather give the cache a higher rating based on real dangers so that my conscience is clear just in case someone wants to push the envelope with a kid.

 

I only have one cache that I rated a 4 called the Blue Tower Cliffs, but now..I'm second guessing myself and dropped it to a 3.5. I'll wait for a bit and if I have to, I'll up it to a 4 again.

 

By the way...congratulations on being the first to find on that particular cache! Darn..I knew that name sounded familiar.

Edited September 21, 2011 by wildchld97

[+skyraider]

Thanks for all the reply's. Just to clear things up, I am a proud 62 year old that loves a terrain challenge. I try to keep in shape by eating just the right amount of chicken sandwiches and chocolate milkshakes!!! And thanks to wildchild97 for the latest cache. It was fun climb to a great rock overlook.

[+wildchld97]

Thanks for all the reply's. Just to clear things up, I am a proud 62 year old that loves a terrain challenge. I try to keep in shape by eating just the right amount of chicken sandwiches and chocolate milkshakes!!! And thanks to wildchild97 for the latest cache. It was fun climb to a great rock overlook.

 

 

Thanks skyraider! You've been a lot of places that I have (including Jamaica) My profile pics were taken in 9 mile and Runaway Bay. Um..and no, I'm not nominating myself for nude cacher either. lol!

Someday, I hope to meet you on one of those real terrain benders.

[+briansnat]

It seems that terrain ratings vary by region. The early adopters of Geocaching in my home area were veteran outdoorspeople, so the terrain ratings tend to be on the lower side. I've cached in places where 4 star terrain caches are what we would rate 2 or 2.5 stars back home, and the times I've received complaints about my cache's terrain ratings it was that they were way too low and the complainer was invariably from out of state.

 

In areas where most caches are in parking lots and along roads anything off the pavement tends to get a high terrain rating.

 

If I think the terrain rating is way off I'll mention it in my log. I've noticed some have actually been changed after I commented.

 

I'm one of the guilty ones I suppose when it comes to rating a terrain higher than it probably is. This is my personal reasoning for it. I'm a mom...and I have personally witnessed some people taking their toddlers on some really difficult hikes.

 

You're not the first person I've heard say they do this. I think doing that may have the effect of people being desensitized to higher terrain ratings. If they find a few over rated 4 star terrain caches they may get the impression that 4 star terrain is nothing special. Then when they encounter true 4 star terrain they are suddenly in over their head.

 

I got an email from the cache owner saying he used the Clayjar system and it said it should be a 3.5 and, in nicer terms, telling me to mind my own business,. I opted not to reply back and mention that he seemed to miss a key phrase from the Clayjar site: "If the cache is within a few feet of a trail, don't worry about the last few feet."

 

I've found that the Clayjar system over rates terrain by about 1 star if you compare the results with the definitions. I don't bother using the system, I just go by the definitions.

Edited September 22, 2011 by briansnat

[+CanadianRockies]

It seems that terrain ratings vary by region. The early adopters of Geocaching in my home area were veteran outdoorspeople, so the terrain ratings tend to be on the lower side. I've cached in places where 4 star terrain caches are what we would rate 2 or 2.5 stars back home...

I've noticed this as well. Locally, many urban terrain ratings also seem higher than equivalent walks in the woods. I suspect this is partly because most new hiders seem to place their first few caches in the city, and they might not have a good feel for ratings yet.

[+GeoBain]

I rather see caches overrated than underrated.

[+wildchld97]

I rather see caches overrated than underrated.

 

I'm actually with you there. I once went to look for a seemingly "simple" cache. It had a rating of 2.5.

The trail started easy enough and I enjoyed a nice little walk..until the GPS said "down". The trail had ended and I noticed that I was still .25 miles away. HUH?

 

Ok..so down I went doing my interpretation of the arachnid crawl. Into the ravine I went and then the GPS said..."up". Well it was only .15 from here sooo..up I went. I grabbed onto branches, trees, rocks and whatever else that seemed like it was solidly fixed in the hillside.

