Jump to content

Rating advice


Essap

Recommended Posts

I have a cache I recently hid and am having trouble with the proper rating. The cache is located in a county park on the outside of a log cabin. The cache placement is in an empty flower box about 10 feet off the ground. The cache can only be reached by a ladder or some other method to elevate the finder 3 feet off the ground. No inside access. There is nothing naturally there, no moveable benches. In some ways it is similar to many of the shelter hides we have found in rafters, except there is no picnic table to move and climb on. It is a regular sized, lock and lock. An easy find once you get up and can reach it. I have it rated a 2 difficulty, 2 terrain. I was reluctant to rate terrain higher because it would be a giveaway. You can drive within feet of the cache. There are no other places for a regular cache within 100 feet. Does the fact that you need to back up a vehicle or use a ladder raise the terrain rating? No other special tool is required. Some of the first finders have suggested that it is improperly rated. Thanks for the input.

Link to comment

hopefully there is nothing around that cachers will tear apart trying to find it.

 

Found your cache listing. Have you considered adding the attribute special tool required? That would at least let people know they would need their car, ladder, a crazy TOTT, whatever.

 

As far as your D/T goes. Well, you could bump it up to 2.5/2.5 perhaps. You make it sound like you would rate it higher if not for the fact it would be obvious then....I would be on the side that you should rate appropriately. Folks are still going to have to figure out what the D/T means and figure out what TOTT to use. They'll still have fun figuring out what to do, higher terrain or not. However that way, it will just be more accurate perhaps. Your call.

Link to comment

If you can pull up and use the car a 2 sounds reasonable. While it may seem the planter 10 ft high is "the only place" to hide the cache that's not always how the finders see it. You probably should add some indication that the cache finder needs to climb. Maybe add some more detail to the description, include the word climb, up, high, etc to the title or even add a hint.

Link to comment

Thanks for the input thus far. Maybe this is more of a TOTT issue, rather than a terrain issue. Also I will add something on the page that there is no need to take anything apart. I'm not certain I want to add a hint or indicate that the finder needs to go up.

Link to comment

Wow, I'm glad I'm not in your area. Not only would I have the terrain rating correctly present the problem, I'd probably say, "Look at the terrain rating" in the description or at least the hint. I might even say, "Bring a ladder." I've skipped checking much, much less difficult possibilities due to the terrain rating clearly ruling out anything extreme.

Link to comment

I would say 3-4 for terrain. In my area height factors in for terrain rating. Plus a tool is needed.

 

As for 10 feet and needing 3 feet to reach it, you got to be kidding me. Most people are under six feet tall. Most tall hiders assume everyone is their height. I find many hides that are rated easy that are out of reach. Yes, I have an assortment of tools for this purpose. And no I'm not against caches hid in high places. I have one that requires a 20ft reach.

Link to comment

I would say 3-4 for terrain. In my area height factors in for terrain rating. Plus a tool is needed.

 

As for 10 feet and needing 3 feet to reach it, you got to be kidding me. Most people are under six feet tall. Most tall hiders assume everyone is their height. I find many hides that are rated easy that are out of reach. Yes, I have an assortment of tools for this purpose. And no I'm not against caches hid in high places. I have one that requires a 20ft reach.

This is what the guidelines indicate for a 3 terrain. "Not suitable for small children

The average adult or older child should be OK depending on physical condition. Terrain is likely off-trail. May have one or more of the following: some overgrowth, some steep elevation changes, or more than a 2 mile hike."

 

My cache does not meet any of these criteria.

Link to comment

Bump up the rating good. For me as a owner, I would have it at a 5 in terrain. You have to bring something to get up there. I see a few caches that is at a 5 for that reason. Having a cache too low will make the cacher feel "cheap".

Edited by SwineFlew
Link to comment

I would say 3-4 for terrain. In my area height factors in for terrain rating. Plus a tool is needed.

 

As for 10 feet and needing 3 feet to reach it, you got to be kidding me. Most people are under six feet tall. Most tall hiders assume everyone is their height. I find many hides that are rated easy that are out of reach. Yes, I have an assortment of tools for this purpose. And no I'm not against caches hid in high places. I have one that requires a 20ft reach.

This is what the guidelines indicate for a 3 terrain. "Not suitable for small children

The average adult or older child should be OK depending on physical condition. Terrain is likely off-trail. May have one or more of the following: some overgrowth, some steep elevation changes, or more than a 2 mile hike."

 

My cache does not meet any of these criteria.

