Dififculty/Terrain ratings

[+Kissyfurs]

I'm fairly new to the game (only 51 found caches), but I'm noticing a huge discrepancy in difficulty/terrain ratings and in coordinates for caches. I think that once someone finds the cache, they should be able to enter what they feel is the difficulty/terrain rating. While the CO's ratings would stand, other users could see what people who found the cache believe it is. For example, there is a cache with a difficulty rating of 1.5 stars. I've been searching three times and have gone with a total of 4 other people- we can't find it (CO verified it's in place). However, I did a 3.5/3.5 cache today with a friend in heels and dress pants and found it in less than 30 seconds of searching.

 

Also, I've seen several caches that have an incorrect size listed. A cache listed as a small that was a key holder, a hollowed out log that barely had room for a log and pencil listed a regular and another that could hold small items listed as a nano. I e-mailed the CO all three times, but haven't received a response on any of them.

 

Just my two cents...

[+The A-Team]

I'm fairly new to the game (only 51 found caches), but I'm noticing a huge discrepancy in difficulty/terrain ratings and in coordinates for caches. I think that once someone finds the cache, they should be able to enter what they feel is the difficulty/terrain rating. While the CO's ratings would stand, other users could see what people who found the cache believe it is. For example, there is a cache with a difficulty rating of 1.5 stars. I've been searching three times and have gone with a total of 4 other people- we can't find it (CO verified it's in place). However, I did a 3.5/3.5 cache today with a friend in heels and dress pants and found it in less than 30 seconds of searching.

 

Also, I've seen several caches that have an incorrect size listed. A cache listed as a small that was a key holder, a hollowed out log that barely had room for a log and pencil listed a regular and another that could hold small items listed as a nano. I e-mailed the CO all three times, but haven't received a response on any of them.

 

Just my two cents...

You can always give your opinion in your log. I've done so many times in the past when the D/T ratings are way off, the size is wrong, the coordinates are off by a bunch, etc. Any other seekers after you can see your log and your opinion, and if enough people say the same thing, the CO may consider making a change.

 

BTW, nano is not one of the official sizes. Micro is the smallest, of which nano is simply the smallest of the micros. Still, if the cache can hold anything beyond the log and maybe a small pencil, it's probably a small.

[AZcachemeister]

I frequently offer my assessment of the cache size and ratings.

Sometimes the CO actually takes note and makes changes.

 

Sometimes, but usually not.

In any case, my analysis is there for anyone to read if they care to.

[+JingleBella]

I appreciate any feedback regarding my caches but don't forget the DT ratings are going to differ from person to person. No, a cache in a lamppost skirt will (likely) never be a 4 star difficulty but a cache that is rated for example 3 could be a 1 for a very experienced cacher and a 4 or 5 to a newbie. All depends on what you've seen as well. There's a couple caches here that are rated a 4 I believe, however because I've seen similar containers I had spotted them before even getting to GZ. That's why it's always good to note in the logs any concerns. Maybe if enough people say the same thing the CO will (hopefully) change it.

 

Edited August 8, 2013 by JingleBella

[+Don_J]

I appreciate any feedback regarding my caches but don't forget the DT ratings are going to differ from person to person.

 

The difficulty may differ from person to person, but the terrain is the same for everyone, unless maybe a flash flood occurs, or someone builds a road.

[+tozainamboku]

I appreciate any feedback regarding my caches but don't forget the DT ratings are going to differ from person to person.

 

The difficulty may differ from person to person, but the terrain is the same for everyone, unless maybe a flash flood occurs, or someone builds a road.

Or they drive a Jeep.

[+Semper Questio]

I appreciate any feedback regarding my caches but don't forget the DT ratings are going to differ from person to person.

 

The difficulty may differ from person to person, but the terrain is the same for everyone, unless maybe a flash flood occurs, or someone builds a road.

 

I beg to differ. The terrain would be the same for everyone of like ability, but not everyone.

 

I have a disability after a geocaching accident in 2008 and I have come across some T1.5 and many T2 caches that, for me, would be better rated a T3 or 3.5.

