Rate this terrain

[cezanne]

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.

 

Well, the half point ratings are not really defined and 0.5 can be added or subtracted based on how one rates the situation.

 

Personally, I'd regard 2.5* as reasonable and I would mention the slope in the cache description. 3* would be ok for me as well, but again it would be helpful to

know the reason for the 3* rating. There are caches with 3* ratings I have to avoid.

 

There are definitely small children who will have no issue at all with this slope (the same holds of course for many tree climbing caches where many

adults needs tools) while cachers who are physically not fully fit might experience problems. I think that the definition texts used for the different T-rating steps are not really well-chosen.

What small children can achieve is subject to a lot of variations and also depends enormously on the area where the children come from.

A lot of small children in my country are able to cope with fixed rope routes easily, but I sincerely hope that we won't see fixed rope route caches with a T=2* rating.

 

 

Cezanne

[+J Grouchy]

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

 

 

If that's to scale heightwise, I'd agree with 2.5. If the height of the slopes were twice that, I'd rate it 3.5. If we were talking 100 down and 200 feet up the opposite slope, I'd rank it even higher based on those grades. It's not just about grades, but grades in conjunction with distance, water obstacles and composition of the slope itself (muddy? rocky? lots of hand/foot holds or smooth? etc.)

[Pup Patrol]

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

 

 

Love the doodle! All cache pages should have doodles...are you for hire?

 

I would say that the Terrain rating should be 2.5 - 3.0. Just my opinion.

 

 

B.

[+redsox_mark]

I would probably go with 3, though anything between 2.5 and 3.5 I think would be reasonable.

 

Regardless I would put in the description that it is an easy hike until the end, and the terrain rating is for the short but steep approach.

 

I like the doodle too...

[+Harrald]

<<SNIP>>

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.

 

I was trying to be polite.

[+WarNinjas]

We used to use the rating system on here. You have enough experience to know now. Now we just go with our gut feeling. You actually did it so would know better then any of us. Makes for a interesting topic I must say! Sounds like everyone agrees to 2.5 - 3.5. So pick any. I would say between 2.5 and 3. It is not a 3.5 at this time but who knows if the creek flows up and the weeds grow in it could be some day. I know I found a cache that was rated crazy low because when it was placed many years ago it was probably easy to get to and was just like the one you are showing. Now I had to cross a crazy creek and climb threw tuns of blackberry bushes (with thorns) to get to it. It could possibly be a 4 because it was kind of crazy but was rated something like a 1.5 or 2.

[+ByronForestPreserve]

I'll chime in that it sounds like about a 2.5, but these things seem so regional (though really they shouldn't be). I traveled to another state recently and found a T5 cache that took me about 30 minutes to get to from the car. My 76 year old dad came with me. I suppose if you were to err, it's best to go higher. I know I'm sometimes disappointed if I try a high T cache and it turns out not to be a challenge, but that's better than thinking it will be a cake walk, or that I can jump out in my nice shoes and shorts and get it quickly...

[+briansnat]

I'll chime in that it sounds like about a 2.5, but these things seem so regional (though really they shouldn't be). I traveled to another state recently and found a T5 cache that took me about 30 minutes to get to from the car. My 76 year old dad came with me. I suppose if you were to err, it's best to go higher. I know I'm sometimes disappointed if I try a high T cache and it turns out not to be a challenge, but that's better than thinking it will be a cake walk, or that I can jump out in my nice shoes and shorts and get it quickly...

 

It does seem to be a regional thing. When I was working in the northern Virginia area I was surprised at the very high terrain ratings of rather easy caches to get to. On the other hand I have a lot of caches that are 2 or 2.5 stars that many of state finders will complain about it being rated too low. The locals on the other hand tend to be OK with my ratings.

[+6NoisyHikers]

 

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.

 

And when caches are under-rated because the locals are all used to the terrain, then the visitors are at risk because what consitutes a T2 at home in the suburbs is completely different than a T2 in the backwoods mountains.

 

I think the rating sytem provided by GS, a good cache description, and appropriate use of attributes are all part of providing a clear picture of a potential caching experience.

 

Even though my 10-year-old avid hiker could take this cache like a T2, I'd rate it a T3 based on some common sense and the recommendations of the rating system.

[7rxc]

One thing I've been thinking about since this topic started...

 

Would having a better set of rules for rating terrain help out... minus the handi and special equipment/knowledge requirements? Handicaching have their own set of ratings for disabled/challenged cachers, along with a means of displaying that on Cache Pages... and of course there are attributes available for other aspects. Attributes or special requirements could be spelt out in text as well in the page text for those that don't look at attributes.

Increasing the range from 4.5 settings to some higher number to allow better division of the range would perhaps help.

 

One other thought to help with the range of fitness and ability aspect... how about a Clayjar LIKE interactive that allows a cacher to create a Caching 'handicap' number like in Golf... actually a correction factor to be applied to the 'fixed' T ratings. ie. Rating of 3 x my CF = adjusted to suit ME rating. Calculation would deal with fitness, age, agility, physical limitations including the usual physical limits, etc. (all or some).

 

I find a mountain hike to be only a bit of a challenge, when I was young, barely noticeable, next year I might feel differently... just recalculate your CF and go. I find I do that part mentally, even on a day to day basis already. No need to change the site to alter pages though, just read the posted rating and use your calculator on the GPS, computer or discrete device. However Terrain rating should stick to describing Terrain, only.

 

Mostly just thoughts, but it would help correct for regional and personal differences... possibly.

How would you define the terrain differently, flat and soft, flat and firm, gently sloping, dippy, ... , hillside, mountain, high angle mountain, cliff?

 

Doug 7rxc

[team tisri]

I'll chime in that it sounds like about a 2.5, but these things seem so regional (though really they shouldn't be). I traveled to another state recently and found a T5 cache that took me about 30 minutes to get to from the car. My 76 year old dad came with me. I suppose if you were to err, it's best to go higher. I know I'm sometimes disappointed if I try a high T cache and it turns out not to be a challenge, but that's better than thinking it will be a cake walk, or that I can jump out in my nice shoes and shorts and get it quickly...

 

It does seem to be a regional thing. When I was working in the northern Virginia area I was surprised at the very high terrain ratings of rather easy caches to get to. On the other hand I have a lot of caches that are 2 or 2.5 stars that many of state finders will complain about it being rated too low. The locals on the other hand tend to be OK with my ratings.

 

I remember finding a cache that was rated T3. Admittedly I did have to not only get out of the SUV but also walk at least 50 feet, but even so T3 for a cache that involved walking 50 feet on flat compressed gravel to a cache at the base of a tree seemed excessive.

[+edscott]

I'd call it a 2.5 at most if the photo is from the parking spot. If there is a bit of a bushwhack to get to the spot where the photographer is standing then maybe a 3.

[+DanOCan]

I'd call it a 2 - 2.5. If my niece was still considered a "young child" I'd have had no concerns about doing this cache with her so --according to Clayjar -- a 3 is too high.