Uh.... IMHO, yes it does. See the highlighted/bolded portion. You have a steep elevation change with no way to do it without a tool of some kind.

Link to comment

I would say 3-4 for terrain. In my area height factors in for terrain rating. Plus a tool is needed.

 

As for 10 feet and needing 3 feet to reach it, you got to be kidding me. Most people are under six feet tall. Most tall hiders assume everyone is their height. I find many hides that are rated easy that are out of reach. Yes, I have an assortment of tools for this purpose. And no I'm not against caches hid in high places. I have one that requires a 20ft reach.

This is what the guidelines indicate for a 3 terrain. "Not suitable for small children

The average adult or older child should be OK depending on physical condition. Terrain is likely off-trail. May have one or more of the following: some overgrowth, some steep elevation changes, or more than a 2 mile hike."

 

My cache does not meet any of these criteria.

Uh.... IMHO, yes it does. See the highlighted/bolded portion. You have a steep elevation change with no way to do it without a tool of some kind.

 

+1

There's a climb involved. This GC Help Center definition states:

 

stars4.gifExperienced outdoor enthusiasts only

Terrain is probably off-trail. Will have one or more of the following: very heavy overgrowth, very steep elevation (requiring use of hands), or more than a 10 mile hike. May require an overnight stay.

 

Note the use of hands. In order to climb the ladder it will require use of hands.

Link to comment

I would say 3-4 for terrain. In my area height factors in for terrain rating. Plus a tool is needed.

 

As for 10 feet and needing 3 feet to reach it, you got to be kidding me. Most people are under six feet tall. Most tall hiders assume everyone is their height. I find many hides that are rated easy that are out of reach. Yes, I have an assortment of tools for this purpose. And no I'm not against caches hid in high places. I have one that requires a 20ft reach.

This is what the guidelines indicate for a 3 terrain. "Not suitable for small children

The average adult or older child should be OK depending on physical condition. Terrain is likely off-trail. May have one or more of the following: some overgrowth, some steep elevation changes, or more than a 2 mile hike."

 

My cache does not meet any of these criteria.

 

And a tool is needed.

 

A guideline is just that, a guideline. It’s not the law. You have flexibility in your rating.

 

Ok, I just looked up your account. I thought your name sounded familiar. You are in my neck of the woods. And I even found a couple of your hides. You’re Up, Up and away hide was a nice hide and tough challenge. You rated it a 3 ½ terrain and that’s good one. Next time I’m back your way I’ll make sure I stop for a few more. Thanks

Edited by rustynails.
Link to comment

I would say 3-4 for terrain. In my area height factors in for terrain rating. Plus a tool is needed.

 

As for 10 feet and needing 3 feet to reach it, you got to be kidding me. Most people are under six feet tall. Most tall hiders assume everyone is their height. I find many hides that are rated easy that are out of reach. Yes, I have an assortment of tools for this purpose. And no I'm not against caches hid in high places. I have one that requires a 20ft reach.

This is what the guidelines indicate for a 3 terrain. "Not suitable for small children

The average adult or older child should be OK depending on physical condition. Terrain is likely off-trail. May have one or more of the following: some overgrowth, some steep elevation changes, or more than a 2 mile hike."

 

My cache does not meet any of these criteria.

 

And a tool is needed.

 

A guideline is just that, a guideline. It’s not the law. You have flexibility in your rating. If you found a few tough hides in your area, you will get an idea how people view ratings.

Link to comment

The ratings don't say a tool makes it a 3 cache. Climbing with hands is not required. You can back the vehicle up and easily reach the cache. If you are going to rate everything that that is 8 feet off the ground as a 5 terrain, then the many caches in the rafters of shelters should be 5 terrain. They require climbimg on a picnic table or something else to retrieve. My climb for this cache is certainly not any more difficult. I don;t this is what the guidelines mean by very steep elevation.

Link to comment

You came in asking a question. You got answers that don't please you, so you start to get a little touchy. Why ask questions then?

 

To answer your question, I'd be annoyed if I found this cache and it was rated a 2 star terrain. It's too low. I'd give it at least a 2.5 or a 3 based on your description. Saying that you don't want to give away the hide based on the T rating is like providing soft coords to make the hide more "difficult". Rate them appropriately for people who actually use the ratings to determine which caches they're going to look for.

Link to comment

I would say 3-4 for terrain. In my area height factors in for terrain rating. Plus a tool is needed.