 

No, I do not expect the ratings to be geared for me or those in similar situations (or worse). I just know going out that some caches that have a somewhat lower terrain rating may require more effort than the rating indicates or may not actually be possible for me to do alone or without some kind of assistance. No big. Just part of the game and my current reality. YMMV.

[+Don_J]

I appreciate any feedback regarding my caches but don't forget the DT ratings are going to differ from person to person.

 

The difficulty may differ from person to person, but the terrain is the same for everyone, unless maybe a flash flood occurs, or someone builds a road.

 

I beg to differ. The terrain would be the same for everyone of like ability, but not everyone.

 

I have a disability after a geocaching accident in 2008 and I have come across some T1.5 and many T2 caches that, for me, would be better rated a T3 or 3.5.

 

No, I do not expect the ratings to be geared for me or those in similar situations (or worse). I just know going out that some caches that have a somewhat lower terrain rating may require more effort than the rating indicates or may not actually be possible for me to do alone or without some kind of assistance. No big. Just part of the game and my current reality. YMMV.

 

Sorry, but this is just plain wrong. The terrain rating is supposed to describe the particular place on the Earth that you are playing the game on. It is either steep or not, rocky or not, or full of bushes, or not, etc. It may change in time, but not due to anyone's personal abilities. The problem is that people will completely ignore the rating system and rate terrain solely on their own abilities. There is still a small amount of subjectivity in the rating system, but if everyone used it, you should be able to look at a listing and know if you can do it by it's terrain rating.

[+Semper Questio]

I appreciate any feedback regarding my caches but don't forget the DT ratings are going to differ from person to person.

 

The difficulty may differ from person to person, but the terrain is the same for everyone, unless maybe a flash flood occurs, or someone builds a road.

 

I beg to differ. The terrain would be the same for everyone of like ability, but not everyone.

 

I have a disability after a geocaching accident in 2008 and I have come across some T1.5 and many T2 caches that, for me, would be better rated a T3 or 3.5.

 

No, I do not expect the ratings to be geared for me or those in similar situations (or worse). I just know going out that some caches that have a somewhat lower terrain rating may require more effort than the rating indicates or may not actually be possible for me to do alone or without some kind of assistance. No big. Just part of the game and my current reality. YMMV.

 

Sorry, but this is just plain wrong. The terrain rating is supposed to describe the particular place on the Earth that you are playing the game on. It is either steep or not, rocky or not, or full of bushes, or not, etc. It may change in time, but not due to anyone's personal abilities. The problem is that people will completely ignore the rating system and rate terrain solely on their own abilities. There is still a small amount of subjectivity in the rating system, but if everyone used it, you should be able to look at a listing and know if you can do it by it's terrain rating.

 

Not so. I will agree that it is supposed to rate the terrain at or accessing GZ, but to say it is the same for everyone is patently absurd. Yes, it does give a good indication that the terrain may be more difficult, but it does not say anything about what the rating was judged on UNLESS the CO lists WHY the rating is as posted and that is rarely the case. It is more than a small amount of subjectivity. Folks will rate based on their own abilities, experience, and perception. A young guy used to hard trekking may rank some of the greenbelt trails here a T2 while others may consider them a T3. Unless there is some method of accounting for every permutation of terrain complexities, ANY rating system will be subjective and in no way, all by itself, an infallible indicator of the terrain being rated.

[+Don_J]

I appreciate any feedback regarding my caches but don't forget the DT ratings are going to differ from person to person.

 

The difficulty may differ from person to person, but the terrain is the same for everyone, unless maybe a flash flood occurs, or someone builds a road.

 

I beg to differ. The terrain would be the same for everyone of like ability, but not everyone.

 

I have a disability after a geocaching accident in 2008 and I have come across some T1.5 and many T2 caches that, for me, would be better rated a T3 or 3.5.

