Rate this terrain

[+L0ne.R]

You must travel down a short 40 degree slope, then cross the small creek, then up a 50 degree slope to a tree at the top. The cache is in the nook of one of the trees. What would you rate the terrain?

[jholly]

You must travel down a short 40 degree slope, then cross the small creek, then up a 50 degree slope to a tree at the top. The cache is in the nook of one of the trees. What would you rate the terrain?

At least a 3 and perhaps a 3.5. (check here)

Edited May 19, 2014 by jholly

[+Lil Devil]

Yeah, 3 to 3.5.

[+fbingha]

3.5

[+T.D.M.22]

I say a 2. Around here that's a normal ditch....But the terrain rating is relative.

[+Ambrosia]

Yeah, I'd rate it a 2 as well.

[team tisri]

My guess, if the creek is a short distance from the parking then maybe 2.5 but if there's a more significant hike involved to get to the creek maybe a little higher. If you're concerned about people getting to the general area and then being unable to traverse the slopes, mention them clearly in the text so people can decide for themselves.

 

Personally I find it irritating when caches have high terrain ratings that appear unjustified, presumably because the hider figured someone might find the slope a little tricky. At the same time it's easy to see people with limited mobility finding it annoying if they make a particular effort to get to the general area only to find a specific obstacle that a fully able-bodied person might not even consider an obstacle but to them might as well be a cliff edge.

[+fizzymagic]

2.5 stars.

[+fbingha]

What does the rating guide spit out?

 

Is an overnight stay likely? No

What is the length of the hike? Less than 1/2 mile

What is the trail like? Trail? What trail? There is no real trail. Wheels are out. May be following a stream bed or be very rocky.

Is the path bushy or overgrown? Some light overgrowth An adult could step over or around this

What is the terrain elevation like? Steep elevation changes Change is steep. Probably could not ride a bike up this slope, but could push it up.

How easy is it to find the cache? Cache could be in one of several locations. Hunter may have to look for a while.

Your cache has been rated 1/4

**** 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.)

The given response looks incorrect. I didn't choose the heavy overgrowth option or the very steep elevation option or the 10 mile hike so why does it spit out a four?

 

*** 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.)

A three seems correct given the description .

Where do you come up with a 2? You can have your own guidelines but they only one that matters is what the website suggests as the proper rating.

For me, that might as well be rated as a 1 but the website does not agree and the park and grab crowd also won't agree with a 2 for that.

Edited May 19, 2014 by fbingha

[+cerberus1]

We have one with less of an incline with no brook and after all the whining, we upped it to 2.5 .

- I'd call it a two. Someone afraid they may get their tooties wet, with logs stating, maybe a three...

Sad, isn't it?

[+Harry Dolphin]

Looks like a 2.5 to me. Anything higher is over-rated. Like most caches.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Looks like a 2.5 to me. Anything higher is over-rated. Like most caches.

 

I'd have a hard time giving in more than a two. There's a cache near me that is rated 4 stars and has one small gorge to go through that looks similar to the photo, except that cache is about 4 miles round trip from the closest parking with about 1 mile of it on a flat dirt road. The rest is more or less on a little used trail (at least by humans) but doesn't have a lot of bush. I did it in the spring when there as still about 6" of snow on the ground for most of the hike. The photo above certainly doesn't look like it would be more than half as hard as the 4 star cache I described.

 

 

[+Harrald]

There isn't enough information to rate this terrain.

 

How long is the hike?

Is the picture taken from the trail?

 

Let us know the rest of the story and then people can form an informed opinion.

[+cheech gang]

Simple: 40 degrees down plus 50 degrees up equals 90 degrees. 90 degrees is half of a full 180 degree about face and return back to parking. Use the 1/2 figure derived from the previous sentence. The calculus indicates that half way between terrain 0 and terrain 5 is 2.5. Voila.

[+K13]

I would call that a 3. Others in my area would call it a 4.5.