 

As for 10 feet and needing 3 feet to reach it, you got to be kidding me. Most people are under six feet tall. Most tall hiders assume everyone is their height. I find many hides that are rated easy that are out of reach. Yes, I have an assortment of tools for this purpose. And no I'm not against caches hid in high places. I have one that requires a 20ft reach.

 

Hey there, shorty... great seeing you here! :P

Link to comment

The ratings don't say a tool makes it a 3 cache. Climbing with hands is not required. You can back the vehicle up and easily reach the cache. If you are going to rate everything that that is 8 feet off the ground as a 5 terrain, then the many caches in the rafters of shelters should be 5 terrain. They require climbimg on a picnic table or something else to retrieve. My climb for this cache is certainly not any more difficult. I don;t this is what the guidelines mean by very steep elevation.

I would leave the rating as is. But i would put a special tools attribute on it.

Link to comment
If you are going to rate everything that that is 8 feet off the ground as a 5 terrain, then the many caches in the rafters of shelters should be 5 terrain. They require climbimg on a picnic table or something else to retrieve.
But the picnic table is already there. By your own admission, to reach your cache the finder has to bring their own means by which to reach it.
I don;t this is what the guidelines mean by very steep elevation.

You have to increase your elevation by at least 3 feet, with zero change in horizontal position (simple geometry - slope of a line), using something other than your own body. That sure sounds like steep elevation to me.
Link to comment

I would say 3-4 for terrain. In my area height factors in for terrain rating. Plus a tool is needed.

 

As for 10 feet and needing 3 feet to reach it, you got to be kidding me. Most people are under six feet tall. Most tall hiders assume everyone is their height. I find many hides that are rated easy that are out of reach. Yes, I have an assortment of tools for this purpose. And no I'm not against caches hid in high places. I have one that requires a 20ft reach.

 

Hey there, shorty... great seeing you here! :P

 

Shorty! :laughing: I guess youre right. I did have trouble with one of your , not short people friendly hides. And you do tower over me by 2-3 inches.:P

Edited by rustynails.
Link to comment

You came in asking a question. You got answers that don't please you, so you start to get a little touchy. Why ask questions then?

 

To answer your question, I'd be annoyed if I found this cache and it was rated a 2 star terrain. It's too low. I'd give it at least a 2.5 or a 3 based on your description. Saying that you don't want to give away the hide based on the T rating is like providing soft coords to make the hide more "difficult". Rate them appropriately for people who actually use the ratings to determine which caches they're going to look for.

 

Yes. The Goat has a point. After breaking my leg, getting the boot off and being able to hobble about carefully and with a brace, I downloaded caches rated 2 or below:

 

stars1.gifHandicapped accessible

Terrain is likely to be paved, is relatively flat, and less than a ½ mile hike is required.

 

stars2.gifSuitable for small children

Terrain is generally along marked trails, there are no steep elevation changes or heavy overgrowth. Less than a 2 mile hike required.

 

It was so frustrating hobbling to the cache site only to find a steep hill at ground zero, or a tree climb, or a 25 foot bushwack over logs and through heavy overgrowth which were not mentioned in the description. My online comments got a bit touchy at times. People don't realize the frustration and waste of time and gas money until they have to deal with it. If you're able-bodied you forget that some people aren't. We rely on accurate terrain ratings.

Edited by L0ne R
Link to comment
If you are going to rate everything that that is 8 feet off the ground as a 5 terrain, then the many caches in the rafters of shelters should be 5 terrain. They require climbimg on a picnic table or something else to retrieve.
But the picnic table is already there. By your own admission, to reach your cache the finder has to bring their own means by which to reach it.
I don;t this is what the guidelines mean by very steep elevation.

You have to increase your elevation by at least 3 feet, with zero change in horizontal position (simple geometry - slope of a line), using something other than your own body. That sure sounds like steep elevation to me.

I agree with every part of this reply. Having to bring your own ladder or back up a car and stand on it (really? That sounds really unsafe to me, unless you have excellent balance) definitely would make this a 5 in my book.

Link to comment
If you are going to rate everything that that is 8 feet off the ground as a 5 terrain, then the many caches in the rafters of shelters should be 5 terrain. They require climbimg on a picnic table or something else to retrieve.
But the picnic table is already there. By your own admission, to reach your cache the finder has to bring their own means by which to reach it.
I don;t this is what the guidelines mean by very steep elevation.

You have to increase your elevation by at least 3 feet, with zero change in horizontal position (simple geometry - slope of a line), using something other than your own body. That sure sounds like steep elevation to me.