 

No, I do not expect the ratings to be geared for me or those in similar situations (or worse). I just know going out that some caches that have a somewhat lower terrain rating may require more effort than the rating indicates or may not actually be possible for me to do alone or without some kind of assistance. No big. Just part of the game and my current reality. YMMV.

 

Sorry, but this is just plain wrong. The terrain rating is supposed to describe the particular place on the Earth that you are playing the game on. It is either steep or not, rocky or not, or full of bushes, or not, etc. It may change in time, but not due to anyone's personal abilities. The problem is that people will completely ignore the rating system and rate terrain solely on their own abilities. There is still a small amount of subjectivity in the rating system, but if everyone used it, you should be able to look at a listing and know if you can do it by it's terrain rating.

 

Not so. I will agree that it is supposed to rate the terrain at or accessing GZ, but to say it is the same for everyone is patently absurd. Yes, it does give a good indication that the terrain may be more difficult, but it does not say anything about what the rating was judged on UNLESS the CO lists WHY the rating is as posted and that is rarely the case. It is more than a small amount of subjectivity. Folks will rate based on their own abilities, experience, and perception. A young guy used to hard trekking may rank some of the greenbelt trails here a T2 while others may consider them a T3. Unless there is some method of accounting for every permutation of terrain complexities, ANY rating system will be subjective and in no way, all by itself, an infallible indicator of the terrain being rated.

 

A 45 degree incline is a 45 degree incline. It may be more difficult for you to climb a 45 degree incline than it is for me, but that does not change the fact that it is a 45 degree incline. If some young dude wants to rate his cache at the top of that 45 degree incline as a T1.5 because he can do somersaults up it, then he is rating his cache wrong and I would expect someone to tell him thatr through their logs.

[team tisri]

I appreciate any feedback regarding my caches but don't forget the DT ratings are going to differ from person to person.

 

The difficulty may differ from person to person, but the terrain is the same for everyone, unless maybe a flash flood occurs, or someone builds a road.

 

I beg to differ. The terrain would be the same for everyone of like ability, but not everyone.

 

I have a disability after a geocaching accident in 2008 and I have come across some T1.5 and many T2 caches that, for me, would be better rated a T3 or 3.5.

 

No, I do not expect the ratings to be geared for me or those in similar situations (or worse). I just know going out that some caches that have a somewhat lower terrain rating may require more effort than the rating indicates or may not actually be possible for me to do alone or without some kind of assistance. No big. Just part of the game and my current reality. YMMV.

 

So how is a CO supposed to rate the terrain if he doesn't know whether the person attempting to find the cache is a world class athlete or a quadraplegic?

 

If you're a world class free climber then a cache half way up a cliff might only count as T2. If you're a quadraplegic with major brain trauma then any cache at all is probably T5 on the basis you couldn't do it without specialist equipment.

 

The handicaching rating of some years ago seemed like a great idea, where the regular terrain rating could be used assuming someone was reasonably mobile and the handicaching ratings provided more information for those with more limited mobility about what would be required to retrieve the cache so they could figure out whether they were likely to be able to do it or not.

[+JingleBella]

I appreciate any feedback regarding my caches but don't forget the DT ratings are going to differ from person to person.

 

The difficulty may differ from person to person, but the terrain is the same for everyone, unless maybe a flash flood occurs, or someone builds a road.

 

I beg to differ. The terrain would be the same for everyone of like ability, but not everyone.

 

I have a disability after a geocaching accident in 2008 and I have come across some T1.5 and many T2 caches that, for me, would be better rated a T3 or 3.5.

 

No, I do not expect the ratings to be geared for me or those in similar situations (or worse). I just know going out that some caches that have a somewhat lower terrain rating may require more effort than the rating indicates or may not actually be possible for me to do alone or without some kind of assistance. No big. Just part of the game and my current reality. YMMV.

 

So how is a CO supposed to rate the terrain if he doesn't know whether the person attempting to find the cache is a world class athlete or a quadraplegic?

 

If you're a world class free climber then a cache half way up a cliff might only count as T2. If you're a quadraplegic with major brain trauma then any cache at all is probably T5 on the basis you couldn't do it without specialist equipment.

