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

[+tozainamboku]

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

 

They do not have an objective value, and it's not reasonable to expect others to recognize the value you've chosen to attach to them.

 

Objective value?

I think I'm begining to sniff out two principles to follow.

1. When possible, respect the wishes of others even though you disagree with them.

2. Never expect your wishes to be followed by people who disagree with you.

 

Following these principles:

1. a cache owner should consider that others may have used a particular D/T combination to fill in a grid and not change the D/T on the cache if they don't need to.

2. a cacher filling in the grid should not expect that a cache owner will not change the D/T just because they are working on filling certain grid spaces.

Edited June 25, 2014 by tozainamboku

[+frinklabs]

I doubt very much if they decided one day to change the rating just to screw with D/T grids!

 

This is an allegation that appears to have been made regarding the Tequila 81.

 

Start here:

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=190334&view=findpost&p=4336825

[+fizzymagic]

Following these principles:

1. a cache owner should consider that others may have used a particular D/T combination to fill in a grid and not change the D/T on the cache if they don't need to.

2. a cacher filling in the grid should not expect that a cache owner will not change the D/T just because they are working on filling certain grid spaces.

 

For once, I agree.

 

It boils down to what used to be considered common courtesy.

[+Roman!]

Following these principles:

1. a cache owner should consider that others may have used a particular D/T combination to fill in a grid and not change the D/T on the cache if they don't need to.

2. a cacher filling in the grid should not expect that a cache owner will not change the D/T just because they are working on filling certain grid spaces.

 

For once, I agree.

 

It boils down to what used to be considered common courtesy.

 

Heck, why not, I'll agree too.

[+Markwell]

I'm sorry if I didn't have the patience to read through the four pages so far, but Terrain and Difficulty ratings are made to assist individuals in determining if the cache is right for them, and what may be involved in pursuing the cache. I look at how cachers use them as "trophies" to complete a grid is a side-game, much like the first-to-find craze, or the ranking of finds.

 

If some significant change is made to the surroundings of a cache, and the terrain/difficulty significantly changes, shouldn't the ratings reflect that? If the cache had been a terrain 5 because it was on an island only accessible by boat and the park district made a foot bridge right to the cache, shouldn't the terrain be lowered? Or vice versa - if the bridge that made it a 1 star terrain was washed out and now the cache is only accessible by boat, I don't think anyone would think it proper to leave it as a 1 start terrain simply to help complete a "grid".

[+frinklabs]

Here's a question for a forum-active reviewer:

 

Can you see history of changes to a cache listing?

 

If so, does that history include changes to the D/T?

 

If so, are they date stamped?

[+Harry Dolphin]

I'm sorry if I didn't have the patience to read through the four pages so far, but Terrain and Difficulty ratings are made to assist individuals in determining if the cache is right for them, and what may be involved in pursuing the cache. I look at how cachers use them as "trophies" to complete a grid is a side-game, much like the first-to-find craze, or the ranking of finds.

 

If some significant change is made to the surroundings of a cache, and the terrain/difficulty significantly changes, shouldn't the ratings reflect that? If the cache had been a terrain 5 because it was on an island only accessible by boat and the park district made a foot bridge right to the cache, shouldn't the terrain be lowered? Or vice versa - if the bridge that made it a 1 star terrain was washed out and now the cache is only accessible by boat, I don't think anyone would think it proper to leave it as a 1 start terrain simply to help complete a "grid".

 

In those cases, shouldn't the cache be archived and resubmitted, due to major changes? It is not the same cache!

 

But, my point is: Geocaching makes a point of showing a cacher's D/T findings.

 

 

My D/T finds.

Therefore, it is important! And should be preserved. GC touts the grid! It is important to GC!

And thus, if I find a 2/4.5, it is noted that I have found such a D/T rated cache! (Actually, I have found two.) And that D/T find should be preserved in my records! If it is unimportant, and irrelevant because COs can change the D/T rating because they feel like it, then this chart is irrelevant, and should not be included in my statistics.

 

Perhaps they were over-rated. But that is irrelevant. My 5/1 was an event held on a work day. 5 for difficulty for having to take off from work?!? None of my 5/5s were actually 5 for terrain. But none of that is relevant.

The fact is that Geocaching makes a point of showing everyone's D/T grid. And, therefore, it is important, and those find ratings must be preserved.

[+narcissa]

In those cases, shouldn't the cache be archived and resubmitted, due to major changes? It is not the same cache!

 

The cache owner is the one to determine whether or not the original intention of the geocache has been compromised.

 

But, my point is: Geocaching makes a point of showing a cacher's D/T findings...

 

...Therefore, it is important! And should be preserved.

 

You haven't explained why your grid is *more* important than keeping a cache description up to date for future finders of the cache. Since the entire point of geocaching is the *finding* of the geocaches, it seems rather obvious that keeping the listing current is *more* important than keeping the ratings static for stats hounds.

