What the?

[+Shop99er]

I just saw this post over on Facebook. It was written by a Reviewer. I have removed the State name in order to keep this subject on topic, and not become a witch hunt.

 

"OK folks... On a Challenge cache, the D/T ratings are for the cache itself, not for the caches required to achieve the challenge. Example: a Fizzy Challenge located at an LPC is 1/1, not a 5/5. Please correct and challenges you have. Sometime during the next month or two I will be looking at the XXXXXXX Caches and disable those that appear to be incorrect. Thanks!"

 

My question is this:

 

Was there a guideline change that supports this message? Are challenge owners (like me) not supposed to rate their challenges based on the effort required to meet the criteria?

 

Or, is this Reviewer going off on a private tangent?

[+GrateBear]

Well, that could certainly have a huge impact on some that I've found, and others that I'm working my way to.

[+Touchstone]

Maybe this...

 

At times a geocache may meet the requirements for publication on the site but the reviewers, as experienced geocachers, may see additional concerns not listed in these guidelines that you as a geocache placer may not have noticed. The reviewer may bring these additional concerns to your attention and offer suggestions so that the geocache can be published.

 

I agree that inflating the ratings can be misleading. People should be able to judge for themselves how "difficult" a Challenge is by reading the Description. Unlike a more traditional Puzzle, where the solution might not seem obvious, and the Difficulty can give you some indication how many sleepless nights it may take to solve, a Challenge Listing is usually pretty straight forward to interpret.

[+Shop99er]

Maybe this...

 

At times a geocache may meet the requirements for publication on the site but the reviewers, as experienced geocachers, may see additional concerns not listed in these guidelines that you as a geocache placer may not have noticed. The reviewer may bring these additional concerns to your attention and offer suggestions so that the geocache can be published.

 

I agree that inflating the ratings can be misleading. People should be able to judge for themselves how "difficult" a Challenge is by reading the Description. Unlike a more traditional Puzzle, where the solution might not seem obvious, and the Difficulty can give you some indication how many sleepless nights it may take to solve, a Challenge Listing is usually pretty straight forward to interpret.

That would be a valid reason, certainly. But this reviwer has stated that in his opinion, y "this is what should have always been."

[+lamoracke]

Well, given where you are from, and the challenges in that area, I think the vast majority of them have their difficulty rated for the challenge. News to me. Terrain has been subjective. I see no value in the Fizzy challenge being a 1/1.5 in any way, shape, fashion or form. I do think it can be silly when every challenge is 5/5 (one state has like 100 of them all 5/5) but a challenge rated approximately for its difficulty in achieving the challenge seems the accepted norm to me in almost every state I have noticed.

 

Have never heard, ever, of a reviewer asking for someone to change ratings on anything, except in some extreme situations after the fact where, well, not going to go into them, but they were not on Challenges.

Edited October 28, 2013 by lamoracke

[+JesandTodd]

Well, that could certainly have a huge impact on some that I've found, and others that I'm working my way to.

 

This.

 

I'm sorry. But some of the challenges I've been working on have been way more work than what the actual cache is.

If I have to do the work *before* claiming the find, then I'm earning the D rating.

 

it's no different from the D rating of a puzzle cache with an easy final.

[jholly]

I just saw this post over on Facebook. It was written by a Reviewer. I have removed the State name in order to keep this subject on topic, and not become a witch hunt.

 

"OK folks... On a Challenge cache, the D/T ratings are for the cache itself, not for the caches required to achieve the challenge. Example: a Fizzy Challenge located at an LPC is 1/1, not a 5/5. Please correct and challenges you have. Sometime during the next month or two I will be looking at the XXXXXXX Caches and disable those that appear to be incorrect. Thanks!"

 

My question is this:

 

Was there a guideline change that supports this message? Are challenge owners (like me) not supposed to rate their challenges based on the effort required to meet the criteria?

 

Or, is this Reviewer going off on a private tangent?

 

Let's assume that this reviewer has discussed this on the private reviewer forum and reviewers in general are on board with this. I guess this then is a de facto unwritten guideline change until Miss Jenn documents it on the next update. Sure does knock the wind out of a challenge cache. I mean, why go through that pain and agony to accomplish the challenge for a 1/1? I'll do the challenge, claim completion and let the 1/1 LPC rot. Finding and signing the log on a 1/1 film can LPC at that point is moot and meaningless.

