A new way to give a classification for difficulty and terrain attributes

[+koodi]

The current evaluation system does not provide comparable data for different caches, but rather only a single user opinion of the difficulty and terrain. Difficulty and terrain stars requires more user feedback, so that the various caches would be better comparable.

 

Stars could be given, for example the following basis:

- at the time of cache publication, the cache owner give the difficulty and terrain stars

- every cachers who has found the cache, give his/her own voluntary assessment of the cache stars while logging the cache into the gc.com

- after - let's say ten cachers assessments, the cache owner's assessment is replaced with the mode or median of the cache owner and other cachers assessments or cache owner weighted mode or median. Maybe some percent of the worst and the best assessments would have been rejected before averaging.

- the cache owner be allowed to reset the votes, if the owner is required to make changes to the cache.

 

How do you think such a classification?

Edited June 18, 2013 by koodi

[+cerberus1]

There would probably be a default setting (the CO's D/T) and most would probably stay.

With many not leaving logs but only acronyms, I don't believe those same people will take the time to assess the D/T ratings.

As sometimes happens on hides, if a rare finder ever says it was much easier or harder stated in their log, it could be changed later if someone (down the road) agrees, but the CO should be using the references provided by Groundspeak for accurate ratings in the first place.

[+cerberus1]

New instead of edit...

 

With many now rating their hides for grid needs, those COs would be upset to learn that others could change the reason they rated it (the cache) that way, though it would "fix" the caches whose ratings are based solely on grids.

Few would change cache ratings if looking for unusual D/T ratings for grids. It would defeat the purpose of finding that hide.

[+koodi]

How about CO weighted arithmetic mean?

[+Isonzo Karst]

Offered purely as a speculative exercise, because I see no future where the necessary coding is done for this

 

Some kind of widget to add your D/T ratings seems like nice idea.

Purely informational, and only useful if it comes in the gpx for munching through secondary software.

 

.

[AZcachemeister]

If I think the ratings are significantly off, I will say so in my log.

If the CO wants to take my information under advisement, they are free to do so.

If they want to ignore me, they are free to do so.

 

I have seen caches where the CO will change the ratings after a couple of finders have chimed in, and I have seen caches that still remain T4 even after nearly every finder has stated it was absolutely no more than a T1.5.

 

A system where everybody 'votes' is unlikely.

We couldn't be trusted with one for overall cache quality, and we can't be trusted with one for Difficulty or Terrain.

[+koodi]

If the D/T-attributes can not be trusted, so wouldn't it be better to completely remove the attributes and find the classification from the cache description?

[+Harry Dolphin]

New instead of edit...

 

With many now rating their hides for grid needs, those COs would be upset to learn that others could change the reason they rated it (the cache) that way, though it would "fix" the caches whose ratings are based solely on grids.

Few would change cache ratings if looking for unusual D/T ratings for grids. It would defeat the purpose of finding that hide.

 

Yes. I did a 5/1 event cache. 5 difficulty because it was held on a work day. I was off that day, or I would not have attended.

My first 5/5 was definitely a 5 difficulty. Took us a long time to solve. I guess if you walked the 12 miles between waypoints? Nah. We took the subway, and drove. (Though it did take us close to a year... And only with a hint from my brother... He was wrong, but for the right reason...)

I know someone who put out a 4.5/2.5. I thought a bit over-rated, but it was the only cache with that rating in the state.

Yeah. Don't force changes on D/T ratings. Does it make that much of a difference if it were 4/2, instead of 4.5/2.5?

Yes. Many are badly rated. But is it a significant reason to force a change or ratings? I do not think so. I did a 2/4 cache. I would have rated it 3/2. Coords were badly off. But, even this senior citizen dolphin can climb the 150' up the hill.

[AZcachemeister]

The D/T ratings will never be 100% perfect, since there are humans making the judgement of what they should be.

Even so, they are relatively useful if the CO wants to rate their cache(s) fairly.

[+L0ne.R]

I have seen caches that still remain T4 even after nearly every finder has stated it was absolutely no more than a T1.5.

 

I have seen too much of the opposite, terrain ratings given a 1.5 when the cache requires a climb up a tree or you have to slide down a steep hill.

 

I like the widget idea. The cache owner's D/T rating stays put (unless the CO decides to change it) - this should satisfy the Challenge cachers. Finders rate the cache and that information gets included in the gpx file or at least visible on the cache page via the app (and the website). Please do this for those of us who have temporary or permanent mobility issues. We rely on accurate-as-possible terrain ratings. Another suggestion, to prevent pranks - allow only PMs to rate and list who rated the cache (as done with Favorite Votes).

[+niraD]

There's already enough drama when cache owners change the difficulty/terrain ratings. Can you imagine the drama that would result from difficulty/terrain ratings changing because of the way past finders were voting?

[+tozainamboku]

If the D/T-attributes can not be trusted, so wouldn't it be better to completely remove the attributes and find the classification from the cache description?

Might as well get rid of cache listings altogether.

 

The game is dependent on a certain amount of trust. We expect the coordinates to be spot-on when we look for cache.

 

Other than the coordinates everything else is optional information give by the owner. At least with size you can leave it unspecified. The cache type has developed over the years to now requiring traditional cache to be at the posted coordinate, but this was not always the case. In the early day there was no multi or puzzle caches, so they used the same type and the description was critical to knowing if the cache was at the coordinates or not.