[+The Jester]

I'm sorry if I didn't have the patience to read through the four pages so far, but Terrain and Difficulty ratings are made to assist individuals in determining if the cache is right for them, and what may be involved in pursuing the cache. I look at how cachers use them as "trophies" to complete a grid is a side-game, much like the first-to-find craze, or the ranking of finds.

 

If some significant change is made to the surroundings of a cache, and the terrain/difficulty significantly changes, shouldn't the ratings reflect that? If the cache had been a terrain 5 because it was on an island only accessible by boat and the park district made a foot bridge right to the cache, shouldn't the terrain be lowered? Or vice versa - if the bridge that made it a 1 star terrain was washed out and now the cache is only accessible by boat, I don't think anyone would think it proper to leave it as a 1 start terrain simply to help complete a "grid".

 

In those cases, shouldn't the cache be archived and resubmitted, due to major changes? It is not the same cache!

 

But, my point is: Geocaching makes a point of showing a cacher's D/T findings.

 

 

My D/T finds.

Therefore, it is important! And should be preserved. GC touts the grid! It is important to GC!

And thus, if I find a 2/4.5, it is noted that I have found such a D/T rated cache! (Actually, I have found two.) And that D/T find should be preserved in my records! If it is unimportant, and irrelevant because COs can change the D/T rating because they feel like it, then this chart is irrelevant, and should not be included in my statistics.

 

Perhaps they were over-rated. But that is irrelevant. My 5/1 was an event held on a work day. 5 for difficulty for having to take off from work?!? None of my 5/5s were actually 5 for terrain. But none of that is relevant.

The fact is that Geocaching makes a point of showing everyone's D/T grid. And, therefore, it is important, and those find ratings must be preserved.

They also show a chart of the distance from home. If that should change (such as I move) shouldn't that data also be preserved, as there are challenges the use that?

[+Harry Dolphin]

In those cases, shouldn't the cache be archived and resubmitted, due to major changes? It is not the same cache!

 

The cache owner is the one to determine whether or not the original intention of the geocache has been compromised.

 

But, my point is: Geocaching makes a point of showing a cacher's D/T findings...

 

...Therefore, it is important! And should be preserved.

 

You haven't explained why your grid is *more* important than keeping a cache description up to date for future finders of the cache. Since the entire point of geocaching is the *finding* of the geocaches, it seems rather obvious that keeping the listing current is *more* important than keeping the ratings static for stats hounds.

 

The point is that Geocaching considers it important, since Geocaching shows your D/T grid.

If the D/T rating has changed, then the CO should archive and submit a new cache with the corrected D/T rating. Or Geocaching should not emphasize the importance of the grid by showing it on everyone's stats page.

One or the other. I don't really care about my grid. But Geocaching seems to think it is important.

Therefore, keeping the cache description up-to-date must mean resubmitting the cache if there is a change.

Or, just delete the grid from a cacher's stats. If Geocaching highlights it, it is important. If it is not important, then Geocaching should not highlight it on a cacher's stats.

Seems pretty simple to me. Geocaching emphasizes the grid. Therefore, it is important! If it is not important, then Geocaching should not show it on the stats.

Seems pretty simple. "Here is your D/T Grid! This is important!"

One or t'other.

[+narcissa]

In those cases, shouldn't the cache be archived and resubmitted, due to major changes? It is not the same cache!

 

The cache owner is the one to determine whether or not the original intention of the geocache has been compromised.

 

But, my point is: Geocaching makes a point of showing a cacher's D/T findings...

 

...Therefore, it is important! And should be preserved.

 

You haven't explained why your grid is *more* important than keeping a cache description up to date for future finders of the cache. Since the entire point of geocaching is the *finding* of the geocaches, it seems rather obvious that keeping the listing current is *more* important than keeping the ratings static for stats hounds.

 

The point is that Geocaching considers it important, since Geocaching shows your D/T grid.

If the D/T rating has changed, then the CO should archive and submit a new cache with the corrected D/T rating. Or Geocaching should not emphasize the importance of the grid by showing it on everyone's stats page.

One or the other. I don't really care about my grid. But Geocaching seems to think it is important.

Therefore, keeping the cache description up-to-date must mean resubmitting the cache if there is a change.

Or, just delete the grid from a cacher's stats. If Geocaching highlights it, it is important. If it is not important, then Geocaching should not highlight it on a cacher's stats.

Seems pretty simple to me. Geocaching emphasizes the grid. Therefore, it is important! If it is not important, then Geocaching should not show it on the stats.

Seems pretty simple. "Here is your D/T Grid! This is important!"

One or t'other.

