Jump to content

Past Find D/T changed yesterday, D/T grid now incomplete


Followers 3

Recommended Posts

If I take my time to write a nice log shouldn't I expect an active CO to read it? If a cache has multiple finds mentioning the reason the cacher found their cache was for the rare D/T rating, at that point in time shouldn't the CO show some consideration to those finders by not changing it.

 

NOTE TO SELF: next time I notice a CO changing the D or T change your log to TFTC.

 

For me that's not an issue of showing consideration.

 

Suppose that the approach to the final of a difficult puzzle cache gets temporarily more difficult to say damages caused by ice rain. In my opinion, the cache owner needs to adapt the T-rating for the time during which

the approach is more difficult in order to be considerate to the future finders. I rather want to disappoint a previous finder who ends up with a different D/T-rating than causing issues for someone who comes unprepared to the new situation at a cache. Archiving the old cache if the puzzle, the container and hideout are the same and relisting does not make sense and even less to do it several times (after the terrain became more difficult, again after the situation is back to normal ...).

 

Another example arises if additional hints are added to a puzzle cache. Then the D-rating could easily drop.

 

If anything could be done at all about the issue, then it is locking the D/T-combination for the finder at the point in time of the find.

 

Cezanne

 

That would make for an interesting situation - anyone who wanted to fill their grid could just create a new account, hide a few caches with silly D/T combinations, find them with their main account, then set the D/T to something more sensible. Since "distinct caches" aren't shown any more you could find the same cache repeatedly and tweak the D/T each time, and fill the D/T grid with fewer than 81 actual finds.

 

The easiest way to correct the situation is the way some German cachers seemed to be doing it a while back, namely by hosting an event where you walk a short distance along a flat paved path to the pub but rate the event 3.5/4.5 or some such.

Link to comment

Yes, the one in question for this thread. You know...the actual topic...

 

And as for "most accurate information"--what, really, is the difference between a 4.5 and a 4 terrain rating for this particular cache? Why was it done?

 

You'd have to ask the owner, I suppose. Owners are the ones who know their caches best, and are best equipped to rate the difficulty and terrain. If an owner feels that the change is necessary, I see no reason to question that judgment.

Link to comment

No, no reason at all, since over half of the caches are misrated, in my experience.

 

Really, the whole point would be moot if Groundspeak make the Clayjar system part of submitting a cache page. Everyone would fill out a form that rated each cache, and there would be some uniformity. But then--you'd have folks coming up with ways to cheat by figuring out how to use the variables to get what they want anyway.

 

We're all just chasing our tails. In the end, the OP just needs to go out and find another cache for their grid. That's just how it goes.

Edited by Dame Deco
Link to comment

 

Really, the whole point would be moot if Groundspeak make the Clayjar system part of submitting a cache page. Everyone would fill out a form that rated each cache, and there would be some uniformity.

 

No, there would not. Moreover, it needs to be taken into account that what the form delivers does not necessarily match the verbal description of the 1*, 2* etc rating and the description is what really counts for me and not what the form delivers.

 

Take e.g. a simple staircase with 10 steps. I certainly would not ride a a bicycle up the staircase, but this question does not make sense in this case. When you answer with no, it has a serious effect on the rating.

Similarly, what an average adult cacher (this term is part of the T=3* definition) can accomplish differs considerably around the world. SO of course there will be local incluences.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

 

The easiest way to correct the situation is the way some German cachers seemed to be doing it a while back, namely by hosting an event where you walk a short distance along a flat paved path to the pub but rate the event 3.5/4.5 or some such.

 

If they were coming from the pub, then that is an understandable rating.

Link to comment

The easiest way to correct the situation is the way some German cachers seemed to be doing it a while back, namely by hosting an event where you walk a short distance along a flat paved path to the pub but rate the event 3.5/4.5 or some such.

 

It's being done here in States as well.

 

There is a local challenge where you have to find the five D/T combos on the matching calendar date (i.e. a 1/1 on Jan 1st - 1/5 on Jan 5th). So, what does someone do? They list an event on May 1st, rated 5/1 (a 5 difficulty event in a park?!?!?!). It's all devolved into silliness.