 

Difficulty and terrain have always been subjective, and this proposal doesn't change this. It may help if some owner is intentionally using misleading D/T in providing a way to correct this automatically. But as it stands now, I can often calibrate the listings of someone after finding a few of their caches. Having to deal with ratings based on different sets of finders would be less useful.

 

There does seem to be a difference between US cachers and those from some European countries. Is nome parts of Europe, caches with high D/T ratings still get a significant number of finds, and European caches seem more likely to take the time to rate each cache they find. It may be that in Europe the feedback will result in a rating that approximates the average rating. Average isn't a good statistic to use in any case. Median would be better, since 5 stars doesn't actually mean 5 times 1 star.

 

In the US, at least where I live, the higher terrain and difficulty cache are not found that often; and cachers are less willing to take extra time to add their own ratings. It would take a while to get 10 finders assessments. During this time the D/T may have changed for any number of reasons. Also I suspect that the cache owner could simply get a group of his friends to find the cache and give it whatever rating he says. There would be no reason to trust this number any more than the one the cache owner gives.

[+Crow-T-Robot]

The D/T is always going to be subjective. Terrain-wise, there are those that can run up the side of a mountain and to them, a three star terrain is akin to a P&G. There are also those who think a 100 yard walk along a flat path is a three star terrain and a whole lot of people who fall somewhere in between.

 

It's also very dependent on location. A four star terrain in the Rockies is worlds different than a four star terrain in some swamp in Florida. A cacher who knows what a Florida four star terrain cache entails is not going to be able to look at a four star terrain cache in Colorado and know what to expect just because of the star rating.

 

I think the system works alright as is. There will be games played to help fill a grid but most of the time, when I see a D/T rating, it ends up being pretty accurate.

[+koodi]

 

There does seem to be a difference between US cachers and those from some European countries. Is nome parts of Europe, caches with high D/T ratings still get a significant number of finds, and European caches seem more likely to take the time to rate each cache they find. It may be that in Europe the feedback will result in a rating that approximates the average rating. Average isn't a good statistic to use in any case. Median would be better, since 5 stars doesn't actually mean 5 times 1 star.

 

In the US, at least where I live, the higher terrain and difficulty cache are not found that often; and cachers are less willing to take extra time to add their own ratings. It would take a while to get 10 finders assessments. During this time the D/T may have changed for any number of reasons. Also I suspect that the cache owner could simply get a group of his friends to find the cache and give it whatever rating he says. There would be no reason to trust this number any more than the one the cache owner gives.

 

You're right, median or mode would be better. The cache owner be allowed to reset the votes, if the owner is required to make changes to the cache.

 

The other cachers has repeatedly said, that the difficulty of my own caches are almost always too low. In other words, your idea of ​​a European higher ratings to be correct from this point of view.

[+L0ne.R]

Terrain is not subjective. There's a rating system. The link is quite obvious on the submission form. Why do people insist tnat Terrain is subjective?

[+tozainamboku]

Terrain is not subjective. There's a rating system. The link is quite obvious on the submission form. Why do people insist tnat Terrain is subjective?

While there are well established criteria for terrain and difficulty ratings, the criteria themselves are subject to interpretation. What one person views suitable for a small child, another may feel is too challenging for a child. There is even disagreement over what specialized equipment means. The half-star ratings are meant to account for this fuzziness, but often that isn't enough if there are several points that people have disagreement on.

 

Of course the fact that there are criteria show the absurdity of using the average or even the median. If one person says the cache is Handicapped Accessible and another says it's for Experience Outdoor Enthusiast that doesn't make the cache Suitable for Small Childredn. You could take the mode (majority rules) but I don't know how to deal with ties (other than use the half star if the tie is between two categories that are one star apart).

 

The problem is that cache owners don't read the criteria or use the link to the Claystar system. They simply pick a number they like. It is defacto subjective and may be worse if the cache owner just puts in numbers so his friends can complete a fizzy challenge.

Edited June 18, 2013 by tozainamboku

[+koodi]

You could take the mode (majority rules) but I don't know how to deal with ties (other than use the half star if the tie is between two categories that are one star apart).

 

Maybe then cache owner weighted mode?

[+dprovan]

Terrain is not subjective. There's a rating system. The link is quite obvious on the submission form. Why do people insist tnat Terrain is subjective?

The terrain rating standards are ignored because 95% of all caches placed today would be T1.5 according to the published standards. (Well, actually the standards page I'm looking at says they should all be T1, since it doesn't explain the practice of reserving T1 for caches that can actually be retrieved from a wheelchair.) So instead of sticking to that standard, for caches that obviously don't involve a 2 mile hike up a steep grade, people tend to use T2 to indicate you have to look under the bridge, and T3 to indicate you have to go up into the tree, etc. Since the standards don't cover those things, the decisions are subjective. The alternative is to leave T3 unused except for those rare caches that require a hike of over 2 miles, which doesn't really seem that interesting since anyone looking at those caches can tell without looking at the rating that a long hike is involved.

 

And don't get me started about the standard difficulty rating, as if any cacher these days would be interested in looking for a cache that is expected to "take up a good portion of an afternoon" (D3).