 

Then why hasn't this been codified in the placement guidelines? There is nothing in the guidelines to suggest that the grid is more important than cache maintenance, and owners are clearly permitted to edit those ratings. If they're meant to be static, the site should lock them when the cache is published. Yet that is not the case.

[+WarNinjas]

Looks like the OP got his wish. It's back to a 2/4.5.

This is kind of what I said before. This is probably all for nothing as the CO will probably change it back. I also think it was the right choice for this one. Others might be different.

[+WarNinjas]

Following these principles:

1. a cache owner should consider that others may have used a particular D/T combination to fill in a grid and not change the D/T on the cache if they don't need to.

2. a cacher filling in the grid should not expect that a cache owner will not change the D/T just because they are working on filling certain grid spaces.

 

For once, I agree.

 

It boils down to what used to be considered common courtesy.

+1 I also agree.

[+Roman!]

Looks like the OP got his wish. It's back to a 2/4.5.

This is kind of what I said before. This is probably all for nothing as the CO will probably change it back. I also think it was the right choice for this one. Others might be different.

 

We should have quit after post #2.

Edited June 26, 2014 by Roman!

[+dprovan]

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 don't understand. Why would I have less fun filling in my D/T grid because I know about a challenge cache based on it? The way I look at it, what you're saying here is exactly why this isn't a problem caused by challenge caches. The angst is caused by a a failure to keep the D/T grid filled in, not by the fact that some CO wants to celebrate people getting their D/T grids filled in.

[4wheelin_fool]

 

The point is that Geocaching considers it important, since Geocaching shows your D/T grid.

If the D/T rating has changed, then the CO should archive and submit a new cache with the corrected D/T rating. Or Geocaching should not emphasize the importance of the grid by showing it on everyone's stats page.

One or the other. I don't really care about my grid. But Geocaching seems to think it is important.

Therefore, keeping the cache description up-to-date must mean resubmitting the cache if there is a change.

Or, just delete the grid from a cacher's stats. If Geocaching highlights it, it is important. If it is not important, then Geocaching should not highlight it on a cacher's stats.

Seems pretty simple to me. Geocaching emphasizes the grid. Therefore, it is important! If it is not important, then Geocaching should not show it on the stats.

Seems pretty simple. "Here is your D/T Grid! This is important!"

One or t'other.

 

 

Its only shown by Groundspeak because a considerable amount of its users think its important. Its not important what Groundspeak thinks at all, as they are following the trends of it's users - us. Not the other way around.

 

 

What's really important is that the D/T reflects the cache's current status, not it's past. Why inconvenience all future finders to avoid inconveniencing a few past finders? Not every cacher cares about their grid. And out of the 81 D/T combos, only a few are rare. Nobody gives a rats patootie about a good 75 of the combos. If several thousand people suddenly changed their 2/1.5s to 1.5/1.5s, nobody would notice, or care. Should all 81 D/Ts suddenly be frozen, archived, and resubmitted for changes because of a few rare combos, and because people did not want to fill in their grid with more than 1? Many of the D/T combos are far from accurate. If someone really wants to prove that they did them all, they need to do at least 3 of each. Other than making a good plot for a Revenge of the Nerds sequel, this is a silly argument.

[+Crow-T-Robot]

I'm sorry if I didn't have the patience to read through the four pages so far, but Terrain and Difficulty ratings are made to assist individuals in determining if the cache is right for them, and what may be involved in pursuing the cache. I look at how cachers use them as "trophies" to complete a grid is a side-game, much like the first-to-find craze, or the ranking of finds.

 

If some significant change is made to the surroundings of a cache, and the terrain/difficulty significantly changes, shouldn't the ratings reflect that? If the cache had been a terrain 5 because it was on an island only accessible by boat and the park district made a foot bridge right to the cache, shouldn't the terrain be lowered? Or vice versa - if the bridge that made it a 1 star terrain was washed out and now the cache is only accessible by boat, I don't think anyone would think it proper to leave it as a 1 start terrain simply to help complete a "grid".

 

In those cases, shouldn't the cache be archived and resubmitted, due to major changes? It is not the same cache!

 

 

It is the same cache. It's just easier to get to.

 

 

If I were the owner of a cache with a rare D/T combo, I would be very considerate of past finders if I had to change the ratings. And then I'd change the ratings. It's not inconsiderate to keep my listing as accurate as possible. If that messes with your grid, then you'll have to find another cache with that combo to fill it in again.

 

Anyone that feels as though D/T ratings shouldn't be changed because they mess with their stats, they should be directing their energy towards Groundspeak to come up with a way to lock in those combos when they find the cache...not taking it out on cache owners who are doing the right thing and making sure future seekers have accurate ratings so as to judge whether a cache is one they'd like to attempt.

[+Roman!]