 

[Edit: typos]

Edited by BBWolf+3Pigs
Link to comment

snip....

 

And it would be great for the drama as the grid challenge cachers clash with the D/T change challenge cachers.

 

I am ignoring the voice in my head that is telling me not to get involved in this discussion as I lack a thick skin, but my desire to register my opinion was too strong. :laughing: I believe snarky statements like this one do nothing to enhance the discussion but serve only to imply that folks who feel differently are somehow inferior or motivated by a need for drama.

 

We've been caching over 10 years now and are casually working on our Jasmer and D/T grid. I would agree with Briansnat's characterization of the Jasmer as a "side game", but anything using stats/maps provided on a dedicated tab of my profile seems to have at least an implied Groundspeak approval of it being a reasonable outgrowth of the game.

 

Having said that, I get what the OP is asking and feel his pain - both at having that grid square go empty and at being denigrated for his opinon. You do not have to use someone's name in a remark for many people to know exactly to whom that remark refers. To imply otherwise is disingenous at best. It would be like my grandson saying that a 2-year old living in his house is "stupid", but denying that he called his sister stupid because he didn't use her name. <_<

 

As to the original topic, we had this very same issue work in our favor. I was checking on our grid recently - after some months of inactivity - and suddenly one of the squares had been filled in. We hadn't been caching, so it had to have been a D/T change, but I have no idea how to find which of our finds was affected. Has anyone else found that this issue sometimes works in their favor?

 

Mrs. Car54

Link to comment

Really, the whole point would be moot if Groundspeak make the Clayjar system part of submitting a cache page. Everyone would fill out a form that rated each cache, and there would be some uniformity. But then--you'd have folks coming up with ways to cheat by figuring out how to use the variables to get what they want anyway.

 

Not really. The Clayjar system is very good, but it has limitations and sometimes owners need to apply their own judgment to arrive at a rating that makes sense.

Link to comment

Really, the whole point would be moot if Groundspeak make the Clayjar system part of submitting a cache page. Everyone would fill out a form that rated each cache, and there would be some uniformity.

 

That's what I thought, but had an eye-opening discussion here. There was a wide variety of terrain rating interpretations of an example that involved 2 steep slopes.

Link to comment

 

That would make for an interesting situation - anyone who wanted to fill their grid could just create a new account, hide a few caches with silly D/T combinations, find them with their main account, then set the D/T to something more sensible. Since "distinct caches" aren't shown any more you could find the same cache repeatedly and tweak the D/T each time, and fill the D/T grid with fewer than 81 actual finds.

 

The easiest way to correct the situation is the way some German cachers seemed to be doing it a while back, namely by hosting an event where you walk a short distance along a flat paved path to the pub but rate the event 3.5/4.5 or some such.

 

Those who want to abuse a system will do so anyway. With what I wrote I had those who feel that they earned a certain D/T combination in an honest manner in mind.

It would also help for puzzle caches that get easier over time. As a cache owner I'd like to take into account the current situation.

 

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

I just looked at a cache with a rare D/T rating, in fact it is one I went to find after another CO changed the their rating leaving me with a hole in my grid.

 

Since it was a puzzle in an out of the way location in the first year it was found 10 times, in the next year it was found 13 times and 9/13 mention finding it for the D/T combo.

 

This is one of the logs:

 

Visited this cache for the same reason as Roman! before me.....this is the *third* time I've completed my D/T grid, due to COs changing ratings!! Couldn't stand to see that blank square, so xxxxxx and I headed out today. It was a beautiful day and the cache is in great shape. It was awfully tempting to ignore the NO PARKING signs, but we did park at the parking co-ords and enjoyed the short walk. Beautiful spot. Thank you, RP, for the (big) hints in solving this one. It was a great puzzle....once I saw the light! Okay....now my chart is complete again.....

 

Actions have consequences, not caring about the consequences it inconsiderate.