[+koodi]

After the discussion until now, my very own suggestion - which has not received much support here would now be:

 

- at the time of cache publication, the cache owner give the difficulty and terrain stars

- every cachers who has found the cache, give his/her own voluntary assessment of the cache stars while logging the cache into the gc.com

- after - let's say ten cachers assessments, the cache owner's assessment is replaced with the cache owner weighted mode (solution for ties situation) of the cache owner and other cachers assessments.

- the cache owner be allowed to reset the votes, if the owner is required to make changes to the cache.

Edited June 18, 2013 by koodi

[+Cardinal Red]

After the discussion until now, the proposal would now be

 

- at the time of cache publication, the cache owner give the difficulty and terrain stars

- every cachers who has found the cache, give his/her own voluntary assessment of the cache stars while logging the cache into the gc.com

- after - let's say ten cachers assessments, the cache owner's assessment is replaced with the cache owner weighted mode (solution for ties situation) of the cache owner and other cachers assessments.

- the cache owner be allowed to reset the votes, if the owner is required to make changes to the cache.

 

By my reading of the responses you have received here, there is practically zero support for your suggestion in this thread. You are going to receive absolutely zero support for your suggestion from Groundspeak. This is not a brand new concept, though they are not always exactly the same flavor. It is not the last time it will be brought up and ignored. I just thought someone needed to make crystal clear to you that this just isn't going to happen, no matter how much you fine tune the details. In the good old days, a discussion might culminate in some type of action. Those days are mostly gone, even for good ideas. I actually don't consider this to be one of them. I could easily name half a dozen concerns that are bigger "problems" than this for me. And I do occasionally waste time discussing some of them. So by all means, keep developing your idea. Just don't get your hopes up. Resistance is futile.

 

edit: for a one word tweak

Edited June 18, 2013 by Cardinal Red

[+koodi]

By my reading of the responses you have received here, there is practically zero support for your suggestion in this thread. You are going to receive absolutely zero support for your suggestion from Groundspeak. This is not a brand new concept, though they are not always exactly the same flavor. It is not the last time it will be brought up and ignored. I just thought someone needed to make crystal clear to you that this just isn't going to happen, no matter how much you fine tune the details. In the good old days, a discussion might culminate in some type of action. Those days are mostly gone, even for good ideas. I actually don't consider this to be one of them. I could easily name half a dozen concerns that are bigger "problems" than this for me. And I do occasionally waste time discussing some of them. So by all means, keep developing your idea. Just don't get your hopes up. Resistance is futile.

edit: for a one word tweak

 

Thank you for your encouragement. I feel so much better right away. Well, it's only a proposal, nothing else, take it easy.

 

I come from Finland and somehow the Groundspeak's attitude brought to my mind the time when the Nokia growth too big, too bureaucratic, too arrogant - even for those good ideas. And where is Nokia now?

Edited June 18, 2013 by koodi

[+BonnerGuido]

I think that the current D/Ts are correct enough most of the time. But I would love to see an extension of this idea: free tagging. You would be able to add something like "scenic view" or "near castle" or "cool container" to any cache. I would suggest adding a value from 1 to 5 to every tag/vote, with "scenic view":5 meaning very scenic view and "scenic view":1 meaning no nice view at all. This would make D/T a special case and easy to include.

This could be done as a broswer extension like (my) GCVote, which allows you to rate the quality of caches.

I even thought about adding tagging to GCVote, but I think that it should be a seperate extension. And I would not have time to implement it anyway.

[+Cardinal Red]

Thank you for your encouragement. I feel so much better right away. Well, it's only a proposal, nothing else, take it easy.

 

I come from Finland and somehow the Groundspeak's attitude brought to my mind the time when the Nokia growth too big, too bureaucratic, too arrogant - even for those good ideas. And where is Nokia now?

 

Maybe the widget idea then ..

 

That's the spirit. Is your widget available in camouflage, and does it have a water tight compartment? I might be interested.

 

I am not a Nokia customer, but I did introduce one to finding some caches with a Nokia. He thought they were the the technological pinnacle of mobile handheld devices. Nothing else was even half as good for him. I of course was a total cynic. If it wasn't a dedicated GPS, it was worthless. But I saw something totally shocking happen. It really did a fantastic job of finding Geocaches for him. Of course then they tore his heart out with unwelcome changes, so he bought a Montana.

[AZcachemeister]

Terrain is not subjective. There's a rating system. The link is quite obvious on the submission form. Why do people insist tnat Terrain is subjective?

 

The extreme terrain ratings are indeed fairly fixed.

The rating system is still subject to personal interpretation.

 

But, there is always the wheelchair cacher who will drag himself out of his chair to claim a T3 cache, and the nutcase cacher who will free-climb a T5 rock face that anyone else would use technical gear for.

 

Terrain and Difficulty have always been (and will always be) subjective.

 

The best we can get is: 'It seems pretty hard to me' or 'I thought it was really easy'.

[team tisri]

The D/T is always going to be subjective. Terrain-wise, there are those that can run up the side of a mountain and to them, a three star terrain is akin to a P&G. There are also those who think a 100 yard walk along a flat path is a three star terrain and a whole lot of people who fall somewhere in between.

 

It's also very dependent on location. A four star terrain in the Rockies is worlds different than a four star terrain in some swamp in Florida. A cacher who knows what a Florida four star terrain cache entails is not going to be able to look at a four star terrain cache in Colorado and know what to expect just because of the star rating.