I'm sorry if I didn't have the patience to read through the four pages so far, but Terrain and Difficulty ratings are made to assist individuals in determining if the cache is right for them, and what may be involved in pursuing the cache. I look at how cachers use them as "trophies" to complete a grid is a side-game, much like the first-to-find craze, or the ranking of finds.

 

If some significant change is made to the surroundings of a cache, and the terrain/difficulty significantly changes, shouldn't the ratings reflect that? If the cache had been a terrain 5 because it was on an island only accessible by boat and the park district made a foot bridge right to the cache, shouldn't the terrain be lowered? Or vice versa - if the bridge that made it a 1 star terrain was washed out and now the cache is only accessible by boat, I don't think anyone would think it proper to leave it as a 1 start terrain simply to help complete a "grid".

 

In those cases, shouldn't the cache be archived and resubmitted, due to major changes? It is not the same cache!

 

 

It is the same cache. It's just easier to get to.

 

 

If I were the owner of a cache with a rare D/T combo, I would be very considerate of past finders if I had to change the ratings. And then I'd change the ratings. It's not inconsiderate to keep my listing as accurate as possible. If that messes with your grid, then you'll have to find another cache with that combo to fill it in again.

 

Anyone that feels as though D/T ratings shouldn't be changed because they mess with their stats, they should be directing their energy towards Groundspeak to come up with a way to lock in those combos when they find the cache...not taking it out on cache owners who are doing the right thing and making sure future seekers have accurate ratings so as to judge whether a cache is one they'd like to attempt.

 

If you publish a cache with a certain D/T rating and something changes then you have a different cache, changing the D/T rating is cheating your past finders, but we already established they don't matter so go ahead and change it.

[+niraD]

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.

Thanks. I'm glad someone noticed it.

 

But my "more serious" answer would be that I've seen T4.5 used in various ways. Some seem to think of it as T5 Lite. That is, their T4.5 cache requires "special equipment", but it's relatively common "special equipment" that presents a minimal challenge. So they might rate a cache on an island in the wilderness a T5, but they might rate a cache on an island in a park with inexpensive pedal boat rentals nearby a T4.5.

 

Another variation on T5 Lite might be a cache that technically doesn't REQUIRE "special equipment", but which few people would willingly attempt without "special equipment".

 

And some seem to think of it as T4 Heavy. That is, their 4.5 cache doesn't require "special equipment", but it is at the extreme end of terrain that is recommended for "Experienced outdoor enthusiasts only".

[+niraD]

If you publish a cache with a certain D/T rating and something changes then you have a different cache

Nonsense. If the park system builds a new road, a new parking lot, and a new trailhead, and therefore my cache is now a 1-mile hike (T2) instead of a 12-mile hike (T4), then I have a different cache only if the point of the cache was the 12-mile hike. If the point of the cache was the scenic view, or the historic location, or the interesting rock formation, or anything else, then it's the same cache.

 

And vice versa. If a bridge or trail is closed, and it is now a 5-mile hike (T3) instead of a 500ft stroll, then I have a different cache only if the point of the cache was the 500ft stroll. If the point of the cache was something else, anything else, then it's the same cache.

[+Crow-T-Robot]

 

If you publish a cache with a certain D/T rating and something changes then you have a different cache, changing the D/T rating is cheating your past finders, but we already established they don't matter so go ahead and change it.

 

You'd rather a cache owner archive a listing and create a new cache just so it doesn't mess with your statistics? That's pretty silly when, as a CO, I have tools at my disposal to change my cache page to accurately reflect how difficult it is to find the cache and how difficult it is to get to it. Things change and that's why you can update a cache page as needed. You don't need to create a new listing every time a tree falls down across the path and makes it harder to get to.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

In those cases, shouldn't the cache be archived and resubmitted, due to major changes? It is not the same cache!

 

The cache owner is the one to determine whether or not the original intention of the geocache has been compromised.

 

 

Even if it's a puzzle cache?

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

If you publish a cache with a certain D/T rating and something changes then you have a different cache, changing the D/T rating is cheating your past finders, but we already established they don't matter so go ahead and change it.

 

Hmmm...I thought the point of me hiding a cache was to bring people to a cool location, a pretty view, a pleasant hike or an interesting historic site.

 

If I accomplished that, I don't see how the finder could ever be considered "cheated".

 

My goal is not to fill in some one's D/T grid. There are enough people out there hiding cache and listing events with silly D/T combos for that.

[+Baad Daata]

The entire point of ratings is to provide searchers with an accurate measure of the D/T difficulty of the cache. If some finders choose to use these ratings for other purposes that is their problem. I always have and always will adjust my cache D/T ratings based on feedback from searchers and the conditions on the ground. I strive to serve searchers by providing them with realistic D/T ratings and I'm not concerned with someones side game.