[+lamoracke]

Course, if this did ever happen, that is a lot of energy to tackle things which seem arguable at best to enhance a caching experience...

 

what about all the fizzy grids that folks have used challenge caches on to complete their fizzies? Just throw them out? Many folks would agree with the D/T on many of the Challenge caches in my area so now after 7 or more years finding challenges, they would want to put all that energy into messing up everyone's stats? Surely there is a better use of time than emailing 200 challenge cache owners and ask them to change their challenge which has 10 finds in 3 years and say its not a 5/5 anymore but rather a 2/1.5.

 

Do reviewers police puzzle cache difficulties? multis? why challenge caches that are already created? That would make no sense to me.

[+fizzymagic]

Sure does knock the wind out of a challenge cache. I mean, why go through that pain and agony to accomplish the challenge for a 1/1? I'll do the challenge, claim completion and let the 1/1 LPC rot. Finding and signing the log on a 1/1 film can LPC at that point is moot and meaningless.

 

As an unabashed difficulty hound, I gotta agree. D and T ratings have morphed into something other than their original intent, I suppose, but if my local reviewer begins enforcing this guideline it will have a pronounced effect on my caching. If the new guideline is enforced retroactively on existing challenges then two things will happen: my found count will mysteriously decrease, and a number of local challenges will be archived.

 

ETA: Oh, and I will be very, very annoyed. What a complete waste of time and energy that will only serve to make people angry.

Edited October 28, 2013 by fizzymagic

[+stijnhommes]

If you have to find multiple caches for a challenge, the difficulty and terrain in doing so are already starred on those caches. I don't see why they should also be included in the challenge cache itself. The reviewer is making a lot of sense, but it would be nice if all the reviewers in the area agreed and it was not a solo action.

[+dprovan]

If you have to find multiple caches for a challenge, the difficulty and terrain in doing so are already starred on those caches. I don't see why they should also be included in the challenge cache itself.

It's no different than a puzzle cache not being allowed to take into account the difficulty of the puzzle.

[+wmpastor]

One part of this that surprises me is the part about disabling the challenge caches based on "incorrect" d/t ratings! I never heard of that happening before.

[+redsox_mark]

If you have to find multiple caches for a challenge, the difficulty and terrain in doing so are already starred on those caches. I don't see why they should also be included in the challenge cache itself. The reviewer is making a lot of sense, but it would be nice if all the reviewers in the area agreed and it was not a solo action.

 

For the difficulty at least I think it should be included. If I see a cache on the map with D=1 I expect I can find it easily and with little preparation. Then I look at it and find out that it is a challenge where I need to first find 100 caches whose name starts with the letter Z. The fact that you need to do a bunch of stuff to qualify to me clearly makes the challenge cache itself more difficult. Yes finding it might be D=1 once you qualify, but that is similar to solving a difficult puzzle where the actual find is easy.

 

Terrain is less clear to me. There was a thread on this some time back where someone made a good argument why the terrain might best be related to the challenge cache itself. In examples like the 100 Z caches, you have no idea what the terrain of those 100 caches are; it makes sense to use the terrain of the challenge.

 

On a D/T based challenge ("Fizzy"), you can argue either way. You can say that the challenge itself requires you to find several T5 caches to quality, so the challenge itself is T5 too. Or you can argue that while the challenge definition makes that clear, the terrain rating for the actual challenge cache is more useful. Maybe you have filled in your grid but you are currently injured and in a wheelchair. It would be useful to know the actual cache is T=1.

 

Anyway - as this has never been clearly defined there will be a variety of opinions. If a reviewer is going to enforce something it would be nice to have it clearly defined first.

[Keystone]

Let's assume that this reviewer has discussed this on the private reviewer forum and reviewers in general are on board with this.

Not a safe assumption. Also, don't assume that your reviewer isn't a dog.

 

I guess this then is a de facto unwritten guideline change until Miss Jenn documents it on the next update.

Guideline changes are updated much more dynamically than in the past. Specific to challenge caches, there is also a Knowledge Book article that supplements the Listing Guidelines. The article was updated just two months ago. I see nothing in there about difficulty and terrain ratings. And, I'm pretty sure I didn't miss a Memo.

 

By the way, the guidelines wouldn't be updated by Miss Jenn. She is now in charge of GeoTours - a different fun job at Geocaching HQ.