 

I think the system works alright as is. There will be games played to help fill a grid but most of the time, when I see a D/T rating, it ends up being pretty accurate.

 

The whole point of the D/T rating is that we should be able to have an idea what we'll find at GZ based on the ratings. If a cache is rated T4 then in Florida's swamplands it might involve crossing swamps whereas in the Rockies it might involve a long walk up a steep trail. Either way it's reasonable to assume that T4 isn't going to be the kind of cache where you park the car and realise you can reach the cache without getting out of the car. A T1 cache, wherever in the world it is, should be something easily accessible by someone in a wheelchair or pushing a child and so shouldn't involve things like climbing trees or long walks up steep rocky paths.

 

For the most part the system works reasonably well as it is, although every once in a while a cache that's a very simple park-n-grab ends up rated T3 for reasons unknown.

[+dprovan]

The whole point of the D/T rating is that we should be able to have an idea what we'll find at GZ based on the ratings. If a cache is rated T4 then in Florida's swamplands it might involve crossing swamps whereas in the Rockies it might involve a long walk up a steep trail.

You say "what we'll find at GZ", but then you describe what is involved in getting to GZ. And that's really the problem: very few caches involve crossing swamps or long walks up a steep trail, so it no longer makes sense to reserve T4 for <1% of the caches. To some degree, it's just inflation, but more commonly, it's people dealing with your first, unintentional suggestion: getting to GZ is often not an issue, so the terrain rating is used to tell me will I find at GZ. So people take to using T4 for a cache requiring a significant climb up into a tree even though the total distance from car to cache is measured in feet.

 

I'm not saying that's good or bad, I'm just pointing out that such uses of the higher terrain ratings are, in my experience, much more common that the ones that specify how far you hiked and how steep the trail was.

[AZcachemeister]

Getting to GZ may or may not be the actual difficulty.

 

Getting you hands on the container is.

 

For example, I could get to GZ of a scuba cache fairly easily, but actually getting my hands on the cache AND SIGNING THE LOG probably won't be so easy.

 

Of course if that scuba cache is in the Nevada desert, all bets are off!

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Getting to GZ may or may not be the actual difficulty.

 

Getting you hands on the container is.

 

For example, I could get to GZ of a scuba cache fairly easily, but actually getting my hands on the cache AND SIGNING THE LOG probably won't be so easy.

 

Of course if that scuba cache is in the Nevada desert, all bets are off!

 

Where I often see differences is basing the terrain rating on getting to GZ verses getting to the container. Some will have a high difficulty rating when the getting to the published lat/long coordinates is relatively easy but getting to the container is "difficult"., even if it's plain sight from GZ. Generally I think a lot of D/T ratings are inflated because some cache owners want to be able to say that the own a 5/5 cache.

 

 

[+L0ne.R]

Getting to GZ may or may not be the actual difficulty.

 

Getting you hands on the container is.

 

For example, I could get to GZ of a scuba cache fairly easily, but actually getting my hands on the cache AND SIGNING THE LOG probably won't be so easy.

 

Of course if that scuba cache is in the Nevada desert, all bets are off!

 

Where I often see differences is basing the terrain rating on getting to GZ verses getting to the container. Some will have a high difficulty rating when the getting to the published lat/long coordinates is relatively easy but getting to the container is "difficult"., even if it's plain sight from GZ. Generally I think a lot of D/T ratings are inflated because some cache owners want to be able to say that the own a 5/5 cache.

 

 

I don't know about the over inflated high ratings because I don't do those. But I see a lot of under-inflated terrain ratings. I'm guessing that's because the CO wants more visitors - a 3 or over will limit their audience. The terrain rating should include the trail conditions getting to the cache and the terrain at ground zero. If it's flat all the way until you get 15 feet from the cache then there's a 45 degree slope down and a leap over a ditch of water, it's not a 2. Perhaps I'm sensitive because I had a temporary mobility problem for about a year. I'm still quite cautious when it comes to terrain. I'm guessing that no one here is or has been mobility impaired and tried to geocache?

Edited June 22, 2013 by L0ne R

[team tisri]

The whole point of the D/T rating is that we should be able to have an idea what we'll find at GZ based on the ratings. If a cache is rated T4 then in Florida's swamplands it might involve crossing swamps whereas in the Rockies it might involve a long walk up a steep trail.

You say "what we'll find at GZ", but then you describe what is involved in getting to GZ. And that's really the problem: very few caches involve crossing swamps or long walks up a steep trail, so it no longer makes sense to reserve T4 for <1% of the caches. To some degree, it's just inflation, but more commonly, it's people dealing with your first, unintentional suggestion: getting to GZ is often not an issue, so the terrain rating is used to tell me will I find at GZ. So people take to using T4 for a cache requiring a significant climb up into a tree even though the total distance from car to cache is measured in feet.

 

I'm not saying that's good or bad, I'm just pointing out that such uses of the higher terrain ratings are, in my experience, much more common that the ones that specify how far you hiked and how steep the trail was.