 

This looks like the way it should happen to me. If you enjoy filling in your grid, completing fizzy chalenges. The change in D/T open a hole gives you the opertunity to hunt down another "rare" geocache D/T keeping the game fun for those who like the challenge? The cacher quoted above was successful in hunt 3 "rare" geocache D/Ts. I don't think I have been sucessful at 1.

Link to comment

Really, the whole point would be moot if Groundspeak make the Clayjar system part of submitting a cache page. Everyone would fill out a form that rated each cache, and there would be some uniformity. But then--you'd have folks coming up with ways to cheat by figuring out how to use the variables to get what they want anyway.

How so? The issue is the terrain rating changed. We've already seen examples in this thread of a flood changing the environment so that the terrain rating was changed. This is not as uncommon as you think. I've seen 2.5T become 1T when they graded and paved a parking lot. I've see 3T turn to 4T when the trail was washed out. We don't know the reason this cache was changed from 4.5T to 4T, and while a half star up or down is pretty arbitrary, the cache owner may have felt that there was a good reason to lower the rating.

 

The whole point would be moot if Groundspeak got rid of challenge caches (but that may be for another thread :ph34r: )

Link to comment

The whole point would be moot if Groundspeak got rid of challenge caches (but that may be for another thread :ph34r: )

 

I think it wouldn't.

I know many cachers who want to fill their D/T grid and/or obtain badges and a higher score on diverse systems independently from challenge caches.

 

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

It would also help for puzzle caches that get easier over time. As a cache owner I'd like to take into account the current situation.

 

I refer you to my earlier post :D

 

Although lowering the D rating on this basis would effectively penalise those who had risen fully to the puzzle element implied by the higher rating...

 

I have been aware of your post, but I had a different scenario in mind without any sort of cheating involved.

When the D/T-ratings were locked in for the finder at the time of the find, one could change the ratings as cache owner

without anyone getting penalized.

 

There are many puzzle caches out there where additional hints are added on purpose by the cache owner over time.

 

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

The whole point would be moot if Groundspeak got rid of challenge caches (but that may be for another thread :ph34r: )

 

Agree! At least change them so that D/T can't be used.

 

I don't see a problem with the challenges themselves. It's the cachers who think that everyone else in the game should modify their behaviour to accommodate these challenges that I take issue with. I know cache owners who have received really inappropriate private communications about these issues, and that's simply unacceptable. Cache owners shouldn't have to contend with abuse from cachers who have decided to arbitrarily place importance on various elements of the cache description.

 

It would be nice to see the guidelines address the D/T issue to make it abundantly clear that the primary purpose of these ratings is to provide cachers with information for finding the cache, that they are subject to change over time, and that all other uses of those numbers are secondary in importance.

Link to comment

 

Bottom line, change the rating on a rare combo, you will impact people, some negatively but since you sony care it really is a moot point.

 

Good for you that you choose to seek caches specifically because of their D/T ratings rather than the fun element but that is not my problem as a cache owner.

 

I choose to find caches for many reasons one of which was D/T ratings. In the last year I have travelled 10s of thousands of miles working on the Jasmer challenge, I do this because I choose to because I have fun.

 

I am not the only one that has found caches strictly for the D/T combo, good for you that you don't care.

 

No, you are not the only one. However, considering that generally only high profile, highly active premium members with high find counts do care, you grossly overestimate how many there are that do. I'd give you about .1% of Geocachers. :ph34r:

Link to comment

Is there anything I can do about this?

 

I found a nearby mountaintop cache four months ago, and it was the only nearby example of that rare breed, a 2/4.5, on the day I found it.

 

In the intervening weeks I finished my Fizzy grid and logged a few D/T challenge caches.

 

Then, today, the CO revamped the page after doing owner maintenance over the weekend. In the process he changed the D/T rating to 2/4.

 

I found a 2/4.5 darn it, not a 2/4. So what if he changed the hide and made it easier afterwards? He's entitled to make changes, of course, but shouldn't anything of this sort be a "from this day forward" change?