I agree with every part of this reply. Having to bring your own ladder or back up a car and stand on it (really? That sounds really unsafe to me, unless you have excellent balance) definitely would make this a 5 in my book.

 

That's another thing....climb on top of my car and risk scratching and denting it. No thanks. If I end up at ground zero and figure out that I need to climb my car, I will be cheesed off that my time was wasted when I could have been looking for a more suitable cache.

Link to comment

I would bump the D/T up to a 3/3. Perhaps a 3/3.5. As a CO, you shouldn't try to get cute and make the cache harder to find by fudging some of the basic cache information such as coordinates, size or D/T. If you want it to be harder to find, make it a multi with an evil first stage or a tough puzzle.

 

A two star difficulty hide would lead me to believe the cache is hidden fairly typically and looking 10 feet off the ground probably wouldn't come into play. Three stars and I know going in that I'd need to think a little more outside the box but it wouldn't automatically tell me to look way up.

 

The terrain is a bit murkier in your case. It's definitely not a two star terrain. Two star terrains almost always means I won't have to leave the ground to reach the cache. I wouldn't classify it as a four star terrain, either. So, call it a compromise and list it as a 3/3.5 star. This gives cachers a better idea of where the cache might be hidden and what they might need to do to retrieve it.

Link to comment

You came in asking a question. You got answers that don't please you, so you start to get a little touchy. Why ask questions then?

 

To answer your question, I'd be annoyed if I found this cache and it was rated a 2 star terrain. It's too low. I'd give it at least a 2.5 or a 3 based on your description. Saying that you don't want to give away the hide based on the T rating is like providing soft coords to make the hide more "difficult". Rate them appropriately for people who actually use the ratings to determine which caches they're going to look for.

 

Yes. The Goat has a point. After breaking my leg, getting the boot off and being able to hobble about carefully and with a brace, I downloaded caches rated 2 or below:

 

stars1.gifHandicapped accessible

Terrain is likely to be paved, is relatively flat, and less than a ½ mile hike is required.

 

stars2.gifSuitable for small children

Terrain is generally along marked trails, there are no steep elevation changes or heavy overgrowth. Less than a 2 mile hike required.

 

It was so frustrating hobbling to the cache site only to find a steep hill at ground zero, or a tree climb, or a 25 foot bushwack over logs and through heavy overgrowth which were not mentioned in the description. My online comments got a bit touchy at times. People don't realize the frustration and waste of time and gas money until they have to deal with it. If you're able-bodied you forget that some people aren't. We rely on accurate terrain ratings.

 

I use the terrain ratings solely to figure out which caches are safe for my mom to do with her mobility issues. People who purposely lowball the terrain ratings to not give anything really bother me. We end up wasting a day chasing after these caches (we have limited lower terrain rated caches she can do in the first place) only to find out that we really can't do the cache because someone decided that they didn't want to give away that you need to dangle off a wall, climb up a tree or bring ladders (which she can't climb) to ground zero. If a cache is in the 1-2 realm she should be able to do it if caches are rated accurately.

 

I agree about the able bodied thing. And it's a safety thing as well for some folks. Gives people an idea of what caches will be over their heads and unsafe for them to even try.

Link to comment

I might rate it 2.5 stars for terrain but no higher. I've read some sentiment for a 5 star terrain rating here because of the possible need for a ladder. The guideline for 5 star terrain says "specialized equipment AND knowledge or experience". The intent there was to cover things like SCUBA and climbing gear. Using a step ladder requires no specialized knowledge or experience. And because it's only a matter of 3 feet you can stand on the hood of a car, bed of a pickup or put your partner on your shoulders to reach it. As far as the "steep elevation changes and use of hands" I'm pretty sure they envisioned a steep mountainside when they wrote that, not a chair, pickup bed or 4 foot high step ladder.

 

I would adjust the hint though. You don't want people tearing up the area to find it.

Link to comment

A 2-star terrain rating sounds about right to me. I use the terrain rating to indicate how hard it is to get to the cache. Climbing on top of a vehicle isn't on par with a 5-mile hike in my book.

 

I'm able to do the 5 mile hike, but I would not be able to reach the cache except with a ladder which is high enough. A car definitely would not suffice for me (moreover, I doubt that my car would appreciate me climbing onto it) and moreover, I might well come without a car. I'd be quite annoyed when I encounter such a cache that is rated with T=2*.

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

Using a step ladder requires no specialized knowledge or experience. And because it's only a matter of 3 feet you can stand on the hood of a car, bed of a pickup or put your partner on your shoulders to reach it.