 

Sure, a high terrain rating could mean you have to walk 20 miles over rugged moorland, or it might mean that you park within 50 feet of a tree and then climb 200 feet up the tree. Both examples deserve a high terrain rating, and there's a potential mismatch in that if you have to hike 20 miles over rugged moorland and then climb 200 feet up a tree you still get a comparable terrain rating. If you're doing a T5 cache you read the text to get an idea of what to expect. The terrain rating tells you that you're going to have to make a significant effort to find it.

 

Terrain is about the physical difficulty in getting to the cache, which inevitably includes any issues likely to be faced in getting from nearby parking areas to the general area of the cache as well as issues getting to the cache itself. So if that difficulty is because the cache is 20 miles from the nearest possible parking or because it's 200 feet up a tree, it deserves a high terrain rating. The difficulty then reflects how hard the cache is to find once you get to GZ, so a cache placed 200 feet up a tree when you're told which tree and the cache is luminous turquoise would have a very low D rating because if you managed to climb the tree the cache can be spotted in seconds.

[+dprovan]

Terrain is about the physical difficulty in getting to the cache, which inevitably includes any issues likely to be faced in getting from nearby parking areas to the general area of the cache as well as issues getting to the cache itself. So if that difficulty is because the cache is 20 miles from the nearest possible parking or because it's 200 feet up a tree, it deserves a high terrain rating.

Right. The original point was that terrain rating isn't subjective. The guidelines provide clear, objective standards about hikes such as distances in miles and typical trail characteristics such as steepness, they leave to subjective opinion whether T4 is 200' up a tree, or 20' up a tree, or only 10' up a tree if the tree is difficult to get into.

[+L0ne.R]

Terrain is about the physical difficulty in getting to the cache, which inevitably includes any issues likely to be faced in getting from nearby parking areas to the general area of the cache as well as issues getting to the cache itself. So if that difficulty is because the cache is 20 miles from the nearest possible parking or because it's 200 feet up a tree, it deserves a high terrain rating.

Right. The original point was that terrain rating isn't subjective. The guidelines provide clear, objective standards about hikes such as distances in miles and typical trail characteristics such as steepness, they leave to subjective opinion whether T4 is 200' up a tree, or 20' up a tree, or only 10' up a tree if the tree is difficult to get into.

*

Handicapped accessible. (Terrain is likely to be paved, is relatively flat, and less than a 1/2 mile hike is required.)

**

Suitable 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.)

***

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.)

****

Experienced 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.)

*****

Requires specialized equipment and knowledge or experience, (boat, 4WD, rock climbing, SCUBA, etc) or is otherwise extremely difficult.

 

A climb that requires that the average (US) adult female (height 5'4") or average (US) male (5'9") use their hands to get up the tree, is a terrain 4. If they require specialized equipment, example there are no branches/limbs to climb, and require a ladder or a person to boost them up, it's a T5. But more importantly it is not a T3 and it is definitely not a T2.

 

People with mobility issues will probably set PQs for T2 or less. It would be great if folks would at least use the T1 and T2 properly. But many won't, even when pointed out that the T rating is too low for a steep slope.

 

When it's rated a little too high at least it's not a wasted trip for finders. They came prepared for a tough challenge but should be able to accomplish the lesser terrain. For someone using mobility aids and equipment, it's very frustrating and a waste of time and gas money. It's hard enough to be limited to so few geocaches. But to get excited by a potential T2 in a nice location only to find we can't get down the steep embankment 20 feet from the cache, can be upsetting.

[+The A-Team]

*Handicapped accessible. (Terrain is likely to be paved, is relatively flat, and less than a 1/2 mile hike is required.)

**Suitable 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.)

***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.)

****Experienced 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.)

*****Requires specialized equipment and knowledge or experience, (boat, 4WD, rock climbing, SCUBA, etc) or is otherwise extremely difficult.

 

A climb that requires that the average (US) adult female (height 5'4") or average (US) male (5'9") use their hands to get up the tree, is a terrain 4. If they require specialized equipment, example there are no branches/limbs to climb, and require a ladder or a person to boost them up, it's a T5. But more importantly it is not a T3 and it is definitely not a T2.

The problem is that tree-climbing isn't covered by any of those descriptions. When taken in context, the descriptions for 1-4 all clearly describe the difficulty of walking/hiking on a trail. When the description for T4 refers to the use of hands, it's referring to scrambling up a steep slope on a trail or off-trail/bushwhacking. Many people take the "use of hands" statement out of context and apply it to tree-climbing caches, but the reality is that tree-climbing isn't covered by any of the provided descriptions, and therefore can be completely up to the whims of the hider. What we really need is a ruling from Groundspeak and documentation of that decision in the terrain rating descriptions that explicitly states what terrain a tree climb is.

[team tisri]

*Handicapped accessible. (Terrain is likely to be paved, is relatively flat, and less than a 1/2 mile hike is required.)

**Suitable 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.)

***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.)

****Experienced 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.)

*****Requires specialized equipment and knowledge or experience, (boat, 4WD, rock climbing, SCUBA, etc) or is otherwise extremely difficult.

 

A climb that requires that the average (US) adult female (height 5'4") or average (US) male (5'9") use their hands to get up the tree, is a terrain 4. If they require specialized equipment, example there are no branches/limbs to climb, and require a ladder or a person to boost them up, it's a T5. But more importantly it is not a T3 and it is definitely not a T2.