 

I guess I'm not going to update mygeocachingprofile.com, the one the public sees, until I find a replacement 2/4.5, the nearest of which, I think, is 180 miles away in the desert in a sweltering spot I'd rather not go until October. I really don't want to unfind--and then later refind--a bunch of D/T challenges. For one, doing so could ruin my daily streak. I'm working on a 365-consecutive day challenge and I have many single-cache days in there, the loss of any of which would torpedo that effort, too.

 

Is this the way D/T records are supposed to work? I didn't find a 2/4, I found a 2/4.5. Shouldn't I retain credit no matter how easy the CO decides to make the cache later on?

 

Who's with me? :)

 

I'm talking with the CO about this. He's someone I know, so I might be able to get it reversed. (No guarantee, though) Still, this incident begs a lot of questions. And, as a CO, I'll make sure I NEVER change the D/T rating of any of my caches down the road. I'll live with whatever rating I assign it at the time. Doing otherwise could mess up folks who have already found the cache.

 

I'm with you on this. What happens when all the caches are archived.....no more grid, Delorme sunk, etc.

Link to comment

Actually, we found a 4.5 terrain rated hide which required only a 20 minute walk up a paved path with a slight 15% grade or less and a 300 foot bushwack over some rocks knee height. Instead of being elated at filling in my grid, I was a bit disappointed at traveling and preparing for a 4.5, which was probably only a 2.5 or 3. I mentioned the Clayjar ratings in my log, and the CO responded by saying they had never heard of it, despite that they had been specifically trying to hide all 81 combos. They've hid plenty of worthwhile and creative hides, but with lousy D/T ratings.

 

In the case of a 4.5 being changed to a 4, I suspect the true rating is much lower like a 3, and the CO eventually realized it, and was only trying to ward off the people traveling a long distance for nothing. Which is worse, a tiny hole in the grid, or a badge for something you didn't do?

 

An LPC gets rated as a 5 terrain because its part of a challenge. Another LPC with a 5 terrain is a liars cache. Both get zero complaints, but then a 4.5 gets altered and people start howling. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
The whole point would be moot if Groundspeak got rid of challenge caches (but that may be for another thread :ph34r: )

 

Yeah right. Lets take away someone else's fun because of a limitation in the system. Wow.

 

How about something more constructive?

 

[FEATURE] Include D/T rating in Found It log

 

Explain to me how this feature would not make the OP's issue moot.

 

I wouldn't be opposed to that at all. IMHO, it has no chance though, because I think they are much closer to killing challenges altogether than most people think. :)

Link to comment

Everyone please familiarize yourselves with the definition of the word "moot." Thanks.

 

Hey cool! It means the exact opposite of what I, and apparently many others, thought:

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/moot?s=t

 

moot

Adjective

1. open to discussion or debate; debatable; doubtful: a moot point.

2. of little or no practical value or meaning; purely academic.

3. Chiefly Law. not actual; theoretical; hypothetical.

 

What would be a good word to mean not open to discussion, not debatable and with no doubt?

Link to comment
The whole point would be moot if Groundspeak got rid of challenge caches (but that may be for another thread :ph34r: )

 

Yeah right. Lets take away someone else's fun because of a limitation in the system. Wow.

 

How about something more constructive?

 

[FEATURE] Include D/T rating in Found It log

 

Explain to me how this feature would not make the OP's issue moot.

 

I wouldn't be opposed to that at all. IMHO, it has no chance though, because I think they are much closer to killing challenges altogether than most people think. :)

 

That would be the path of least resistance.

 

Maybe if someone goes to the Website sub-forum and suggests the removal of Challenges, it will never happen.

Link to comment

I wouldn't be opposed to that at all. IMHO, it has no chance though, because I think they are much closer to killing challenges altogether than most people think. :)

 

This wouldn't surprise me at all. I think that one of the reason challenge caches are becoming so numerous is that cache owners are looking for ways to limit who is allowed to find their caches, and for ways to protect their caches from intro app n00bs. It does seem to get a little silly when areas fill up with nothing but challenges, and when cachers feel that meeting a challenge is more important than an owner's maintenance of a cache.