[+Baad Daata]

There is a cache in my area that is a 2.0 terrain during the winter and a 5.0T during the summer. It is on an island after the snow melts and is "dry" about half of the year. The CO had been changing the T rating accordingly but he has lost interest lately. If I get a significant and challenging D/T rating I take a screen shot of my grid and date it. I have submitted the screen shot with my docs in a couple of cases. I also have explained my actions to the "challenge" owner.

[+eightwednesday]

I've got a cache that is now grossly overrated for terrain (a 4.5) because after I hid it, an easier route to the cache was discovered (I had previously believed the height of the lake obstructed the easier route). Plus, local cachers placed a 4 cache trail to my cache because they liked it so much along the easier route. A more accurate terrain rating would be 3.5. Heck, maybe even a 3. But this is exactly what I'm wanting to avoid.

[+narcissa]

If you publish a cache with a certain D/T rating and something changes then you have a different cache, changing the D/T rating is cheating your past finders, but we already established they don't matter so go ahead and change it.

 

Cheating them of what? The rating is not a score or a credit. You might choose to use it that way, but that is not its primary purpose.

[+narcissa]

In those cases, shouldn't the cache be archived and resubmitted, due to major changes? It is not the same cache!

 

The cache owner is the one to determine whether or not the original intention of the geocache has been compromised.

 

 

Even if it's a puzzle cache?

 

An owner can certainly archive a puzzle cache if they feel it has been compromised.

[+Semper Questio]

I've got a cache that is now grossly overrated for terrain (a 4.5) because after I hid it, an easier route to the cache was discovered (I had previously believed the height of the lake obstructed the easier route). Plus, local cachers placed a 4 cache trail to my cache because they liked it so much along the easier route. A more accurate terrain rating would be 3.5. Heck, maybe even a 3. But this is exactly what I'm wanting to avoid.

 

YOu could always put a note on the cache listing that the higher rating is for the more difficult route to the cache and also state what the rating equates to if seekers take the easier route. You could also provide a wyapoint to the start of the more difficult route (if you don't already) for those that want to take it.

[+The Jester]

And we'd need to codify what is a "rare combo." I may be willing to travel 500 miles for a 'special' cache (whatever that may be defined as, tho for this discussion we'll use D/T combos), but (generic) you may not be willing to travel more than 100 miles - whose preference is used to define 'rare'? If there are 5 x/y caches in my range, but zero in your's, for you it's rare, for me it's not so much.

 

Different regions will have different 'rare' combos.

 

And all that can change as caches come and go.

 

Good luck with that definition...

[+DanOCan]

I think I'm begining to sniff out two principles to follow.

1. When possible, respect the wishes of others even though you disagree with them.

2. Never expect your wishes to be followed by people who disagree with you.

 

Following these principles:

1. a cache owner should consider that others may have used a particular D/T combination to fill in a grid and not change the D/T on the cache if they don't need to.

2. a cacher filling in the grid should not expect that a cache owner will not change the D/T just because they are working on filling certain grid spaces.

I agree with you. I would say if a cache was initially rated incorrectly then the CO needs to change the rating. I don't change my opinion on that depending on whether or not the original rating was "rare" or not.

[+DanOCan]

The point is that Geocaching considers it important, since Geocaching shows your D/T grid.

If the D/T rating has changed, then the CO should archive and submit a new cache with the corrected D/T rating. Or Geocaching should not emphasize the importance of the grid by showing it on everyone's stats page.

One or the other. I don't really care about my grid. But Geocaching seems to think it is important.

Therefore, keeping the cache description up-to-date must mean resubmitting the cache if there is a change.

Or, just delete the grid from a cacher's stats. If Geocaching highlights it, it is important. If it is not important, then Geocaching should not highlight it on a cacher's stats.

Seems pretty simple to me. Geocaching emphasizes the grid. Therefore, it is important! If it is not important, then Geocaching should not show it on the stats.

Seems pretty simple. "Here is your D/T Grid! This is important!"

One or t'other.

I don't necessarily think that just because something is displayed it is deemed important. And I certainly don't see Geocaching assigning any important to it -- it's the cachers who seem to think filling in the grid adds some intrinsic value to their game that deem it important. If it is important to them, they should keep track of it themselves.

 

As an example:

 

If you look at my D/T grid, it shows I have found a 5/5. I have not. I found a cache that was something like a 2/2 but during a flood the river channel changed and the cache was washed away or under water. Rather than checking on it, the CO bumped the rating to a 5/5. A reviewer saw this and the cache was eventually archived with the false 5/5 rating intact. Since I don't want credit for a 5/5 I didn't find, in my own database of Finds it is rated with what the cache ratings were when I found it. Because I (and only I) assigned a value to an accurate reflection of my 5/5 caches found, I took the responsibility to deal with it. It's not the CO's job to worry about MY grid.

 

As for archiving a cache because the conditions change? My rule of thumb is "If it is something I can modify without involving Groundspeak then it can stay as the same cache listing." Whether that's spelling errors, the size, the difficulty or the terrain, or even small changes in location.