[7rxc]

I don't see any mention of elevation change for both sides, but from the leaf to trunk scale, I don't think more than 15 feet on the other side, probably closer to 12 feet. Hard to tell, I don't think that going straight up would be first choice for many either... a bit to the right from the log and then way left then back to the right would make sense, even looks like there's an old path there anyway. more like 20 to 30 degrees max.

 

Around here that wouldn't be even mentioned as a serious obstacle to anything unless it was in flood.

 

So lets see, no wheelchairs for sure from this side (although I know a few WC riders that probably would take on the challenge in their off road chairs), and maybe not many on crutches, walkers etc. (again it really depends on the cacher and the approach). No mention of the distance from parking either. I'd say we don't know enough.

 

From the Canadian Rockies, I's say 2 to 2.5 with a moderate distance of easy ground to cross. Most of that would be for the 'dip' and distance of course.

 

As we all know or should, terrain ratings are dependant on location... on a scale of 1 to 4.5 it's hard to make

my scale of terrain match that of a flatlander. Except maybe for the upper and lower limits (1 and 4.5).

My only cache so far barely raises a sweat when hiking up to it... (I just turned 65) and is rated a bit higher due to elevation change and round trip distance, T is 3.5, the nearest cache up there is a 4.5 and the further cache is a 3.5 as well... Giving a slight hint, my cache is about 450 metres above the summer parking lot, but the angle looks to be about the same 30 to 40 degrees on a trail, and several areas are much worse than what I see. Round trip would be about 4 km. The other two are higher again and one is bushwhacking and a bit of scrambling, the further one is a long slog with good views. Just not the same rating them as this one.

 

Doug 7rxc

[+L0ne.R]

There isn't enough information to rate thisterrain.

 

How long is the hike?

Is the picture taken from the trail?

 

 

Let us know the rest of the story and thenpeople can form an informed opinion.

 

It's a short walk - 500 meters from thetrailhead. The trailhead to this spot is flat, a rail to trail, crushedgravel. The picture was taken from the crushed gravel trail.

 

According to the clayjar rating system:

 

Terrain Rating: 4

 

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

 

** Suitable for smallchildren. (Terrain is generally along marked trails, there are no steepelevation changes or heavy overgrowth. Less than a 2 mile hike required.)

 

*** Not suitable forsmall children. (The average adult or older child should be OK depending onphysical condition. Terrain is likely off-trail. May have one or more of thefollowing: some overgrowth, some steep elevation changes, or more than a 2 milehike.)

 

**** Experienced outdoor enthusiasts only. (Terrain isprobably off-trail. Will have one or more of the following: very heavyovergrowth, very steep elevation (requiring use of hands), or more than a 10mile hike. May require an overnight stay.)

 

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

 

 

Although it doesn'tseem to rate half stars. 3.5 seems to be a good choice. I can't see it beingrated below a 3 since there are steep elevation changes.

 

Also on the clayjarform:

 

What is the terrain elevation like?

How hard is the steepest part of thecache?

 

Basically flat - Only slight elevation changes. Easy todo in a wheelchair, stroller, bike, etc.

 

Some elevation changes - Changes are slight enough thatsomeone could ride a bike up such a slope.

 

Steep elevationchanges - Change is steep. Probably could not ride a bike up this slope, butcould push it up.

 

Severe elevation changes - The only way up the slope isto use your hands. Going down may require the use of your backside.

The average person can't ride a bike up that tall steep slope. Pushing it up would be very difficult. I needed my hands to grab trees going up and coming down the slope.

Edited May 20, 2014 by L0ne.R

[+SwineFlew]

I would call that a 3. Others in my area would call it a 4.5.

Yep... I would rate it around a 3 or 3.5.

 

We got too many CO that think like this... I can do it really easy and so can you! A very selfish way to look at it.