 

The handicaching rating of some years ago seemed like a great idea, where the regular terrain rating could be used assuming someone was reasonably mobile and the handicaching ratings provided more information for those with more limited mobility about what would be required to retrieve the cache so they could figure out whether they were likely to be able to do it or not.

 

My original post was actually more directed to difficulty rating but I still do agree that the terrain rating is going to differ from person to person. It will also vary depending on weather and time of day. A cache rated a 3T could easily bump up to a 4/4.5 if attempted at night during the Winter.

[team tisri]

I appreciate any feedback regarding my caches but don't forget the DT ratings are going to differ from person to person.

 

The difficulty may differ from person to person, but the terrain is the same for everyone, unless maybe a flash flood occurs, or someone builds a road.

 

I beg to differ. The terrain would be the same for everyone of like ability, but not everyone.

 

I have a disability after a geocaching accident in 2008 and I have come across some T1.5 and many T2 caches that, for me, would be better rated a T3 or 3.5.

 

No, I do not expect the ratings to be geared for me or those in similar situations (or worse). I just know going out that some caches that have a somewhat lower terrain rating may require more effort than the rating indicates or may not actually be possible for me to do alone or without some kind of assistance. No big. Just part of the game and my current reality. YMMV.

 

So how is a CO supposed to rate the terrain if he doesn't know whether the person attempting to find the cache is a world class athlete or a quadraplegic?

 

If you're a world class free climber then a cache half way up a cliff might only count as T2. If you're a quadraplegic with major brain trauma then any cache at all is probably T5 on the basis you couldn't do it without specialist equipment.

 

The handicaching rating of some years ago seemed like a great idea, where the regular terrain rating could be used assuming someone was reasonably mobile and the handicaching ratings provided more information for those with more limited mobility about what would be required to retrieve the cache so they could figure out whether they were likely to be able to do it or not.

 

My original post was actually more directed to difficulty rating but I still do agree that the terrain rating is going to differ from person to person. It will also vary depending on weather and time of day. A cache rated a 3T could easily bump up to a 4/4.5 if attempted at night during the Winter.

 

Of course, which is why the D/T rating is a guideline rather than a definitive statement. The flipside is that many caches that are very easy in the winter become very hard in the summer because vegetation grows up and obscures the cache, and when you've got stinging nettles six feet tall and brambles that surround the cache for 50 feet in all directions it doesn't help with finding the cache.

[+JingleBella]

I appreciate any feedback regarding my caches but don't forget the DT ratings are going to differ from person to person.

 

The difficulty may differ from person to person, but the terrain is the same for everyone, unless maybe a flash flood occurs, or someone builds a road.

 

I beg to differ. The terrain would be the same for everyone of like ability, but not everyone.

 

I have a disability after a geocaching accident in 2008 and I have come across some T1.5 and many T2 caches that, for me, would be better rated a T3 or 3.5.

 

No, I do not expect the ratings to be geared for me or those in similar situations (or worse). I just know going out that some caches that have a somewhat lower terrain rating may require more effort than the rating indicates or may not actually be possible for me to do alone or without some kind of assistance. No big. Just part of the game and my current reality. YMMV.

 

So how is a CO supposed to rate the terrain if he doesn't know whether the person attempting to find the cache is a world class athlete or a quadraplegic?

 

If you're a world class free climber then a cache half way up a cliff might only count as T2. If you're a quadraplegic with major brain trauma then any cache at all is probably T5 on the basis you couldn't do it without specialist equipment.

 

The handicaching rating of some years ago seemed like a great idea, where the regular terrain rating could be used assuming someone was reasonably mobile and the handicaching ratings provided more information for those with more limited mobility about what would be required to retrieve the cache so they could figure out whether they were likely to be able to do it or not.

 

My original post was actually more directed to difficulty rating but I still do agree that the terrain rating is going to differ from person to person. It will also vary depending on weather and time of day. A cache rated a 3T could easily bump up to a 4/4.5 if attempted at night during the Winter.