[+dprovan]

If you publish a cache with a certain D/T rating and something changes then you have a different cache

Nonsense. If the park system builds a new road, a new parking lot, and a new trailhead, and therefore my cache is now a 1-mile hike (T2) instead of a 12-mile hike (T4), then I have a different cache only if the point of the cache was the 12-mile hike. If the point of the cache was the scenic view, or the historic location, or the interesting rock formation, or anything else, then it's the same cache.

It's hard for me to imagine a cache requiring a 12 mile hike yet for which the 12 mile hike was irrelevant. But all the same, I understand that if you felt some need to keep that specific cache active instead of re-releasing the same container and hide as a new cache, then of course you'd have to change the terrain rating regardless of what that does to anyone's grid. In the end, you as the CO get to decide which way to go on that tradeoff.

[cezanne]

If you publish a cache with a certain D/T rating and something changes then you have a different cache

Nonsense. If the park system builds a new road, a new parking lot, and a new trailhead, and therefore my cache is now a 1-mile hike (T2) instead of a 12-mile hike (T4), then I have a different cache only if the point of the cache was the 12-mile hike. If the point of the cache was the scenic view, or the historic location, or the interesting rock formation, or anything else, then it's the same cache.

It's hard for me to imagine a cache requiring a 12 mile hike yet for which the 12 mile hike was irrelevant. But all the same, I understand that if you felt some need to keep that specific cache active instead of re-releasing the same container and hide as a new cache, then of course you'd have to change the terrain rating regardless of what that does to anyone's grid. In the end, you as the CO get to decide which way to go on that tradeoff.

 

There are a number of summit caches in my country which can be approached from different starting points and depending on the chosen approach the distance and the amount of height meters can vary significantly.

So suppose that someone has rated a traditional based on the easiest available approach that is also recommended in the cache description and then either temporarily (e.g. due to construction works that take a whole hiking season) or permanently it is not possible to drive to the starting point of the easiest approach and another more difficult approach has to be taken.

 

Archiving the old cache and listing a new cache at the same coordinates and make all visitors come again (and log a find for someone they have already found) when the T-rating increases and repeat this process in the case that the easiest approach can be taken again, seems very absurd to me and is much more annoying than a changed grid entry.

 

It's still the same container, the same hideout and the same mountain one visits - why should one come up with a new listing?

[+dprovan]

You'd rather a cache owner archive a listing and create a new cache just so it doesn't mess with your statistics?

The observation is that the journey is as much a part of the cache as the container and the hide. In particular, a T4.5 cache implies a significant and specific adventure to arrive at GZ. So the question is how can that be the same cache after a road's been put in even if it does have the same container, the same hide, and the same view?

 

And don't make this personal: I could care less what happens to my grid, but I recognize that other people do try to fill theirs in. But even so, I don't object to the owner controlling their terrain rating, I just ask them to consider whether their cache with a high terrain rating is really the same cache if something has changed that requires the terrain rating be lower.

 

But my "more serious" answer would be that I've seen T4.5 used in various ways.

Actually, it seems as if every time I see T4.5, the description either says it was placed specifically for grid filling, or it mentions that the rating should be adjusted, but it won't be because of grid filling. Just to balance my other comments...

[+dprovan]

So suppose that someone has rated a traditional based on the easiest available approach that is also recommended in the cache description and then either temporarily (e.g. due to construction works that take a whole hiking season) or permanently it is not possible to drive to the starting point of the easiest approach and another more difficult approach has to be taken.

I believe I've been quite clear that the CO is free to decide for himself whether or not it's the same cache, so there's not much point is listing examples where most COs would decide it is the same cache.

 

Archiving the old cache and listing a new cache at the same coordinates and make all visitors come again (and log a find for someone they have already found) when the T-rating increases and repeat this process in the case that the easiest approach can be taken again, seems very absurd to me and is much more annoying than a changed grid entry.

I have to admit, I'm always puzzled by this attitude: "...make all visitors come again". If the CO decided to publish a new cache, I would be thrilled for another excuse to take the same journey and be allowed to find the same cache. Assuming that I enjoyed it the first time: I wouldn't care whether there was a new cache at the same spot if I didn't enjoy the journey. Encouraging people to revisit a spot where I placed a cache to encourage people to visit would be a positive point in my mind, although unlikely to be a significant factor in my consideration of republishing or changing.

[cezanne]

I have to admit, I'm always puzzled by this attitude: "...make all visitors come again". If the CO decided to publish a new cache, I would be thrilled for another excuse to take the same journey and be allowed to find the same cache. Assuming that I enjoyed it the first time: I wouldn't care whether there was a new cache at the same spot if I didn't enjoy the journey. Encouraging people to revisit a spot where I placed a cache to encourage people to visit would be a positive point in my mind, although unlikely to be a significant factor in my consideration of republishing or changing.