 

Once I got to the top it was still 500 feet...but at least it was fairly level ground except for the occasional fallen log. The cache was almost within my grasp. I was within 20 feet. The problem was that I was again on the edge of a hillside. I said a few cuss words under my breath.

 

I saw a stream down there and a grouping of rocks on the other side of the stream. It was then that I spied my prize. It was in the grouping of rocks across the stream but getting to it presented another challenge. It was slippery, muddy, mossy and had the real danger of twisting an ankle if it got caught in one of those rocks.

 

2.5 my arse. I worked for that one. I privately emailed the owner and suggested that they up the terrain rating, but I don't think they did. For all I know, this person genuinely thought that this hike was a cake walk. Maybe they skydive/rock climb/hike the Appalachian trail on a regular basis..who knows? All I know is that I would have rated THAT one at least a 3.5 or a 4.

[+Ranger Roo]

Ahh...but overrated caches can be a problem too (if you are blond like me ) ... Once went for a hike in fairly dense mist. The cache was a T5, so when the arrow spun off the track down a steep bank (which I couldn't see the bottom of) I assumed that was the route....heading down, the terrain became more and more vertical turning into a cliff, at which point I got somewhat stuck until I summoned the courage to hop around on one foot, with the other dangling in free air, and scale the 'cliff' back up to the top. I luckily survived and carried on my hike, only to find a clear easy path winding back down to the cache... I was deceived by the terrain rating into thinking that I was meant to scramble down a cliff and risk life and limb to find it

Having said that, for the adventure, it was one of my favorite caches!!

Edited September 22, 2011 by Ranger Roo

[+Thrak]

Anyone having problems with caches being over rated for terrain? I like to do the more difficult T caches, and lately I have been somewhat dissapointed by what I think are way too high ratings for terrain. There is a local cache that is rated a 4 1/2T that is only 26 feet from the parking area. It is down over about a 10 foot bank, but it could be done in bedroom slippers!!! I have done 2 caches recently that were fun hikes, but they were rated 5T and I needed no equipment or training other than a pair of boots. Am I being too critical, or should I just be happy that they were not as tough as I expected them to be. It is getting hard to write a decent log without coming across as the cache cop!!

 

I tend to have the opposite problem. People rate caches as a 1 terrain when they should be anywhere from 1.5 - 2.5. A cache with a terrain rating of 1 should be accessible in a wheel chair.

[+wildchld97]

Ahh...but overrated caches can be a problem too (if you are blond like me ) ... Once went for a hike in fairly dense mist. The cache was a T5, so when the arrow spun off the track down a steep bank (which I couldn't see the bottom of) I assumed that was the route....heading down, the terrain became more and more vertical turning into a cliff, at which point I got somewhat stuck until I summoned the courage to hop around on one foot, with the other dangling in free air, and scale the 'cliff' back up to the top. I luckily survived and carried on my hike, only to find a clear easy path winding back down to the cache... I was deceived by the terrain rating into thinking that I was meant to scramble down a cliff and risk life and limb to find it

Having said that, for the adventure, it was one of my favorite caches!!

 

I think we're all guilty of that. I wish it were the case for this one. I'd have just sucked it up and called myself a doofus. I asked the owner if maybe I approached the cache the wrong way, missed a trail..but no..this was the way he had intended. Geez.

[+GeoBain]

I tend to have the opposite problem. People rate caches as a 1 terrain when they should be anywhere from 1.5 - 2.5. A cache with a terrain rating of 1 should be accessible in a wheel chair.

 

That's my problem. I really need to know ahead of time what I'm in for. I can compensate somewhat for most 1.5 by using a power chair and carrying crutches. But I have caches labeled 1 should be doable from my manual chair which is always with me. So when I see a terrain 1, I expect to be able to do it in the manual chair. It's very frustrating to get halfway to the cache and realize you have to turn back because this is a 2.

 

Much better to expect to need the power chair and discover I could have done it in the other one.

[+DanOCan]

I've found that the Clayjar system over rates terrain by about 1 star if you compare the results with the definitions. I don't bother using the system, I just go by the definitions.