[+ChileHead]

I'd like to see the cache belongs to the challenge rated for how difficult it is to find the cache had it been classified as a traditional.

 

You are already getting the smiles, the D/T ratings for all the caches that fulfil the challenge, I don't see why the D/T for the challenge should reflect anything other than the cache itself. For many challenges, I have already met the challenge prior to the challenge getting published. So all I had to do is go find it - why should I get a bump in my D/T for that?

[+ChileHead]

Also, don't assume that your reviewer isn't a dog.

 

After all these years GS still uses dogs to review? I love dogs, having had them all my life, but very few I would think make an adequate reviewer. Barkley would be unable to put aside his personal bias against park and grabs - he would only publish caches that involved at least a 1-5 mile hike. Every thing else he says is dog poop.

[+redsox_mark]

I'd like to see the cache belongs to the challenge rated for how difficult it is to find the cache had it been classified as a traditional.

 

You are already getting the smiles, the D/T ratings for all the caches that fulfil the challenge, I don't see why the D/T for the challenge should reflect anything other than the cache itself. For many challenges, I have already met the challenge prior to the challenge getting published. So all I had to do is go find it - why should I get a bump in my D/T for that?

 

Yes, it can happen that I already qualify for a challenge. But in general the idea of a challenge cache is to encourage others to complete a potentially difficult challenge. A challenge cache where most people already meet the criteria would not be a very good one. So in general I would assume that many (likely the majority) of cachers don't comply to a challenge on the date it is published. So they have to do something to comply, which could be difficult.

 

But both views are valid. In absence of any guideline we can each choose the rating as we see it.

[+Traditional Bill]

First off, I feel that a difficult challenge cache should NEVER be an LPC. With my challenges, I rate the difficulty to include the hide and the challenge. Then I use the terrain rating to rate the actual terrain of the cache.

 

If the difficulty is supposed to represent the actual difficulty of the cache and I can't even log that cache until I complete a rather difficult challenge, regardless of the hide, it's hard to consider that a 1 for me at least.

 

While I've seen some very questionable D/T ratings on caches (both challenges and others), I've never seen a reviewer step in AFTER publication and disable it. We all have our own definitions of difficulty and terrain though, so I suppose each situation of D/T discrepancy is relative to each cache in question.

[+Ike 13]

For many challenges, I have already met the challenge prior to the challenge getting published. So all I had to do is go find it - why should I get a bump in my D/T for that?

That's not a great rule of thumb. I have 6000+ finds, do a lot of high D/T stuff, have over 100 of every main type, and pursue many challenges. I do qualify for most challenges without doing anything extra but that does not make them all a 1 Difficulty. If I hid a challenge to find 100 letterboxes and listed it as a 1 that is very misleading. It has taken me years and traveling across multiple states to get that, most cachers in my area will not reach that level.

 

Personally I think this reviewer is overstepping their duties. But I do think that challenge finals should be a nice hide in a nice area. I know when I get that final cache to complete Fizzy if I found a LPC for the Fizzy challenge I would rage. (Luckily SC's is on an island and is a true 5)

[+L0ne.R]

I'd like to see the cache belongs to the challenge rated for how difficult it is to find the cache had it been classified as a traditional.

 

You are already getting the smiles, the D/T ratings for all the caches that fulfil the challenge, I don't see why the D/T for the challenge should reflect anything other than the cache itself. For many challenges, I have already met the challenge prior to the challenge getting published. So all I had to do is go find it - why should I get a bump in my D/T for that?

 

Totally agree. The D/T rating should be based on the cache. It's a Traditional - base the cache D/T rating on the terrain to get to and at ground zero; base the difficulty on how hard it is to find the cache - is it cleverly disguised? Is it hidden in a pile of rocks?

 

If it's a film canister under a lamp skirt, it's probably a D1/T1.

 

Yet another reason that Challenge caches are bad for the game - challenge caches skewed/inflated/falsified to fill grids. Makes it difficult of those of us who rely on accurate ratings.

[jholly]

Let's assume that this reviewer has discussed this on the private reviewer forum and reviewers in general are on board with this.

Not a safe assumption. Also, don't assume that your reviewer isn't a dog.

 

Well if the reviewer in question is actually a dog this whole matter can be resolved to everyone's satisfaction with a box of MilkBone biscuits.

[Clan Riffster]

One part of this that surprises me is the part about disabling the challenge caches based on "incorrect" d/t ratings! I never heard of that happening before.