 

I have visited many caches more than once if I like the location, but logging another found it is something different in particular if one already knows where the cache container is hidden.

Of course one also can log a note and put the cache on one's ignore list (at least PMs can do that), but on many systems it still shows up on maps and so what will happen is that most cachers will return even regardless of whether it was a nice cache or not.

If the story then iterates and the same cache gets relisted three and more times, it gets ridiculous. If a cache owner wants it that way, fine, but requiring that someone is following this practice because a change in the rating might have consquences on the grid of finders does not make sense in my opinion.

[+dprovan]

I have visited many caches more than once if I like the location, but logging another found it is something different in particular if one already knows where the cache container is hidden.

For the same reason I ask whether it's the same cache, I have no problem logging a second find even though some of the components of the original cache, such as the container and the hide, are the same. To be honest, I don't hesitate to log caches a second time when someone recreates a previously archived cache without changing anything at all. This is the other side of the same coin: I accept that the CO has declared it a different cache even though it's identical. It's up to him. (Not that I want anyone to kill caches just to replant them, but the cases I'm thinking of, the originals were naturally archived, then recreated at a later time in the course of hiding new caches. Often the recreations are by a different CO.)

 

If the story then iterates and the same cache gets relisted three and more times, it gets ridiculous.

That's true. Not just ridiculous, but suspicious of being done for the obnoxious reason of allowing multiple finds on the same cache. I wouldn't have any problem with it if it happened in the normal course of events, though, although it's hard to imagine a natural case where the better solution wouldn't be to unarchive a previous version.

[etarace]

I have visited many caches more than once if I like the location, but logging another found it is something different in particular if one already knows where the cache container is hidden.

For the same reason I ask whether it's the same cache, I have no problem logging a second find even though some of the components of the original cache, such as the container and the hide, are the same. To be honest, I don't hesitate to log caches a second time when someone recreates a previously archived cache without changing anything at all. This is the other side of the same coin: I accept that the CO has declared it a different cache even though it's identical. It's up to him. (Not that I want anyone to kill caches just to replant them, but the cases I'm thinking of, the originals were naturally archived, then recreated at a later time in the course of hiding new caches. Often the recreations are by a different CO.)

 

If the story then iterates and the same cache gets relisted three and more times, it gets ridiculous.

That's true. Not just ridiculous, but suspicious of being done for the obnoxious reason of allowing multiple finds on the same cache. I wouldn't have any problem with it if it happened in the normal course of events, though, although it's hard to imagine a natural case where the better solution wouldn't be to unarchive a previous version.

If a new bridge or trailhead or some permanent structure is placed which makes the terrain much "easier" than it could have ever possibly have been, then I think I agree with what you are saying. If the point of the cache was to be a T4 hike, and now you can access it as if it were an evening constitutional, then yes... I think as a CO I would archive that cache. If it is still a beautiful location and a clever hide, I might create a new cache, new listing.

 

In the case of seasonal changes or county workers or any temporary issue, no I would not archive. I wouldn't even change the terrain rating because these are temporary fluctuations which are accounted for in the original rating. Everyone says how they are "not perfect" but that is by design I believe. The lack of precision accounts for seasonal variation in difficulty.

[+J Grouchy]

We have a local sourpuss cache owner that will typically put out VERY difficult caches (high D or T ratings...or both) and then handicap the difficulty down to a 2.5 because he's paranoid about folks "cheating" and giving out hints or answers.

[+NeverSummer]

I'm sorry if I didn't have the patience to read through the four pages so far, but Terrain and Difficulty ratings are made to assist individuals in determining if the cache is right for them, and what may be involved in pursuing the cache. I look at how cachers use them as "trophies" to complete a grid is a side-game, much like the first-to-find craze, or the ranking of finds.

 

If some significant change is made to the surroundings of a cache, and the terrain/difficulty significantly changes, shouldn't the ratings reflect that? If the cache had been a terrain 5 because it was on an island only accessible by boat and the park district made a foot bridge right to the cache, shouldn't the terrain be lowered? Or vice versa - if the bridge that made it a 1 star terrain was washed out and now the cache is only accessible by boat, I don't think anyone would think it proper to leave it as a 1 start terrain simply to help complete a "grid".

This.

 

And for those who lament that a change in D/T affects qualification for a Challenge, realize that it's just a game. If you don't qualify for the Challenge at the time you want to log it, then you don't qualify. Changes happen as conditions change (and no, it's not a "new cache" because the D/T changed. The cache is still where it was hidden, no? That's the cache, and the description of how to find it has changed. That's all.), and that may affect a D/T grid. (Which isn't provided for anything other than to display your stats easily. Its existence isn't an admission by Groundspeak as an infallible announcement of your condition to qualify for anything.)