 

That's my approach too.

 

1: Wheelchair

2: Kids are OK

3: You should have doubts about bringing kids

4: You better be comfortable in the outdoors

5: Don't even think about it

 

[+Gan Dalf]

I've found that the Clayjar system over rates terrain by about 1 star if you compare the results with the definitions. I don't bother using the system, I just go by the definitions.

 

That's my approach too.

 

1: Wheelchair

2: Kids are OK

3: You should have doubts about bringing kids

4: You better be comfortable in the outdoors

5: Don't even think about it

 

 

I use a similar approach:

 

1: Flat, paved or hard packed dirt or gravel with no uneveness, easily obtained while sitting in a wheel chair.

 

1.5: As above although might require some stooping or reaching or going over a small curb; still able to do on crutches.

 

2.0: should be able to easily walk to it, maybe with some slightly uneven terrain or small hills to go up or down, including stairs.

 

2.5: Similar to 2.0 but some scrambling over/under logs might be required or might include a short hike, less than half a mile along an established trail.

 

3.0: Some bushwhacking necessary and/or a moderate hike (more than half a mile) required.

 

3.5 Moderate hike with moderate elevation changes and/or more bushwhacking necessary.

 

4.0 Significant hike of over a mile with several changes of elevation and/or scrambling over rocks, logs or other obstacles is required. You might be required to climb something (tree, large rock face, etc.) but special equipment is not required. Requires some level of physical fitness but one does not have to be a decathlete to accompplish.

 

4.5 Should be the hardest terrain to traverse; significant hike with large changes of elevation and significant obstacles to overcome. Special equipment might not be necessary but it could make getting to GZ much easier and safer.

 

5.0 Reserved for special equipment but not necessarily a difficult challenge. I've done 5 star boat caches that once the destination is reached, the terrain is a breeze. It's getting there that poses the largest challenge.

[+CanadianRockies]

5.0 Reserved for special equipment but not necessarily a difficult challenge. I've done 5 star boat caches that once the destination is reached, the terrain is a breeze. It's getting there that poses the largest challenge.

Based on my experiences, most boat caches don't pose a very large challenge in getting to GZ. People seem to give boat caches T5 ratings simply because Groundspeak suggests they do so when boats are involved -- even if there are no rapids or long paddling distances.

 

We have 52 T5 finds, and all of them were easier to get to than any of our 14 T4.5 finds. If I ever hide a cache that is extremely hard to reach, I'd be tempted to rate it a T4.5 rather than a T5 to warn people that the terrain is very difficult.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

5.0 Reserved for special equipment but not necessarily a difficult challenge. I've done 5 star boat caches that once the destination is reached, the terrain is a breeze. It's getting there that poses the largest challenge.

Based on my experiences, most boat caches don't pose a very large challenge in getting to GZ. People seem to give boat caches T5 ratings simply because Groundspeak suggests they do so when boats are involved -- even if there are no rapids or long paddling distances.

 

+1 With a little experience paddling a kayak or canoe on flat water 2-3 miles requires about the same effort as walking a flat trail for 2-3 miles. Those with lots of experience can cover much greater distances. A few years ago a couple of friends of mine took their kayaks up to the other end of our local lake, then paddled back to Ithaca. That's about 38 miles and one of them told me that the first five miles were in conditions as tough as he's ever paddled. I've done training with several world class sea kayakers. All of them have done some long expeditions. One of them (Chris Duff) has circumnavigated (solo) all of the British Isles (his book, called On Celtic Tides, chronicling the circumnavigation of Ireland is wonderful). He's also circumnavigated the south island of New Zealand and Iceland. He told me that he typically paddles about 25 miles a day, almost every day for several weeks. One of my favorite local paddles involves launching at our local kayak shop (owned by one of my friends that did the 38 mile trip) and paddling along the shore of the lake to a nice little protected cove and having a little picnic lunch before coming back. On several occasions I've taken others that had never been a kayak before and all of them claimed to have really enjoyed it. It's about 7 miles round trip.