 

Of course, which is why the D/T rating is a guideline rather than a definitive statement. The flipside is that many caches that are very easy in the winter become very hard in the summer because vegetation grows up and obscures the cache, and when you've got stinging nettles six feet tall and brambles that surround the cache for 50 feet in all directions it doesn't help with finding the cache.

 

Lol yes, that is true too. Sometimes they get harder due to the trees/bushes filling in. And pill bottles on a tree in the winter definitely get easier due to the camo standing out like a sore thumb and a geopath if anyone has been there recently.

 

I think that gives even more reason why having each cachers D/T opinion would vary way too much!

[+L0ne.R]

I have a disability after a geocaching accident in 2008 and I have come across some T1.5 and many T2 caches that, for me, would be better rated a T3 or 3.5.

 

I too suffered a geocaching accident (2 years ago). During my recovery I realized just how important a proper terrain rating is. Anything under 3 should be reserved for relatively easy terrain. The clayjar/geocaching rating does a good job of helping people figure out terrain ratings - many hiders seem ignore the link on the form when posting their cache hide.

 

Also people fail to take the whole terrain into consideration - beginning to end. If 95% of the trail is flat but the last 5% is a steep slope it's not a T2. Those who purposely filter out for T2 and under, do so because we need easy terrain. During my temporary disability phase, I wasted about 50% of my trips out to caches. I'd get to within 25-100 meters of the cache and discovered I would need to bushwack over logs, sticks, rocks and brush, or climb down a steep slope, or jump a creek, or search through a 15-foot-wide heap of rocks.

 

Like AZcachemeister, I offer my assessment of the terrain rating when I visit a cache rated under 2.5 when it should be rated a 3 or more (using the clayjar rating system - Terrain is likely off-trail. May have one or more of the following: some overgrowth, some steep elevation changes). Very rarely does a CO change the rating (once, that I recall).

[+BlueDeuce]

After failing to get a response from my local reviewer concerning a D3.5 "Watch out for muggles!" lamp-post cache. It was perfectly clear that it means nothing to them.

[+K13]

After failing to get a response from my local reviewer concerning a D3.5 "Watch out for muggles!" lamp-post cache. It was perfectly clear that it means nothing to them.

 

Maybe those were some MEAN muggles!

[Blue Square Thing]

I too suffered a geocaching accident (2 years ago). During my recovery I realized just how important a proper terrain rating is. Anything under 3 should be reserved for relatively easy terrain. The clayjar/geocaching rating does a good job of helping people figure out terrain ratings - many hiders seem ignore the link on the form when posting their cache hide.

 

Absolutely. The key to me is the first section of each rating - specifically I'm expecting a T1 to be wheelchair suitable and a T2 to very definitely be suitable for *small* children. Which is what it says. T1 that I have to climb into a tree with lots of blackthorn all around (at any time of year) isn't fun and certainly not suitable for either imo.

 

Also people fail to take the whole terrain into consideration - beginning to end. If 95% of the trail is flat but the last 5% is a steep slope it's not a T2. Those who purposely filter out for T2 and under, do so because we need easy terrain. During my temporary disability phase, I wasted about 50% of my trips out to caches. I'd get to within 25-100 meters of the cache and discovered I would need to bushwack over logs, sticks, rocks and brush, or climb down a steep slope, or jump a creek, or search through a 15-foot-wide heap of rocks.

 

The issue of trail caches all being given the same T where some might be 5k off road and involve jumping a stream and one is a magnetic on a stop sign in the car park is part of this as well. It'd be nice if people could try to take that into account.

[+tozainamboku]

After failing to get a response from my local reviewer concerning a D3.5 "Watch out for muggles!" lamp-post cache. It was perfectly clear that it means nothing to them.

The first LPC I found was rated a D3.5. The cache page said something like "It's a 3.5 if you've never seen one of these before and 1 if you have". I imagine that this is still pretty much true.

[+BlueDeuce]

After failing to get a response from my local reviewer concerning a D3.5 "Watch out for muggles!" lamp-post cache. It was perfectly clear that it means nothing to them.