This is the only part that has me scratching my head. Both Chilihead and Redsocks make great arguments for and against having the D/T rating reflect the final cache itself, as opposed to rating them in accordance with how hard it is to qualify for the challenge. Since both arguments are concise, well thought out and logical, in accordance with their beliefs, I can only assume that Reviewers might also have varying opinions on the matter. I don't have a dog in this fight, as I tend to avoid challenges. Just not my cup of tea.

 

What really caught my eye was the Reviewer's threat to disable the caches due to their interpretation of how the D/T ratings should be applied. As best I recall, the most I've ever seen was a Reviewer note suggesting that the D/T rating might be inaccurate, such as a 1/1 deep in the woods, or a 5/5 in a Wally World parking lot. I've never known a Reviewer to flat out refuse publication due to their thoughts on a D/T rating.

 

Very odd...

[+NeverSummer]

I can see how the Difficulty rating could be higher, based on the D/T combo of the caches required to complete the challenge. But, to call a cache whose terrain involves a parking lot, sidewalk, or trail a D5 is misguided. (IMO) I'm on the bandwagon who says these challenges are not unlike other puzzle-related unknowns. Rate the D for the difficult to find/log the cache, and the terrain is related to the specific cache at hand.

 

The only way this could be dealt with is to make Challenges their own cache type. Then they could roll out a THIRD D/T-like rating for the overall difficulty in completing the challenge. But, that rating is subjective unless it is a calculation of all D/T combos of all possible caches required to log a find on a challenge cache.

 

Now, this all comes from someone who hasn't found more than 1 challenge. And that one was born during the ALR age.

 

Anyway, to call any/every challege cache a 5/5 is not a helpful way to rate the cache. I want to know what I will encounter for that cache, specifically. The D can help me sort my queries for that subjective rating. From there, I want to know the actual T rating, so that I know what to expect for that actual cache in its physical setting.

 

Perhaps that is why there is a rollout of a "new" guideline. But, to disable all caches which might not meet the criteria seems odd...yet a simple way to enforce a guideline. Owners need to embrace this idea if it is coming from up the ladder of grand poobahness.

[+Shop99er]

Let's assume that this reviewer has discussed this on the private reviewer forum and reviewers in general are on board with this.

Not a safe assumption. Also, don't assume that your reviewer isn't a dog.

 

Well if the reviewer in question is actually a dog this whole matter can be resolved to everyone's satisfaction with a box of MilkBone biscuits.

 

Sorry Jim, the reviewer isn't a dog. In fact He's a friend of mine.

 

Keystone, sir...any real clue what's going on?

[+Semper Questio]

 

... He's a friend of mine ...

 

 

I'm thinking that may explain it.

[+Shop99er]

 

... He's a friend of mine ...

 

 

I'm thinking that may explain it.

 

Not impossible, I guess. Although he hasn't had Purple (to my knowledge), unless it was bootlegged.

[+niraD]

So all I had to do is go find it - why should I get a bump in my D/T for that?

Honestly, I don't care about the bump in anyone's D/T stats. What I care about is how useful the D/T ratings are for people who are trying to choose which caches to seek. FWIW, that is the original purpose of the D/T ratings. (I know, how quaint, right?)

 

If the challenge cache is easy to find (because it's an LPC, because it's an ammo can under a UPS in the woods, or whatever), and the difficulty rating is low because of that, then it doesn't help those who are trying to choose easy caches. If the challenge cache requires months of caching to qualify for the challenge (whether or not any individual has already completed those months of caching prior to the challenge cache's publication), then it is not an easy cache, and its D/T ratings should reflect that so people can choose which caches to seek using more accurate information.

 

Then they could roll out a THIRD D/T-like rating for the overall difficulty in completing the challenge.

I think a third D/T-like rating would be useful for more than just challenge caches. Puzzle caches could use the third rating for the puzzle, leaving difficulty and terrain for the actual cache. Even some traditional caches could use it. For example, a cache that is easy to spot but difficult to retrieve and replace (e.g., a cache 20ft up a tree that is easily seen from the ground) could use difficulty for the challenge of spotting the cache, and the third rating for the challenge of retrieving and replacing the cache.

[+Semper Questio]

 

... He's a friend of mine ...

 

 

I'm thinking that may explain it.