 

I see too many caches that are low balled. 1 to 2 should to anyone that disable. We all know that 1 is for wheelchair and I feel 2 is for people that are disable but not in a wheelchair, so all my caches that are harder for disable people to get to is above 2.

 

My biggest pet peeve are caches that are 1 or 1.5 but require some serious bending over. In a true sense of disable people, thats not a 1 or 1.5!

 

Why there are large hole in the fizzy grid? I will tell you why, too many people low ball it. We all know what "5" is but it seems that most caches JUMP huge amount between 2.5 to 5!

 

Taking a ferry to an island is not a 5. If its, all the caches on Vancouver Island BC should be rated as a 5.

[+Mudfrog]

** 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 onphysical condition. Terrain is likely off-trail. May have one or more of thefollowing: some overgrowth, some steep elevation changes, or more than a 2 milehike.)

 

From what LOne.R has given us, it sounds as though my 6 year old daughter could navigate the terrain. A rating of 2 at first glance. But then the rating goes on to say that there should be no steep elevation changes. 50% is fairly steep which, in my opinion, would make the 2 rating incorrect. Since i believe that my small child could navigate the terrain, going up to a 3 would be incorrect as well.

 

I'd go down the middle and make it a 2.5!

[4wheelin_fool]

2 - 2.5 as there is no significant hike, or any major climbing other than a small hill.

 

Making it a 3, and comparing the hill to a 2 mile hike would be excessive.

Edited May 20, 2014 by 4wheelin_fool

[+Harrald]

It looks like a short hike on a flat trail and the last part is a 45 foot scramble down and up a gully.

 

Steep terrain changes are for "hiking". A change of a few hundred to 1k feet would constitute steep not 6 feet. Even using Clayjar, the terrain isn't a 4. It's generally along a trail and a single steep (seriously?) change in elevation. It's a 2.5 and even that would have been over rating it a few years ago.

 

** Suitable for smallchildren. (Terrain is generally along marked trails, there are no steepelevation changes or heavy overgrowth. Less than a 2 mile hike required.)

 

It's in between here 2.5

 

*** Not suitable forsmall children. (The average adult or older child should be OK depending onphysical condition. Terrain is likely off-trail. May have one or more of thefollowing: some overgrowth, some steep elevation changes, or more than a 2 milehike.)

[+TriciaG]

3 or 3.5. Too many people underrate these things for us fat people to handle. They should put that in the description: Not suitable for the obese.

[+J Grouchy]

It's all very subjective. One man's 2 is another man's 4. For any rating higher than a 1.5, I usually take it with a little skepticism. I think it's better to err on the high side just so people are better prepared going in. I'd rather see people comment that the terrain was rated too high than hear about someone falling or hurting themselves trying to get to my T2 cache.

[team tisri]

It's all very subjective. One man's 2 is another man's 4. For any rating higher than a 1.5, I usually take it with a little skepticism. I think it's better to err on the high side just so people are better prepared going in. I'd rather see people comment that the terrain was rated too high than hear about someone falling or hurting themselves trying to get to my T2 cache.

 

... which is where some words in the cache description go a long way. If people know that there's a short but steep bank right before the cache they can decide for themselves whether they are up for it, whereas based on a rating of T2 or T4 it's still hard to say.

 

If anything I'd say rating something that's pretty trivial to an able-bodied person as high as T4 is counterproductive, because it is more likely to leave people assuming that T4 caches require little effort. If people start to get used to the idea that T4 means little more than a half-mile saunter followed by a steep bank they are less likely to take the rating seriously when it means "**** Experienced outdoor enthusiasts only. (Terrain isprobably off-trail. Will have one or more of the following: very heavyovergrowth, very steep elevation (requiring use of hands), or more than a 10mile hike. May require an overnight stay.)" in the sense that it involves a 5-mile hike along a winding hilly trail followed by a mile walking up a 30% incline along a trail that's barely visible, followed by climbing onto a rocky ridge to get at the cache.