The first LPC I found was rated a D3.5. The cache page said something like "It's a 3.5 if you've never seen one of these before and 1 if you have". I imagine that this is still pretty much true.

 

You think ratings are that subjective?

 

edit: missing s

Edited August 18, 2013 by BlueDeuce

[+Kacher82]

After failing to get a response from my local reviewer concerning a D3.5 "Watch out for muggles!" lamp-post cache. It was perfectly clear that it means nothing to them.

The first LPC I found was rated a D3.5. The cache page said something like "It's a 3.5 if you've never seen one of these before and 1 if you have". I imagine that this is still pretty much true.

That was fairly true for me. My first LPC find took me 2 or 3 tries before I figured it out. Now I can pick them out from 100 feet away (or more).

[+K13]

Terrain ratings should be based on the geography of the location and, to a somewhat lesser extent, the travel after you exit the car. This aspect of the cache is the same for everyone, regardless of their physical ability.

 

Difficulty rating is where all the subjective gray area comes to play. What is difficult for a beginner, is easy-peasy for an experienced finder.

[team tisri]

After failing to get a response from my local reviewer concerning a D3.5 "Watch out for muggles!" lamp-post cache. It was perfectly clear that it means nothing to them.

The first LPC I found was rated a D3.5. The cache page said something like "It's a 3.5 if you've never seen one of these before and 1 if you have". I imagine that this is still pretty much true.

 

You think ratings are that subjective?

 

edit: missing s

 

They often can be. Have you ever hunted for a cache for an hour only for someone else to come by and find it within 30 seconds?

[+geo-tek]

I wonder if they should make a system of counting the D/T in the rating. Like a 5/5 would be a 10 and a 1/1 would be a 2, and then add them all up. Right now a 1/1 gets the same rating as a 5/5, but it may take all day, or quite a few days to get a 5/5 while you could get say 20 1/1 in one day. It would be a scoring system that shows how difficult the caches you are getting. Maybe have both systems shown on the stats page.

[+Kacher82]

I wonder if they should make a system of counting the D/T in the rating. Like a 5/5 would be a 10 and a 1/1 would be a 2, and then add them all up. Right now a 1/1 gets the same rating as a 5/5, but it may take all day, or quite a few days to get a 5/5 while you could get say 20 1/1 in one day. It would be a scoring system that shows how difficult the caches you are getting. Maybe have both systems shown on the stats page.

They already show the average D/T rating of the caches you've found. I'm not sure why you would need to add the two together. Difficulty and terrain are two different things.

[+niraD]

I wonder if they should make a system of counting the D/T in the rating. Like a 5/5 would be a 10 and a 1/1 would be a 2, and then add them all up. Right now a 1/1 gets the same rating as a 5/5, but it may take all day, or quite a few days to get a 5/5 while you could get say 20 1/1 in one day. It would be a scoring system that shows how difficult the caches you are getting. Maybe have both systems shown on the stats page.

One person wants more points for high terrain caches, another wants more points for high difficulty caches, another wants more points for caches with both high terrain and high difficulty, another wants more points for large caches, or small caches, or multi-stage caches, or puzzle caches, or traditional caches, or rarely found caches, or popular (i.e., often found) caches, or something else entirely.

 

No thanks. I'd rather Groundspeak keep their stats as objective and straight-forward as possible, and that they not add any points system that assigns more subjective value to one type of cache over another.

[+Bigmada]

 

One person wants more points for high terrain caches, another wants more points for high difficulty caches, another wants more points for caches with both high terrain and high difficulty, another wants more points for large caches, or small caches, or multi-stage caches, or puzzle caches, or traditional caches, or rarely found caches, or popular (i.e., often found) caches, or something else entirely.

 

No thanks. I'd rather Groundspeak keep their stats as objective and straight-forward as possible, and that they not add any points system that assigns more subjective value to one type of cache over another.