The problem is that tree-climbing isn't covered by any of those descriptions. When taken in context, the descriptions for 1-4 all clearly describe the difficulty of walking/hiking on a trail. When the description for T4 refers to the use of hands, it's referring to scrambling up a steep slope on a trail or off-trail/bushwhacking. Many people take the "use of hands" statement out of context and apply it to tree-climbing caches, but the reality is that tree-climbing isn't covered by any of the provided descriptions, and therefore can be completely up to the whims of the hider. What we really need is a ruling from Groundspeak and documentation of that decision in the terrain rating descriptions that explicitly states what terrain a tree climb is.

 

The trouble is that "tree climb" can mean anything from a cache 9 feet up in a tree where a tall person could stand on a low branch and reach it, to a cache 200 feet up a tree requiring ropes and hoists and stuff.

[+tozainamboku]

*Handicapped accessible. (Terrain is likely to be paved, is relatively flat, and less than a 1/2 mile hike is required.)

**Suitable 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.)

***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.)

****Experienced 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.)

*****Requires specialized equipment and knowledge or experience, (boat, 4WD, rock climbing, SCUBA, etc) or is otherwise extremely difficult.

 

A climb that requires that the average (US) adult female (height 5'4") or average (US) male (5'9") use their hands to get up the tree, is a terrain 4. If they require specialized equipment, example there are no branches/limbs to climb, and require a ladder or a person to boost them up, it's a T5. But more importantly it is not a T3 and it is definitely not a T2.

The problem is that tree-climbing isn't covered by any of those descriptions. When taken in context, the descriptions for 1-4 all clearly describe the difficulty of walking/hiking on a trail. When the description for T4 refers to the use of hands, it's referring to scrambling up a steep slope on a trail or off-trail/bushwhacking. Many people take the "use of hands" statement out of context and apply it to tree-climbing caches, but the reality is that tree-climbing isn't covered by any of the provided descriptions, and therefore can be completely up to the whims of the hider. What we really need is a ruling from Groundspeak and documentation of that decision in the terrain rating descriptions that explicitly states what terrain a tree climb is.

 

The trouble is that "tree climb" can mean anything from a cache 9 feet up in a tree where a tall person could stand on a low branch and reach it, to a cache 200 feet up a tree requiring ropes and hoists and stuff.

You can have a cache in a tree that most parents would have no problem watching their kids climb, yet any child or adult would have to use their hands when climbing the tree. So here is a cache that is suitable for a small child (2 stars), yet it requires the use of hands (4 stars). Worse yet, a person in a wheelchair could retrieve the cache with some sort of grabber device. It is one star (wheelchair accessible) or 5 stars (because the grabber is specialized equipment)?

 

The terrain classifications are do not cover every possible situation, and often they are ambiguous. Two people can differ on what the terrain of a cache should be.

[+L0ne.R]

*Handicapped accessible. (Terrain is likely to be paved, is relatively flat, and less than a 1/2 mile hike is required.)

**Suitable 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.)

***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.)

****Experienced 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.)

*****Requires specialized equipment and knowledge or experience, (boat, 4WD, rock climbing, SCUBA, etc) or is otherwise extremely difficult.

 

A climb that requires that the average (US) adult female (height 5'4") or average (US) male (5'9") use their hands to get up the tree, is a terrain 4. If they require specialized equipment, example there are no branches/limbs to climb, and require a ladder or a person to boost them up, it's a T5. But more importantly it is not a T3 and it is definitely not a T2.

The problem is that tree-climbing isn't covered by any of those descriptions. When taken in context, the descriptions for 1-4 all clearly describe the difficulty of walking/hiking on a trail. When the description for T4 refers to the use of hands, it's referring to scrambling up a steep slope on a trail or off-trail/bushwhacking. Many people take the "use of hands" statement out of context and apply it to tree-climbing caches, but the reality is that tree-climbing isn't covered by any of the provided descriptions, and therefore can be completely up to the whims of the hider. What we really need is a ruling from Groundspeak and documentation of that decision in the terrain rating descriptions that explicitly states what terrain a tree climb is.

 

The trouble is that "tree climb" can mean anything from a cache 9 feet up in a tree where a tall person could stand on a low branch and reach it, to a cache 200 feet up a tree requiring ropes and hoists and stuff.

You can have a cache in a tree that most parents would have no problem watching their kids climb, yet any child or adult would have to use their hands when climbing the tree. So here is a cache that is suitable for a small child (2 stars), yet it requires the use of hands (4 stars). Worse yet, a person in a wheelchair could retrieve the cache with some sort of grabber device. It is one star (wheelchair accessible) or 5 stars (because the grabber is specialized equipment)?

 

The terrain classifications are do not cover every possible situation, and often they are ambiguous. Two people can differ on what the terrain of a cache should be.

 

Why not consider the average? Why choose the extremes (children and tall people)?

 

When rating the cache consider the average adult female height (5'4") of average health and median age (late 30s, early 40s). Even if you consider that more geocachers are middle-aged men, the height median would be 5'9". If your cache is 9 feet up a tree that the average middle age male cannot reach up to get (and if you expect that the average person will need to climb to get it) then rate it at least a 3.5, and use the tree climbing attribute. Please don't rate it a T2 (or less) and waste the time of shorter cachers who don't want to risk a climb or cachers with mobility issues who can't climb (or bushwack over logs and rocks, or walk down a 45 degree slope).