 

Not impossible, I guess. Although he hasn't had Purple (to my knowledge), unless it was bootlegged.

 

Of course, the study of Purple's long-term effects have been somewhat limited.

[+Walts Hunting]

 

... He's a friend of mine ...

 

 

I'm thinking that may explain it.

 

Not impossible, I guess. Although he hasn't had Purple (to my knowledge), unless it was bootlegged.

 

Of course, the study of Purple's long-term effects have been somewhat limited.

 

But we know what it did for Jarmarcus Russell

[+rosebud55112]

Not a safe assumption. Also, don't assume that your reviewer isn't a dog.

 

That explains why I can't get any caches published unless their camoflaged using a dead squirrel.

[+briansnat]

I just saw this post over on Facebook. It was written by a Reviewer. I have removed the State name in order to keep this subject on topic, and not become a witch hunt.

 

"OK folks... On a Challenge cache, the D/T ratings are for the cache itself, not for the caches required to achieve the challenge. Example: a Fizzy Challenge located at an LPC is 1/1, not a 5/5. Please correct and challenges you have. Sometime during the next month or two I will be looking at the XXXXXXX Caches and disable those that appear to be incorrect. Thanks!"

 

My question is this:

 

Was there a guideline change that supports this message? Are challenge owners (like me) not supposed to rate their challenges based on the effort required to meet the criteria?

 

Or, is this Reviewer going off on a private tangent?

 

There was no guideline change because difficulty and terrain are generally not a guideline matter.

Edited October 28, 2013 by briansnat

[Jayme H]

There has been no guideline change. We generally don't get involved policing D/T ratings for Challenge Caches, as long as there's not egregious abuse taking place. We leave it up to the cache owner to determine the appropriate rating for their Challenge Cache.

[+lamoracke]

There has been no guideline change. We generally don't get involved policing D/T ratings for Challenge Caches, as long as there's not egregious abuse taking place. We leave it up to the cache owner to determine the appropriate rating for their Challenge Cache.

 

I nominate Jayme as cacher/lackey of the day!

[+fizzymagic]

There has been no guideline change.

 

Whew.

 

FWIW, I thought about this for a while last night and I think I am OK with it if gc.com wants to make the D/T ratings reflect the cache itself a policy going forward. But I would be unhappy if it were applied retroactively!

[+lamoracke]

There has been no guideline change.

 

Whew.

 

FWIW, I thought about this for a while last night and I think I am OK with it if gc.com wants to make the D/T ratings reflect the cache itself a policy going forward. But I would be unhappy if it were applied retroactively!

 

I agree!

[+DanOCan]

The only way this could be dealt with is to make Challenges their own cache type.

Or call challenge caches an ALR and do away with the silliness completely.

[Clan Riffster]

We leave it up to the cache owner to determine the appropriate rating for their Challenge Cache.

Except, allegedly, for this Reviewer:

Sometime during the next month or two I will be looking at the XXXXXXX Caches and disable those that appear to be incorrect.

[+frinklabs]

The only way this could be dealt with is to make Challenges their own cache type.

Or call challenge caches an ALR and do away with the silliness completely.

 

By creating the separate cache type, they could be filtered out. Silliness done.

 

Meanwhile, the new cache type would enhance the ability to locate them for those that don't believe that they are silly.

 

Win win.

[+NeverSummer]

The only way this could be dealt with is to make Challenges their own cache type.

Or call challenge caches an ALR and do away with the silliness completely.

 

By creating the separate cache type, they could be filtered out. Silliness done.

 

Meanwhile, the new cache type would enhance the ability to locate them for those that don't believe that they are silly.

 

Win win.

Agreed.

 

But no matter what, I would hope that the cache D/T rating would reflect the D of completing the required challenge task, and the T would reflect the actual hide of the final for the challenge. That is, unless every final for a challenge is in an obvious place like a skirtlifter...

[jholly]

The only way this could be dealt with is to make Challenges their own cache type.

Or call challenge caches an ALR and do away with the silliness completely.

 

By creating the separate cache type, they could be filtered out. Silliness done.

 

Meanwhile, the new cache type would enhance the ability to locate them for those that don't believe that they are silly.

 

Win win.

 

An added bonus is you will probably brick half of the GPSr's out there with the new cache type which will certainly decrease the traffic to these caches.

[+NeverSummer]

The only way this could be dealt with is to make Challenges their own cache type.