 

I want a 5/5 P&G event cache

[+BlueDeuce]

After failing to get a response from my local reviewer concerning a D3.5 "Watch out for muggles!" lamp-post cache. It was perfectly clear that it means nothing to them.

The first LPC I found was rated a D3.5. The cache page said something like "It's a 3.5 if you've never seen one of these before and 1 if you have". I imagine that this is still pretty much true.

 

You think ratings are that subjective?

 

edit: missing s

 

They often can be. Have you ever hunted for a cache for an hour only for someone else to come by and find it within 30 seconds?

 

Sure, which is why I don't suggest they rate the cache higher.

[+Bing-GTX]

I'm fairly new to the game (only 51 found caches), but I'm noticing a huge discrepancy in difficulty/terrain ratings and in coordinates for caches. I think that once someone finds the cache, they should be able to enter what they feel is the difficulty/terrain rating. While the CO's ratings would stand, other users could see what people who found the cache believe it is. For example, there is a cache with a difficulty rating of 1.5 stars. I've been searching three times and have gone with a total of 4 other people- we can't find it (CO verified it's in place). However, I did a 3.5/3.5 cache today with a friend in heels and dress pants and found it in less than 30 seconds of searching.

As has been pointed out many times in discussions on a local mailing list that I belong to, we all play the game differently. Yep, clayjar's system is a good place to start, but it has some weaknesses. I have noticed that some hiders seem to have a bias toward lower difficulty and/or terrain ratings. While a very few others have a bias toward rating a cache higher than I found it to be. I have found that as I have gained more experience the difficulty ratings seem to even out. Sometimes I get credit for finding a 3D that I would have called a 2D or 1.5D, other times I eventually find a 1.5 and based on the time it took would have thought that is should have been rated a 3D. Sometimes your geo-sense lines up with that of the hider, other times it does not. Sometimes the cache is gone and you spent an hour looking for it and all you get is a DNF to show for your effort. If you are in it just for the numbers then it can be frustrating. If you are in it for the opportunity to get out of doors and experience new places and see new things then as long as you remember to do that as you search, does it really matter that you did or did not find the cache or that it was harder or easier than you thought it should be. Granted a lot of caches are in places that are not that scenic or interesting, but enough are that they more than make up for the pedestrian ones.

I have had success, probably more than some others who have responded, in having CO's change their ratings based on comments in my logs, not everyone has but enough have that I feel it was worth mentioning when I felt a cache was rated far too easy or too hard. But I have also noticed that I have become a lot more tolerant as I have found more caches, so I mention it a lot less now than I used to. Even if they don't change them at least others who bother to read the logs will get your message.

I am acquainted with a cacher who has more than 30,000 finds and he recently admitted that sometimes he has to DNF a 1.5D cache.

 

Also, I've seen several caches that have an incorrect size listed. A cache listed as a small that was a key holder, a hollowed out log that barely had room for a log and pencil listed a regular and another that could hold small items listed as a nano. I e-mailed the CO all three times, but haven't received a response on any of them.

You bring up a good point that can be very frustrating at times, especially for beginners. I found a cache this past week that was called a regular in the description, the size data said it was a small, but when I found it the container was definitely a micro tending toward the nano scale. This illustrates what I, at one time, felt was a deficiency in the size rating system. Does the size describe the cavity that contains the log and the swag or does it describe the outside size of the container including the camo that it is attached to and in which it is hidden. Based on implications in the container size descriptions I think that it is intended to be the cavity size. But nowhere in those descriptions do I recall that being explicitly stated. When I am looking I want to know how big of an object I am looking for, so I felt that there should be two sizes given. I found this to be especially true when I had less than 200 finds. As I have found more caches I have become less aware of it. Most of the time it does not really matter any way. I have learned that if it says it is a micro I know that it can be camouflaged in anything bigger while if it is a regular I know that I don't need to be looking at something that a small or micro could be hidden in. I have found, on a few occasions, hollowed out logs, bricks or rocks containing a micro or nano sized cache, many of those are among my favorite finds because they were so cleverly hidden or the craftsmanship that went into creating them was so good.