[+J Grouchy]

Another question to consider: Is that path the only way to the cache? Is there a T1.5 path coming from another direction? If there are several ways of reaching the cache, or if the terrain varies with the season (i.e., the creek becomes a raging river after a heavy rain or the bank becomes muddy and slippery), you may want to "average" it at about a 3 or so, but clearly note the reason in your description. I have a couple caches in an area that can be an easy 1.5 hike in dry weather, but can become very swampy and tough to slog through after a fair amount of rain. They also can be reached from different directions...along a path or through heavy overgrowth. In those cases I just explained the rating in the description being an average and could vary based on weather.

[+briansnat]

Probably 2.5. Maybe lower if there is an easier route nearby.

Edited May 20, 2014 by briansnat

[+briansnat]

Here is one I found recently that is seriously overrated at 4.5 stars, even though the CO says on the page "Please heed the terrain rating it's no joke!" The cache is at the top of the hill in the edge of the stone ruin. What makes it even more ridiculous is that if you walk about 40 yards up the sidewalk there is a flat path to the cache that is no more than 1.5 stars for terrain.

 

Edited May 20, 2014 by briansnat

[+Manville Possum]

2.5 at best.

[+Traditional Bill]

Here is one I found recently that is seriously overrated at 4.5 stars, even though the CO says on the page "Please heed the terrain rating it's no joke!" The cache is at the top of the hill in the edge of the stone ruin. What makes it even more ridiculous is that if you walk about 40 yards up the sidewalk there is a flat path to the cache that is no more than 1.5 stars for terrain.

 

 

Almost reminds me of the "1 terrain" cache I found in the middle of the Wharton state forest (part of the NJ Pine Barrens) that was a 15 foot tree climb.

[+paleolith]

As a pretty serious hiker, I'd rate it 2.0 -- 1.5 for the short rail-trail and add a half for the ditch. But if this rail-trail mostly attracts urban walkers out for a stroll and 5mph bicyclists, I'd consider bumping it by a half or even one. Terrain ratings are relative to the audience.

 

Edward

[+narcissa]

2.5

[cezanne]

Looks like a 2.5 to me. Anything higher is over-rated. Like most caches.

 

I'd have a hard time giving in more than a two. There's a cache near me that is rated 4 stars and has one small gorge to go through that looks similar to the photo, except that cache is about 4 miles round trip from the closest parking with about 1 mile of it on a flat dirt road. The rest is more or less on a little used trail (at least by humans) but doesn't have a lot of bush. I did it in the spring when there as still about 6" of snow on the ground for most of the hike. The photo above certainly doesn't look like it would be more than half as hard as the 4 star cache I described.

 

It's quite relative what is hard. 10 miles on a small overgrown trail is much less of an issue to me than very short steep parts (that is a big issue for my ruined knee).

 

To the OP: I'd probably rate it as 2.5*.

[+The A-Team]

...if this rail-trail mostly attracts urban walkers out for a stroll and 5mph bicyclists, I'd consider bumping it by a half or even one. Terrain ratings are relative to the audience.

 

Edward

That isn't how it's supposed to work. Caches should be rated relative to the common guidelines put forth by Groundspeak so ratings are consistent region-to-region and cache-to-cache. As an example, a relatively-easy rock climbing cache shouldn't be rated a terrain 1 just because it's easy for the target audience of rock climbers. It should get a rating of 5 (specialized equipment/knowledge/experience).

 

We can never be perfectly consistent because there is always some judgement involved, but we can try to be as consistent as possible.

 

As for the OP's scenario, I agree with many that a rating in the 2.5 to 3 range would fit best. I'd have to visit the site and experience the slopes in person and see the stream in wetter weather to determine which exact rating to go with.

[+L0ne.R]

3 or 3.5. Too many people underrate these things for us fat people to handle. They should put that in the description: Not suitable for the obese.

 

I agree with the 3 or 3.5, with a lean towards 3.5. (Basically, what the clayjar system recommends.)