[+NYPaddleCacher]

*Handicapped accessible. (Terrain is likely to be paved, is relatively flat, and less than a 1/2 mile hike is required.)

**Suitable 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.)

***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.)

****Experienced 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.)

*****Requires specialized equipment and knowledge or experience, (boat, 4WD, rock climbing, SCUBA, etc) or is otherwise extremely difficult.

 

A climb that requires that the average (US) adult female (height 5'4") or average (US) male (5'9") use their hands to get up the tree, is a terrain 4. If they require specialized equipment, example there are no branches/limbs to climb, and require a ladder or a person to boost them up, it's a T5. But more importantly it is not a T3 and it is definitely not a T2.

The problem is that tree-climbing isn't covered by any of those descriptions. When taken in context, the descriptions for 1-4 all clearly describe the difficulty of walking/hiking on a trail. When the description for T4 refers to the use of hands, it's referring to scrambling up a steep slope on a trail or off-trail/bushwhacking. Many people take the "use of hands" statement out of context and apply it to tree-climbing caches, but the reality is that tree-climbing isn't covered by any of the provided descriptions, and therefore can be completely up to the whims of the hider. What we really need is a ruling from Groundspeak and documentation of that decision in the terrain rating descriptions that explicitly states what terrain a tree climb is.

 

The trouble is that "tree climb" can mean anything from a cache 9 feet up in a tree where a tall person could stand on a low branch and reach it, to a cache 200 feet up a tree requiring ropes and hoists and stuff.

 

Similarly, a cache placed on an island that one might typically be reached by boat will automatically get a 5 star rating for "special equipment". A cache on a small island in a large pond that one could reach with a $20 inflatable raft ends up having the same rating as a cache on an island a mile off that requires launching and landing through 3-6 foot breaking waves, then navigation through strong currents and requires a much more seaworthy craft and a fair amount of experience.

 

 

[+tozainamboku]

Why not consider the average? Why choose the extremes (children and tall people)?

 

When rating the cache consider the average adult female height (5'4") of average health and median age (late 30s, early 40s). Even if you consider that more geocachers are middle-aged men, the height median would be 5'9". If your cache is 9 feet up a tree that the average middle age male cannot reach up to get (and if you expect that the average person will need to climb to get it) then rate it at least a 3.5, and use the tree climbing attribute. Please don't rate it a T2 (or less) and waste the time of shorter cachers who don't want to risk a climb or cachers with mobility issues who can't climb (or bushwack over logs and rocks, or walk down a 45 degree slope).

I think this supports the argument I was making.

 

Some trees are easy to climb. Small children and even out-of-shape adults can step up on branches like using a ladder and easily reach the cache. The biggest challenge for some may be fear of heights. I'm not sure if the rating guidelines should take into account the average willingness to take risks.

 

Other trees may require more strength and athletic ability. Taller people may find it easier to reach the next branch and overweight people may find the branch doesn't support them.

 

I don't think lumping all trees into the same terrain category is useful at all. Moreover, there are caches in trees that someone could conceivably climb to get but which are intended to be reached using some TOTT. You could hide a cache in a tree and have the terrain be 1.

[+L0ne.R]

You could hide a cache in a tree and have the terrain be 1.

 

Sure. A cache at the base of the tree. Or about 3.5 feet up in a hollow trunk, where someone sitting in a wheelchair on a flat surface could reach in and grab it.

[+Harry Dolphin]

So, shall we take the Law of Averages into consideration?

A cache is rate 3 for terrain. a third of the finders find it easier, giving it a 2.5. A third of the finders say that 3 is correct. A third of the finders say it's a 3.5. Average/median = 3!

Then we'll look at the 5 star cache. I suspect it's only a 5 terrain because the CO wanted to call it Five Star. Puzzle was a 7, but I can only vote 5. That definitely throws off the median. The bizarre person who solved it at a glance rates it a 2.5. That averages out to a 4. He walked the 11 miles necessary, and wants to rate the terrain a 6. I took the subway, so I think it's only a 3 terrain. That averages out to 4.

So, now it's only a 4/4 cache. (Yes. Lots of other people will vote and keep the terrain at 5 because they want a 5 Terrain cache. But is it really?)

Same goes for a 1 Terrain, or 1 Difficulty. If your vote is limited to between 1 and 5, then the average or the median will always be off. So: No. This concept fails basic mathematics.

Hwy! It's a great cache! Took us almost a year to solve! If the owner wants to call it 5/5, that's his prerogative!

[team tisri]

*Handicapped accessible. (Terrain is likely to be paved, is relatively flat, and less than a 1/2 mile hike is required.)

**Suitable 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.)

***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.)

****Experienced 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.)

*****Requires specialized equipment and knowledge or experience, (boat, 4WD, rock climbing, SCUBA, etc) or is otherwise extremely difficult.

 

A climb that requires that the average (US) adult female (height 5'4") or average (US) male (5'9") use their hands to get up the tree, is a terrain 4. If they require specialized equipment, example there are no branches/limbs to climb, and require a ladder or a person to boost them up, it's a T5. But more importantly it is not a T3 and it is definitely not a T2.