Link to comment

Was it adjusted or corrected? I think it makes a difference. If, for example, you found a cache when it was rated 4.5, and then a change in conditions caused it be changed to a 3.0, then for your grid you should be able to claim it as 4.5. Just use a screenshot or whatever.

 

But if was corrected, i.e. it was mis-rated 4.5 to begin with, then you actually found a 3.0 difficulty cache, and depending how honest you want to play the game, you should only count finding a 3.0 towards your grid. It doesn't matter if you drove 100 miles because you thought it would be a 4.5, if you actually found a 3.0, that's what you found. The goal in filling the grid is to find the 81 different difficluty/terrain combinations, not just 81 caches that have convienently covered the 81 different combinations, regardless of their actual difficulty. If all you want to do is fill the grid, I'm sure you can find some caches that are graded improperly that make it easier than it should be, especially in certain parts of the country.

Link to comment

I wouldn't be opposed to that at all. IMHO, it has no chance though, because I think they are much closer to killing challenges altogether than most people think. :)

 

This wouldn't surprise me at all. I think that one of the reason challenge caches are becoming so numerous is that cache owners are looking for ways to limit who is allowed to find their caches, and for ways to protect their caches from intro app n00bs. It does seem to get a little silly when areas fill up with nothing but challenges, and when cachers feel that meeting a challenge is more important than an owner's maintenance of a cache.

 

I don't mind them in small quantities but, in my area (Golden Horseshoe), power trail challenge caches are becoming popular - see screenshots. It seems to me that they're more about lauding the numbers game. Because of challenge caches D/T ratings, an important tool for preparing and finding caches, has turned into a score. I don't think it was a wise decision for Groundspeak to sanction a side game that promotes D/T ratings as credits.

Link to comment

 

Bottom line, change the rating on a rare combo, you will impact people, some negatively but since you sony care it really is a moot point.

 

Good for you that you choose to seek caches specifically because of their D/T ratings rather than the fun element but that is not my problem as a cache owner.

 

I choose to find caches for many reasons one of which was D/T ratings. In the last year I have travelled 10s of thousands of miles working on the Jasmer challenge, I do this because I choose to because I have fun.

 

I am not the only one that has found caches strictly for the D/T combo, good for you that you don't care.

 

No, you are not the only one. However, considering that generally only high profile, highly active premium members with high find counts do care, you grossly overestimate how many there are that do. I'd give you about .1% of Geocachers. :ph34r:

 

If you polled forum members your .1% is probably accurate but if you polled all active cachers I'd bet it would be significantly higher.

Link to comment

A T4.5 cache gets a lot of "thanks for filling my grid square" logs.

A T4 cache gets a lot of "thanks for the adventure" logs.

 

That in itself might be enough to make some cache owners change the terrain rating.

I can't believe we've gone on for 3 pages about such an obvious question, but I'm glad I scanned it all and noticed in the middle of the second page niraD's succinct and humorous summary of the key issue.

 

I'm not sure the obvious answer has actually come across, but it's this: you can make sure he's aware of grids and ask him if he really wants to make it T4, but if he is convinced it should be T4 -- for whatever reasons -- then this isn't the right cache to fill in your grid because it doesn't have the terrain rating you need. End of story.

 

Well, end of story for that cache, but you're always free to appeal to the challenge owner to see if they'll accept a spot in the grid that was once filled but now isn't. The idea of taking a grid snapshot is one implementation of that approach. But a challenge cache owner doesn't have to accept such a historical rating, no matter how concretely you prove it. I have no idea how much flexibility grid challenge owners normally allow.

 

Assuming the CO doesn't change the rating back and the challenge owner won't accept the historical rating, the bottom line is that you tried to get a T4.5, but you failed. No different than if you'd gone there and the cache had been missing. Look elsewhere to fill that slot. If you didn't have fun tracking that one down and don't expect to have fun tracking the next one down, you shouldn't be trying to complete that challenge.