 

To me it doesn't hurt to rate it 3.5 and have the healthy agile person feel it's an easy find for them. Better than disappointing the people with body or health issues, who generally rely on terrain ratings to go for the caches they can handle.

 

It's been my experience that people tend to low-ball their terrain ratings. Why hesitate to give things a T3 or T3.5?

 

A T3 or T3.5 helps people who are perhaps not wheelchair bound, but may have conditions like obesity, arthritis, balance issues, hiking alone and don't want to risk injury, etc.

[+TriciaG]

Yeah. And as for the distance factor, while a T2 hike for over 10 km will be more work, one can figure that out if the CO uses the distance attributes. It's not the overall average difficulty or the distance; it's how hard the hardest part of hike is, IMHO.

[+L0ne.R]

Here is one I found recently that is seriously overrated at 4.5 stars, even though the CO says on the page "Please heed the terrain rating it's no joke!" The cache is at the top of the hill in the edge of the stone ruin. What makes it even more ridiculous is that if you walk about 40 yards up the sidewalk there is a flat path to the cache that is no more than 1.5 stars for terrain.

 

 

I'd rather see something rated too high then too low. Too high means the cache is still do-able for the cacher since he/she is fit enough to attempt the T4.5 - now they just won't have as much fun. But rating a T4 a T2 means people who can't do a T4 for health reasons waste time and money to drive to a cache that they can't attempt.

[team tisri]

Looks like a 2.5 to me. Anything higher is over-rated. Like most caches.

 

I'd have a hard time giving in more than a two. There's a cache near me that is rated 4 stars and has one small gorge to go through that looks similar to the photo, except that cache is about 4 miles round trip from the closest parking with about 1 mile of it on a flat dirt road. The rest is more or less on a little used trail (at least by humans) but doesn't have a lot of bush. I did it in the spring when there as still about 6" of snow on the ground for most of the hike. The photo above certainly doesn't look like it would be more than half as hard as the 4 star cache I described.

 

It's quite relative what is hard. 10 miles on a small overgrown trail is much less of an issue to me than very short steep parts (that is a big issue for my ruined knee).

 

To the OP: I'd probably rate it as 2.5*.

 

The bolded part about your knee is a perfect example of why words in the cache description are so much better than a number based on what's still a fairly subjective scale. A 10 mile walk along a partly overgrown trail would attract a higher T rating than a short steep climb but for some people (as you've indicated) the short steep climb is very difficult.

[team tisri]

Here is one I found recently that is seriously overrated at 4.5 stars, even though the CO says on the page "Please heed the terrain rating it's no joke!" The cache is at the top of the hill in the edge of the stone ruin. What makes it even more ridiculous is that if you walk about 40 yards up the sidewalk there is a flat path to the cache that is no more than 1.5 stars for terrain.

 

 

I'd rather see something rated too high then too low. Too high means the cache is still do-able for the cacher since he/she is fit enough to attempt the T4.5 - now they just won't have as much fun. But rating a T4 a T2 means people who can't do a T4 for health reasons waste time and money to drive to a cache that they can't attempt.

 

The trouble is if people see caches rated T4 that should be T2 and assume that T4 caches are easy then sooner or later they'll come across a cache that really does deserve its T4.5 rating and be out of their depth.

[+Harrald]

<<SNIP>>

To me it doesn't hurt to rate it 3.5 and have the healthy agile person feel it's an easy find for them. Better than disappointing the people with body or health issues, who generally rely on terrain ratings to go for the caches they can handle.

<<SNIP>>

 

So....you equate this cache with a 2-10 mile off trail hike? Wow. I hope no one carves out 3-5 hours to find this cache. Because they'll be disappointed when they get back to their car in 20 minutes.

Edited May 20, 2014 by Harrald

[+TriciaG]

So....you equate this cache with a 2-10 mile off trail hike? Wow. I hope no one carves out 3-5 hours to find this cache. Because they'll be disappointed when they get back to their car in 35 minutes.