The problem is that tree-climbing isn't covered by any of those descriptions. When taken in context, the descriptions for 1-4 all clearly describe the difficulty of walking/hiking on a trail. When the description for T4 refers to the use of hands, it's referring to scrambling up a steep slope on a trail or off-trail/bushwhacking. Many people take the "use of hands" statement out of context and apply it to tree-climbing caches, but the reality is that tree-climbing isn't covered by any of the provided descriptions, and therefore can be completely up to the whims of the hider. What we really need is a ruling from Groundspeak and documentation of that decision in the terrain rating descriptions that explicitly states what terrain a tree climb is.

 

The trouble is that "tree climb" can mean anything from a cache 9 feet up in a tree where a tall person could stand on a low branch and reach it, to a cache 200 feet up a tree requiring ropes and hoists and stuff.

You can have a cache in a tree that most parents would have no problem watching their kids climb, yet any child or adult would have to use their hands when climbing the tree. So here is a cache that is suitable for a small child (2 stars), yet it requires the use of hands (4 stars). Worse yet, a person in a wheelchair could retrieve the cache with some sort of grabber device. It is one star (wheelchair accessible) or 5 stars (because the grabber is specialized equipment)?

 

The terrain classifications are do not cover every possible situation, and often they are ambiguous. Two people can differ on what the terrain of a cache should be.

 

Why not consider the average? Why choose the extremes (children and tall people)?

 

When rating the cache consider the average adult female height (5'4") of average health and median age (late 30s, early 40s). Even if you consider that more geocachers are middle-aged men, the height median would be 5'9". If your cache is 9 feet up a tree that the average middle age male cannot reach up to get (and if you expect that the average person will need to climb to get it) then rate it at least a 3.5, and use the tree climbing attribute. Please don't rate it a T2 (or less) and waste the time of shorter cachers who don't want to risk a climb or cachers with mobility issues who can't climb (or bushwack over logs and rocks, or walk down a 45 degree slope).

 

... or be really radical and use an appropriate terrain rating and put something in the text to describe what people might have to do to get at the cache.

 

It always seems to me that if a cache is rated T2 or less then just about anyone should be able to reach it, and if it's T1 then it should be reachable by a wheelchair user without any assistance (and one thing I never realised until I got talking to a cacher who uses a wheelchair is that something at ground level usually isn't reachable by a wheelchair user).

 

If the cache has a high terrain rating it's nice to have an idea of what to expect at GZ from the text. A cache owner may decide to make the cache more work by not giving anything away but I must admit I'd be less inclined to even consider the cache unless I had an idea of whether it would involve climbing a tree, squeezing through caves, potholing, scuba diving, or merely hiking an insane distance.

 

I'm often surprised by the threads where people want to be able to tell "at a glance" what's going to be involved in any given cache. I figure where high terrain ratings are concerned they probably warrant a bit of reading to get a feel for what's involved, and if cachers have specific issues with getting around it makes sense to read the description to satisfy themselves they will be able to get to the cache. Of course the flip side of that is that cache owners should put something useful in the description, especially if the cache is anything more demanding than a film pot behind a sign.

[team tisri]

Why not consider the average? Why choose the extremes (children and tall people)?

 

When rating the cache consider the average adult female height (5'4") of average health and median age (late 30s, early 40s). Even if you consider that more geocachers are middle-aged men, the height median would be 5'9". If your cache is 9 feet up a tree that the average middle age male cannot reach up to get (and if you expect that the average person will need to climb to get it) then rate it at least a 3.5, and use the tree climbing attribute. Please don't rate it a T2 (or less) and waste the time of shorter cachers who don't want to risk a climb or cachers with mobility issues who can't climb (or bushwack over logs and rocks, or walk down a 45 degree slope).

I think this supports the argument I was making.

 

Some trees are easy to climb. Small children and even out-of-shape adults can step up on branches like using a ladder and easily reach the cache. The biggest challenge for some may be fear of heights. I'm not sure if the rating guidelines should take into account the average willingness to take risks.

 

Other trees may require more strength and athletic ability. Taller people may find it easier to reach the next branch and overweight people may find the branch doesn't support them.

 

I don't think lumping all trees into the same terrain category is useful at all. Moreover, there are caches in trees that someone could conceivably climb to get but which are intended to be reached using some TOTT. You could hide a cache in a tree and have the terrain be 1.

 

Terrain 1 would suggest a wheelchair user could reach it unaided, so if you can wheel to the base of a tree and reach into a V between branches and retrieve it the cache could be accurately rated T1. If it's at ground level between the roots it would probably need to be T1.5 to indicate that a wheelchair user would probably need assistance and it will involve at least a modicum of effort for anyone else.

 

The variety of possibilities that exist within the generic term of "cache hidden in tree" are such that it's a bit pointless to look at specific examples as it's always easy to provide examples and counterexamples. I think we can all agree that a cache hidden in the V of a tree that's three feet off the ground is more accessible (and therefore deserving of a lower T rating) than a cache in a similar V 10 feet off the ground, which in turn is more accessible than a cache hanging from the branches 200 feet off the ground.

 

I guess it's tricky to think in terms of "how would an average person find this cache" - what is easy for me might be hard for others and what is hard for me might be easy for others.

 

Perhaps what is needed is a requirement for cache hiders to provide a certain level of detail in their cache descriptions, although how to objectively define the level of detail required could be as tricky as objectively defining the correct terrain rating for a cache.