Or call challenge caches an ALR and do away with the silliness completely.

 

By creating the separate cache type, they could be filtered out. Silliness done.

 

Meanwhile, the new cache type would enhance the ability to locate them for those that don't believe that they are silly.

 

Win win.

 

An added bonus is you will probably brick half of the GPSr's out there with the new cache type which will certainly decrease the traffic to these caches.

You mean if you want to find a Challenge cache, you'd have to hand enter the coordinates in your GPS? The horror!

 

I kid, I kid.

[+Traditional Bill]

The only way this could be dealt with is to make Challenges their own cache type.

Or call challenge caches an ALR and do away with the silliness completely.

 

By creating the separate cache type, they could be filtered out. Silliness done.

 

Meanwhile, the new cache type would enhance the ability to locate them for those that don't believe that they are silly.

 

Win win.

 

+1

[+Don_J]

I'd like to see the cache belongs to the challenge rated for how difficult it is to find the cache had it been classified as a traditional.

 

You are already getting the smiles, the D/T ratings for all the caches that fulfil the challenge, I don't see why the D/T for the challenge should reflect anything other than the cache itself. For many challenges, I have already met the challenge prior to the challenge getting published. So all I had to do is go find it - why should I get a bump in my D/T for that?

 

Totally agree. The D/T rating should be based on the cache. It's a Traditional - base the cache D/T rating on the terrain to get to and at ground zero; base the difficulty on how hard it is to find the cache - is it cleverly disguised? Is it hidden in a pile of rocks?

 

If it's a film canister under a lamp skirt, it's probably a D1/T1.

 

Yet another reason that Challenge caches are bad for the game - challenge caches skewed/inflated/falsified to fill grids. Makes it difficult of those of us who rely on accurate ratings.

 

It is not a traditional cache. It's a cache with caching related additional logging requirements, some of which may be much more difficult than others. This shouldn't be totally disregarded. Asking someone to find caches for a 1000 days in a row is more difficult than asking them to do so for 30. Because the container itself might be extremely easy to locate does not mean that it is not a difficult cache.

[+Don_J]

One part of this that surprises me is the part about disabling the challenge caches based on "incorrect" d/t ratings! I never heard of that happening before.

This is the only part that has me scratching my head. Both Chilihead and Redsocks make great arguments for and against having the D/T rating reflect the final cache itself, as opposed to rating them in accordance with how hard it is to qualify for the challenge. Since both arguments are concise, well thought out and logical, in accordance with their beliefs, I can only assume that Reviewers might also have varying opinions on the matter. I don't have a dog in this fight, as I tend to avoid challenges. Just not my cup of tea.

 

What really caught my eye was the Reviewer's threat to disable the caches due to their interpretation of how the D/T ratings should be applied. As best I recall, the most I've ever seen was a Reviewer note suggesting that the D/T rating might be inaccurate, such as a 1/1 deep in the woods, or a 5/5 in a Wally World parking lot. I've never known a Reviewer to flat out refuse publication due to their thoughts on a D/T rating.

 

Very odd...

 

What's even odder is that he is announcing this on Facebook. I guess I should consider myself lucky that my reviewers enforce the guidelines that are posted on Geocaching.com and not the ones that they make up in their own heads.

Edited October 31, 2013 by Don_J

[+WarNinjas]

Yea this is crazy talk! Of course the challenge difficulty should reflect how difficult the challenge is. Otherwise what is the point of making a challenge? Why not just hide a traditional and why would I work to complete a challenge when I could just find a traditional and not go threw the difficult task of doing the challenge. However I do agree with the terrain part. I think it should reflect what that cache is. If you want your challenge to be a 5 x 5 then stick it out on a island not in a lamp post. That is just my opinion.

[+redsox_mark]

It is not a traditional cache. It's a cache with caching related additional logging requirements, some of which may be much more difficult than others. This shouldn't be totally disregarded. Asking someone to find caches for a 1000 days in a row is more difficult than asking them to do so for 30. Because the container itself might be extremely easy to locate does not mean that it is not a difficult cache.

 

This is my opinion too.

 

I also think it is useful to give some indication of the difficulty of finding the cache itself in the description. E.g. "The difficulty relates mainly to the challenge aspect, the cache itself would be rated D=2".

 

Though this is the same with puzzle caches, I find it useful to know how much of the difficulty relates to the find vs the puzzle.