Jump to content

Difficulties, Terrain in a Series


Recommended Posts

I'm CO of a couple of smallish rural series. Mostly they're scored quite low on Difficulty (I place caches to be found, especially on a series), and I set Terrain as per the guidelines on the hider page, or here http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=82

 

Recently, a more experienced cacher suggested that I should have increased the difficulty because they had to walk four miles to reach it following the series. I countered that the cache in question was actually a roadside one and as such, could be done as a C&D. They claim most series setters do this.

 

Now, I *think* I'm in the right. Each cache is submitted on its own and I believe should be scored on those merits. Also, if my series was done in reverse, the high scorers would come first! But because of the experience and find count of this finder, I'm doubting myself.

 

I won't change the existing caches in case anyone is using them for a grid, but I'm curious what others think on this?

Link to comment

Isn't it the terrain that the other cacher should be challenging, not difficulty? Difficulty is about how hard the cache is to spot/locate/get coords for, whereas terrain will be influenced by how far you have to walk.

 

I think most people give terrain ratings to series that are decided more by the terrain of the walk or how far off the path the cache is, rather than distance, which isn't strictly in accordance with the GS guidelines that talk about how far you have to walk to get to a cache. But as you say, one cacher may do a cache as a C&D, whereas another may have walked 3 miles already, picking up the other caches in the series.

 

I think the problem is that you can't please all of the people all of the time, and as long as you can justify what you've done, don't worry about it too much! As long as cachers know how to interpret your D/T ratings, that's the main thing!

Link to comment

I agree that it's the TERRAIN rating which reflects how long a walk you may have to do to each cache, not the difficulty rating.

 

As a general rule, the difficulty rating reflects the mental exertion (how hard a puzzle is, how sneakily something is camouflaged, how tiny it is) and the terrain rating reflects the physical exertion (how far you've had to walk, how steep the hill is, how tall the tree).

 

However, I do agree that using your principle of "can I more easily get to it in a car?" is a sound one. If someone chooses to make it harder for themselves by walking the rest of the series first, then that's the finders choice. You can't give the cache-and-dashers the benefit of a stonking terrain rating if they've only driven to it. I've used the same principle on my series. Only those caches which are NOT accessible by anything other than a lengthy hike have the higher rating. That's higher TERRAIN rating, of course.

Link to comment

I'm amazed at how often there is a 'blanket' terrain rating for a series just to 'reflect the nature of the walk'. How unhelpful is that? I can see its a long walk when I view the caches on the map on the website. I don't need to be reminded every time I open up a new cache on the GPSr!

 

To me, a good terrain rating will tell you something about the terrain at GZ. If its up a tree and climbing is involved then bump the terrain rating up to reflect this. If its lying on the ground and could be accessed by wheelchair then its a 1-star terrain rating. I always find the terrain rating as helpful (if not more so) that the difficulty rating when used properly.

Link to comment

This is always good for a quick check........ :)

 

That says "length of hike"..."from the most logical parking place"

 

I'm not that worried, since the series has had a couple of hundred logs and this is the first who's raised this particular point (in fact, the first time I've heard of this being done at all - it's certainly not common down in Devon. The CCC in Dorset, 100 caches long, doesn't do this. kevham1's excellent long series in North Devon doesn't artificially alter the terrain, and they're both far longer than mine.

Edited by dartymoor
Link to comment

This is always good for a quick check........ :)

 

That says "length of hike"..."from the most logical parking place"

 

I'm not that worried, since the series has had a couple of hundred logs and this is the first who's raised this particular point (in fact, the first time I've heard of this being done at all - it's certainly not common down in Devon. The CCC in Dorset, 100 caches long, doesn't do this. kevham1's excellent long series in North Devon doesn't artificially alter the terrain, and they're both far longer than mine.

I still think you're right to have the terrain rating count from the nearest parking spot. Otherwise, you'll end up with ground-level cache and dashes rated at 3 or 4 star terrain which is silly...

 

With a situation like this where there are 2 possible approaches you have to pick one... so the sensible option seems to be to pick the lower one, and add a rider on the first bit of the blurb to say "The whole hike will be so-and-so miles". That way, anyone who uses the terrain rating as a guide for how far they may be walking is well-informed and anyone who does the Cache & Dash option, doesn't get a stupidly high (and unwarranted) rating.

Link to comment

As they say "you can please some of the people some of the time......." What is one persons 2 is another persons 4. We completed the Hennock Trail in August, we hadn't done anything like it before and some parts of it we found tricky and for me I did find myself climbing up with hands at one point but it was great fun and to be honest didn't think twice about the terrain rating, just felt really pleased with ourselves when we completed the whole trail with a 100% find rate. Keep up the good work - will be back in August to complete a few more :rolleyes:

Link to comment

I think you are right dartymoor. I don't believe bonus caches should be given a higher terrain rating simply because you have to find a few other caches first. More broadly, I feel this action causes unreliable and untrustworthy information when searching for more adventurous caches.