If the CO uses the >10km attribute, finders will get a better idea of the hike than if he just slaps a 3.5 star terrain on it.

 

EDIT: And a 3.5 terrain with a >1km attribute tells you something else.

Edited May 20, 2014 by TriciaG

[cezanne]

The bolded part about your knee is a perfect example of why words in the cache description are so much better than a number based on what's still a fairly subjective scale. A 10 mile walk along a partly overgrown trail would attract a higher T rating than a short steep climb but for some people (as you've indicated) the short steep climb is very difficult.

 

Of course, additional verbal information, attributes etc help to complete the picture.

 

What I experience often is however caches with very low T-ratings (often 1.5*) where nothing makes me expect that I might have a serious issue with getting to the cache.

That can be very frustrating at times. I do not expect to encounter a 1.5* cache on a steep, slippery slope.

 

Cezanne

[+MKFmly]

"Ultimately, you alone are the best judge for rating your geocache." ...from the guidelines...

 

The ClayJar model works as far as it goes but inherently there is very little resolution in it. (It could use a buff) My result using the system was a T3 (vice someones T4) but would rate it 2.0. The description sounds like a T1.5 with 50 feet and two short hills added. The results should be tempered by the varying components and effort of the expected journey, something the rating guide fails to include. (It does not even describe the half star ratings.)

 

(85% T1.5 + 15% T4.0 = 1.275 + 0.6 = T1.875 so I make it a 2)

 

Is an overnight stay likely?

No

 

What is the length of the hike?

Less than 1/2 mile

 

What is the trail like?

 

85% Well marked/defined hardpack (Well packed dirt. You could ride a standard bicycle or push a stroller on this trail without too much effort.)

 

15% Trail? What trail? There is no real trail. Wheels are out. May be following a stream bed or be very rocky. (Is the path bushy or overgrown? Some light overgrowth An adult could step over or around this)

 

What is the terrain elevation like?

 

85% Basically flat (Only slight elevation changes. Easy to do in a wheelchair, stroller, bike, etc.)

 

15% Steep elevation changes (Change is steep. Probably could not ride a bike up this slope, but could push it up)

[+L0ne.R]

Here is one I found recently that is seriously overrated at 4.5 stars, even though the CO says on the page "Please heed the terrain rating it's no joke!" The cache is at the top of the hill in the edge of the stone ruin. What makes it even more ridiculous is that if you walk about 40 yards up the sidewalk there is a flat path to the cache that is no more than 1.5 stars for terrain.

 

 

I'd rather see something rated too high then too low. Too high means the cache is still do-able for the cacher since he/she is fit enough to attempt the T4.5 - now they just won't have as much fun. But rating a T4 a T2 means people who can't do a T4 for health reasons waste time and money to drive to a cache that they can't attempt.

 

The trouble is if people see caches rated T4 that should be T2 and assume that T4 caches are easy then sooner or later they'll come across a cache that really does deserve its T4.5 rating and be out of their depth.

I see the issue when it comes to extremes, rated a T4 when there are "no steep elevation changes or heavy overgrowth". But if there are some elevation changes I don't see an issue with rating a possible T2 a T3, just to be on the safe side for cachers that may have some ambulatory issues.

 

[+L0ne.R]

To be a little clearer about the photo's elevation, here's a doodle:

 

 

[+Ambrosia]

To be a little clearer about the photo's elevation, here's a doodle:

 

What a great doodle! I say that we should have more doodles in the forums.

[jholly]

3 or 3.5. Too many people underrate these things for us fat people to handle. They should put that in the description: Not suitable for the obese.

 

I agree with the 3 or 3.5, with a lean towards 3.5. (Basically, what the clayjar system recommends.)

 

To me it doesn't hurt to rate it 3.5 and have the healthy agile person feel it's an easy find for them. Better than disappointing the people with body or health issues, who generally rely on terrain ratings to go for the caches they can handle.