 

But all that requires that one knows what to expect and bring along a ladder, a partner, a pickup etc which I would not assume for a T=2 or T=2.5* with no additional comment in the cache description.

Moreover, I doubt the exactness of the 10 feet. If someone who is 1.80 tall or taller, needs to climb up by around 1m, then people with 1.60m need to climb up at least 30cm higher, but typically more as taller people tend to have longer arms as well.

 

T=2* or T=2.5* would be ok for me only if further evidence is provided that keeps people to go for the cache that have no chance to reach it.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

Using a step ladder requires no specialized knowledge or experience. And because it's only a matter of 3 feet you can stand on the hood of a car, bed of a pickup or put your partner on your shoulders to reach it.

 

But all that requires that one knows what to expect and bring along a ladder, a partner, a pickup etc which I would not assume for a T=2 or T=2.5* with no additional comment in the cache description.

Moreover, I doubt the exactness of the 10 feet. If someone who is 1.80 tall or taller, needs to climb up by around 1m, then people with 1.60m need to climb up at least 30cm higher, but typically more as taller people tend to have longer arms as well.

 

T=2* or T=2.5* would be ok for me only if further evidence is provided that keeps people to go for the cache that have no chance to reach it.

 

Cezanne

 

I don't think it changes the terrain if you have to leave and return with a step ladder. It probably will change the difficulty as higher difficulty cache by definition may require multiple trips.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

I don't think it changes the terrain if you have to leave and return with a step ladder. It probably will change the difficulty as higher difficulty cache by definition may require multiple trips.

 

In any case, I do not think that a cache that cannot be reached by a child on its own is well rated by 2*. A cache that high would need a

ladder a child would hardly be able to bring along alone. A small step ladder that can be easily carried definitely does not suffice.

I even dout

 

I do not think that it is fair to force people who are not tall to visit caches that are not recognizable in any way more than once. One might have invested quite a long walk, ride with the bicycle or public transportation and I cannot think of anyone would not feel annoyed in that case if he/she found out only out right at the location that he/she cannot reach the cache. A 2/2* rating for such a cache without any mention in the cache description and maybe also with the cache owner asking finders not to mention anything about the way they reached the cache is definitely a source of big frustration.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

Using a step ladder requires no specialized knowledge or experience. And because it's only a matter of 3 feet you can stand on the hood of a car, bed of a pickup or put your partner on your shoulders to reach it.

 

But all that requires that one knows what to expect and bring along a ladder, a partner, a pickup etc which I would not assume for a T=2 or T=2.5* with no additional comment in the cache description.

Moreover, I doubt the exactness of the 10 feet. If someone who is 1.80 tall or taller, needs to climb up by around 1m, then people with 1.60m need to climb up at least 30cm higher, but typically more as taller people tend to have longer arms as well.

 

T=2* or T=2.5* would be ok for me only if further evidence is provided that keeps people to go for the cache that have no chance to reach it.

 

Cezanne

 

I agree. Tall people tend to forget about shorter people. Men tend to forget that women play the game too. In North America the average height of a woman is 5'3"-5'4" (1.6m). People who always cache in groups forget that there are many lone cachers. Ladders can be dangerous. Try looking up instructions about the safe use of ladders - this one is 7 pages long! Give people the information they need to make safe choices.

Link to comment

I have a cache I recently hid and am having trouble with the proper rating. The cache is located in a county park on the outside of a log cabin. The cache placement is in an empty flower box about 10 feet off the ground. The cache can only be reached by a ladder or some other method to elevate the finder 3 feet off the ground. No inside access. There is nothing naturally there, no moveable benches. In some ways it is similar to many of the shelter hides we have found in rafters, except there is no picnic table to move and climb on. It is a regular sized, lock and lock. An easy find once you get up and can reach it. I have it rated a 2 difficulty, 2 terrain. I was reluctant to rate terrain higher because it would be a giveaway. You can drive within feet of the cache. There are no other places for a regular cache within 100 feet. Does the fact that you need to back up a vehicle or use a ladder raise the terrain rating? No other special tool is required. Some of the first finders have suggested that it is improperly rated. Thanks for the input.

 

I think the cache should be rated 2/2 as you have done but you should say somewhere in the description that the cache is 10 feet high. Not to do so is a bit of a creul trick as cachers will expect an easy cache. If you leave the description as it is then I think the rating should be 3/3

Link to comment

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...