Link to comment

No, no reason at all, since over half of the caches are misrated, in my experience.

 

Really, the whole point would be moot if Groundspeak make the Clayjar system part of submitting a cache page. Everyone would fill out a form that rated each cache, and there would be some uniformity. But then--you'd have folks coming up with ways to cheat by figuring out how to use the variables to get what they want anyway.

 

We're all just chasing our tails. In the end, the OP just needs to go out and find another cache for their grid. That's just how it goes.

 

It still wouldn't solve the problem of ratings being changed. If a cache is at the top of a mountain it might warrant T4.5 on the basis you have to climb up the mountain. If a year or two later a cable car is put in so you can get to the top while exerting no more effort than handing over the price of a cable car ticket the cache could easily be rerated to T2 even though nothing about the cache has changed. Likewise if it's on an island accessible by a bridge it might be T2 but if the bridge collapses and isn't replaced the cache might become T5 because now it needs a boat.

 

Even without drastic changes it's easy to see why a terrain rating might increase if it becomes harder to follow a trail due to vegetation growing up. It's not as if rating is a precise science anyway - some areas can be substantially harder in summer or winter based on weather and vegetation and judging the level of difficulty accessing an area is inevitably somewhat subjective even if there are guidelines.

Link to comment

I made it through five pages before giving up.

 

It's just another example of why challenge caches are a bad idea. If you had fun filling in your D/T grid, isn't that what matters? You had the exact same experience whether the cache was a 4 or 4.5. If we didn't allow ALRs on challenge caches, all this goes away.

 

I'm all for accurate ratings on caches. I don't care how rare a particular combination is.

Link to comment

I made it through five pages before giving up.

 

It's just another example of why challenge caches are a bad idea. If you had fun filling in your D/T grid, isn't that what matters? You had the exact same experience whether the cache was a 4 or 4.5. If we didn't allow ALRs on challenge caches, all this goes away.

 

I'm all for accurate ratings on caches. I don't care how rare a particular combination is.

 

Removing challenges would not solve this as the grid is on your stats page courtesy of Groundspeak.

Link to comment

I made it through five pages before giving up.

 

It's just another example of why challenge caches are a bad idea. If you had fun filling in your D/T grid, isn't that what matters? You had the exact same experience whether the cache was a 4 or 4.5. If we didn't allow ALRs on challenge caches, all this goes away.

 

I'm all for accurate ratings on caches. I don't care how rare a particular combination is.

 

Removing challenges would not solve this as the grid is on your stats page courtesy of Groundspeak.

 

The grid is just information with no value attached to it, like the find count.

Link to comment

The grid is just information with no value attached to it, like the find count.

 

Right up to the point where people attache value to them.

 

People can choose to attach value to things if they want, but the mere fact that it's there does not give it objective value.

 

I am not required to care about your "grid" because you have chosen to attach value to it.

Link to comment

The grid is just information with no value attached to it, like the find count.

 

Right up to the point where people attache value to them.

 

People can choose to attach value to things if they want, but the mere fact that it's there does not give it objective value.

 

I am not required to care about your "grid" because you have chosen to attach value to it.

 

I don't remember saying you were required to care about anything in particular.

 

Just wanted to point out that things have value(s) assigned to them by people :)

Link to comment

I am not required to care about your "grid" because you have chosen to attach value to it.

 

Of course not. The key point is however that challenge caches are by far not the only reason why people care about the grid and things like that.

For example the belt system of Badgegen assigns 10 points to a complete grid and due to the project-gc.com Badgegen became even more popular.

project-gc.com also had the effect that many FTF-hunters in my area started to mark their FTFs in a way that they are recognized by the system.

 

I do agree with you that an accurate D/T-rating has the highest priority, but I do not agree with the statement that the

issue is caused by challenge caches.

Link to comment

I am not required to care about your "grid" because you have chosen to attach value to it.

 

Of course not. The key point is however that challenge caches are by far not the only reason why people care about the grid and things like that.