 

It's been my experience that people tend to low-ball their terrain ratings. Why hesitate to give things a T3 or T3.5?

 

A T3 or T3.5 helps people who are perhaps not wheelchair bound, but may have conditions like obesity, arthritis, balance issues, hiking alone and don't want to risk injury, etc.

I think you have it right.

[+MKFmly]

It's interesting that there is some agreement to "modify" the ClayJar rating for the wide ranging speculative health and capability of cachers, but not for the wide ranging variety of the actual terrain.

 

Why is the arbitrary line drawn at "not wheelchair bound, but may have conditions like obesity, arthritis, balance issues, hiking alone and don't want to risk injury, etc."?

 

Would not extropolating this concept to it's logical conclusion indicate this should be a T5.0 as non-ambulatory cachers need special equipment?

[+briansnat]

Here is one I found recently that is seriously overrated at 4.5 stars, even though the CO says on the page "Please heed the terrain rating it's no joke!" The cache is at the top of the hill in the edge of the stone ruin. What makes it even more ridiculous is that if you walk about 40 yards up the sidewalk there is a flat path to the cache that is no more than 1.5 stars for terrain.

 

 

I'd rather see something rated too high then too low. Too high means the cache is still do-able for the cacher since he/she is fit enough to attempt the T4.5 - now they just won't have as much fun. But rating a T4 a T2 means people who can't do a T4 for health reasons waste time and money to drive to a cache that they can't attempt.

 

The trouble is if people see caches rated T4 that should be T2 and assume that T4 caches are easy then sooner or later they'll come across a cache that really does deserve its T4.5 rating and be out of their depth.

 

Exactly! When caches are routinely over rated for terrain people may venture over their heads when they encounter accurately rated terrain. 4+ star terrain should be an extreme challenge, not a hop over a brook and a little hill ten minutes from the parking lot. "Cheapening" terrain ratings can ultimately be dangerous. You don't want people seeing 4 star terrain and think "I've done these before, it's no big deal". 4+ star terrain should be a big deal.

[+Mudfrog]

<<SNIP>>

To me it doesn't hurt to rate it 3.5 and have the healthy agile person feel it's an easy find for them. Better than disappointing the people with body or health issues, who generally rely on terrain ratings to go for the caches they can handle.

<<SNIP>>

 

So....you equate this cache with a 2-10 mile off trail hike? Wow. I hope no one carves out 3-5 hours to find this cache. Because they'll be disappointed when they get back to their car in 20 minutes.

 

20 minutes you say? Well, the cache could be hidden in such a way that it takes some time to find. Can't tell about that, but from what we've been told about the terrain, i'd say no more than 5 or 10 minutes tops. A 3.5 rating sounds too high.

[jholly]

<<SNIP>>

To me it doesn't hurt to rate it 3.5 and have the healthy agile person feel it's an easy find for them. Better than disappointing the people with body or health issues, who generally rely on terrain ratings to go for the caches they can handle.

<<SNIP>>

 

So....you equate this cache with a 2-10 mile off trail hike? Wow. I hope no one carves out 3-5 hours to find this cache. Because they'll be disappointed when they get back to their car in 20 minutes.

 

20 minutes you say? Well, the cache could be hidden in such a way that it takes some time to find. Can't tell about that, but from what we've been told about the terrain, i'd say no more than 5 or 10 minutes tops. A 3.5 rating sounds too high.

 

Part of the clayjar system on rating caches not only the length of the hike, but the elevation changes to reach the cache. You have to also consider the elevation change. If you ignore the elevation change if it is a short walk on relatively flat land and only consider that before you come to the elevation change then your under rating the terrain. 3.5 might be a tad high, but 2,5 is a bit low. Your not accounting for the 50 degree climb with a rating of 2.5.

 

From clayjar a three terrain is

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.)

 

It seems to fit a 3 rather nicely.

Edited May 21, 2014 by jholly