I am also seeing that people have been awarding favourite points to nothing more remarkable than the last one in a reasonable series. I know that awarding favourite points is a very personal thing but again, I feel its original purpose has been lost somewhat.

Edited to add, Ive just re-read your post.

I see that it was simply the end cache on your series (and not a bonus cache) which the cacher suggested you change. My opinion above is unchanged and I think you are quite right to leave it as it is.

Edited by thehoomer
Link to comment

I'm CO of a couple of smallish rural series. Mostly they're scored quite low on Difficulty (I place caches to be found, especially on a series), and I set Terrain as per the guidelines on the hider page, or here http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=82

 

Recently, a more experienced cacher suggested that I should have increased the difficulty because they had to walk four miles to reach it following the series. I countered that the cache in question was actually a roadside one and as such, could be done as a C&D. They claim most series setters do this.

 

Now, I *think* I'm in the right. Each cache is submitted on its own and I believe should be scored on those merits. Also, if my series was done in reverse, the high scorers would come first! But because of the experience and find count of this finder, I'm doubting myself.

 

I won't change the existing caches in case anyone is using them for a grid, but I'm curious what others think on this?

 

From what I've seen you could either post the terrain rating for the series as a whole (which would include consideration of the fact you'd have to walk 4 miles to do them all) or rate each one on the basis of how easy it would be to do in isolation. For myself I'd say either is fair as long as it's clear on the cache page which you've chosen. If nothing else it would explain why a cache had a terrain of 4.5 when it was on a guard rail in a layby, if it were part of a series that involved travelling 25 miles to complete.

 

My preference would be to show the overall terrain based on likely trail conditions etc rather than necessarily the length of the walk. I can see for myself that taking in a series of 138 caches over 30 miles is going to involve covering 30 miles to get them all so to say "long hike, therefore T4" would, to me, mask other considerations of whether the path was smooth tarmac or rugged cross-country.

 

As others have said if anything needs to change it's the terrain rather than difficulty. AIUI a theoretical cache that's sitting in plain sight at the top of a 2000-foot climb would be D1 despite what had to be done to physically get to it.

Link to comment

Add me to the list of COs who would treat each cache individually as though it was a separate assessment in its own right.

However to take the OPs original query a stage further it got me thinking about a possible contradiction. The CO sets up their series and usually suggests that cachers follow the trail in specific order. The path between cache X and cache Y involves a significant assent from a valley floor across some really rugged terrain up to the road that follows the ridge above. Once up to the road the Cache Y is an easy find in the layby by the side of the road. Due to the difficulty of the climb up to the cache the terrain rating is chosen as a T4 but the CO notices that more cachers find the cache as a C&D. Should they change the rating?

Link to comment

Due to the difficulty of the climb up to the cache the terrain rating is chosen as a T4

 

Wrong approach. Determine the terrain from the easiest access point, not the one you _want_ cachers to use. We're a contrary lot :)

Yes, I can follow that logic and I was only thinking hypothetically. A CO could however get significant complaints about cachers following their series only to find that they couldn't complete the circuit due to the terrain info misrepresenting what they had to do. I guess a suitably worded and clear explanation would need to be included in the cache listing explaining the different approaches.

Link to comment

Has to be on a cache-by-cache basis.

 

In the Chilterns there are 5 circuits of about 6 or 7 miles with a total of about 100 caches. Some people have done all 5 circuits in 2 days. I've done 9 in a day but our chosen pub walk meant we went from loop D to A and back to D (or something) and I've also cached and dashed one and it's the only time I've ever bumped into another geocacher - who was halfway through his 7-mile walk in the pouring rain! so arguably the physical difficulty was much harder for him than for me on that occasion. Other thing about these loops though is the CO has made them ALL 2.5 2.5. Now as they're nearly all at corners / path junctions, I'd say D=1 for most (many are visible from 20 feet away) and although some are a mile form a road and at the top of a hill so warrant the 2.5, many others are 1.5 or 1. I think the cacher - not renowned for maintaining caches once put out - is a Quantity person. They make for a great day's caching or more to the point a great day walking in the Chilterns and knowing there's a cache in 250m that will be in the same container type as the one at the base of the last stile. Oxford Stone Junior loved the 9-cache walk and in the summer we'll no doubt do the rest.

 

Plus as an ex-Dartmoor letterboxer I look forward one day to tackling some of Dartymoor's caches!

Link to comment

Thank you Oxford, I hope you reach down here again one day. :)

 

Thanks for all opinions. Clearly this isn't as open and shut case as I first thought, but I also think I'll continue grading each one on its merits and as per the submission guide, and based on how far it is from a car.

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...