For example the belt system of Badgegen assigns 10 points to a complete grid and due to the project-gc.com Badgegen became even more popular.

project-gc.com also had the effect that many FTF-hunters in my area started to mark their FTFs in a way that they are recognized by the system.

 

I do agree with you that an accurate D/T-rating has the highest priority, but I do not agree with the statement that the

issue is caused by challenge caches.

 

No, challenge caches are just an example of a way that these very basic bits of data are treated as "credits" or "points" by some players. There are certainly other ways.

 

And I don't think there's anything wrong with doing that. I enjoy tracking my personal statistics. It's just not reasonable to expect a cache owner to notice or care about my stats or anybody else's.

Link to comment

No, challenge caches are just an example of a way that these very basic bits of data are treated as "credits" or "points" by some players. There are certainly other ways.

 

And I don't think there's anything wrong with doing that. I enjoy tracking my personal statistics. It's just not reasonable to expect a cache owner to notice or care about my stats or anybody else's.

That's what I was trying to say; you worded it much better.

Link to comment

Not to interrupt this ongoing debate, but my opinion is that my first responsibility in my cache listings is to accurately reflect the nature of the cache the listing is for to the benefit of those who choose to search for the cache. They are not there for those who want to use some property of them to fulfill some goal which is established by some third party and unrelated to my cache hide. My cache listings are for my caches and my caches are for the cache hunters. Period. Anything else the listings are used for is out of my control and none of my concern.

Edited by Semper Questio
Link to comment

Of course--nobody is saying differently. I'm just saying that changing a 4.5 terrain to a 4 terrain isn't a very significant change. One isn't all that different than the other--neither is a 5 or a 1.5. So all things being pretty close to equal--why not leave it as is?

Link to comment

Of course--nobody is saying differently. I'm just saying that changing a 4.5 terrain to a 4 terrain isn't a very significant change. One isn't all that different than the other--neither is a 5 or a 1.5. So all things being pretty close to equal--why not leave it as is?

 

Why not trust the cache owner to make the judgment based on his or her knowledge of the cache and the environment that surrounds it?

Link to comment

I had a 1/4. Apparently that combo is a little on the rare side (I didn't know that at the time). I decided subsequently that T4 was a little too high and wanted to lower it to T3.5, but by then someone had mentioned their joy at getting the 1/4 spot filled in on their grid. I left it alone - to do otherwise would have been inconsiderate to that individual.

 

Yes, leaving it inaccurate was arguably inconsiderate to future finders, but being a half-point off in terrain accuracy is not likely to be that big of a deal to future finders (at least not in the mid-range), and it was likely to be a big deal to the past finder.

 

The inaccurate rating bugged me though, and when it got stolen I archived it. I'll eventually place a new one with a better T rating. Problem solved for all.

Link to comment

Of course--nobody is saying differently. I'm just saying that changing a 4.5 terrain to a 4 terrain isn't a very significant change. One isn't all that different than the other--neither is a 5 or a 1.5. So all things being pretty close to equal--why not leave it as is?

 

So where is the line that it stops being "inconsiderate" if the D/T is discovered to be wrong and then changed?

one point difference? Two? Never? Only if it is adjusted up? What is it?

 

IMO, if the original rating was wrong, then your grid is skewed anyways, so what's the point?

Yeah, half a point won't make a lot of difference to most searchers when considering a hunt, but the CO must have decided his rating was wrong. I doubt very much if they decided one day to change the rating just to screw with D/T grids! Not so much inconsideration as it is being conscientious.

 

The OP needs to forget about something they can't control, and go out and find another cache to fill the void ... or get a friend to hide a cache with true ratings to match what they need.

 

Is this the way D/T records are supposed to work? I didn't find a 2/4, I found a 2/4.5. Shouldn't I retain credit no matter how easy the CO decides to make the cache later on?

 

Actually, you found what you thought was a 4.5, but was really only a 4.0 in the opinion of the CO.

Edited by BC & MsKitty
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 3
×
×
  • Create New...