 

This game is about finding containers at a set of coordinates and logging the find in a logbook and online. That's the only common thread. So, go find another cache to fulfill your need to play a side game or qualify for a Challenge. It's just a game. If you're not having fun, you're playing it wrong.

[+NeverSummer]

 

If a new bridge or trailhead or some permanent structure is placed which makes the terrain much "easier" than it could have ever possibly have been, then I think I agree with what you are saying. If the point of the cache was to be a T4 hike, and now you can access it as if it were an evening constitutional, then yes... I think as a CO I would archive that cache. If it is still a beautiful location and a clever hide, I might create a new cache, new listing.

 

In the case of seasonal changes or county workers or any temporary issue, no I would not archive. I wouldn't even change the terrain rating because these are temporary fluctuations which are accounted for in the original rating. Everyone says how they are "not perfect" but that is by design I believe. The lack of precision accounts for seasonal variation in difficulty.

This is looking at Geocaching backwards. It isn't about designing a cache to "be" anything other than a container in the woods. A cache is the container. The description is where you outline the assumed difficulty and terrain ratings established in discussions long ago in these here forums. The description very well may change, as the conditions around the container change.

 

If an owner decides to hide a cache intentionally to fit a D/T grid spot, then it is up to the owner to accurately describe the cache with the D/T combo. If the conditions change, the owner can choose to either adjust the description to accurately reflect the conditions of the cache (cache permanence, anyone?), or archive it and resubmit (not befitting of cache permanence guidelines, but still allowable under the conditions of cache ownership; being the owner allows you to do what you like within the Groundspeak-established guidelines and general land-related laws.).

 

Anyway, so long as "Liar's Caches" exist, it renders invalid any argument for not changing ratings as to accurately retaining D/T combos. Meaning, need that tough D/T rating for your grid? Ask a friend to hide a liar's cache to fit that 1.5/4.5. Meanwhile, I'd rather find caches that accurately rate the conditions surrounding the hunt and see if I can eventually get a grid completed without stress over a change made for a cache hide's accurate description.

[+Crow-T-Robot]

Anyone who really wants or "needs" a specific D/T combo can place their own cache, rate it however they want and then claim a find on it. I'm sure it's been done before.

[+tozainamboku]

This is looking at Geocaching backwards. It isn't about designing a cache to "be" anything other than a container in the woods. A cache is the container. The description is where you outline the assumed difficulty and terrain ratings established in discussions long ago in these here forums. The description very well may change, as the conditions around the container change.

What motivates some to own a cache is not dictated by the guidlines. If someone wanted to have a 5T cache on an island and the park builds a bridge, than this is no longer the cache the owner wants.

 

It's true that the cache owner shouldn't blow up the bridge to create the cache they want, nor should they have an ALR saying you must use a boat in order to log the find. However the cache owner is free to archive their cache. I contend that this is true even if they haven't met the permanance guideline by being in place for three months. This is a silly guideline anyhow because I've never seen a reveiew unarchive an owner archived cache. The worst I've see is a cache owner who archived the cache and places a new one in the same area where the reviewr would not publsh the new cache. I stongly suspect that the reviewer would be happy to published a 1.5T for the owner who archived their 5 star terrain cache after a bridge was built, even one that uses the same container.

 

Anyway, so long as "Liar's Caches" exist, it renders invalid any argument for not changing ratings as to accurately retaining D/T combos. Meaning, need that tough D/T rating for your grid? Ask a friend to hide a liar's cache to fit that 1.5/4.5. Meanwhile, I'd rather find caches that accurately rate the conditions surrounding the hunt and see if I can eventually get a grid completed without stress over a change made for a cache hide's accurate description.

The problem with all geocaching statistics is that they are based on unverified numbers. Since not all cache owners are willing to check logs, find counts are simply the number of found, attanded, and phote taken logs someone has. Similarly, the D/T grid is simply a value indicating if any of those logs were on a cache that (currently) has that particular D/T rating now. You can imagine the statistics mean something. Mark Twain attributed Disraeli having said: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

[team tisri]

They also show a chart of the distance from home. If that should change (such as I move) shouldn't that data also be preserved, as there are challenges the use that?

 

No, because if you fiddle with your home location for long enough you can take a snapshot of the screen and "qualify" for the cache. Then just claim you moved when you put your actual coordinates back in.

[+NeverSummer]

This is looking at Geocaching backwards. It isn't about designing a cache to "be" anything other than a container in the woods. A cache is the container. The description is where you outline the assumed difficulty and terrain ratings established in discussions long ago in these here forums. The description very well may change, as the conditions around the container change.

What motivates some to own a cache is not dictated by the guidlines. If someone wanted to have a 5T cache on an island and the park builds a bridge, than this is no longer the cache the owner wants.

 

It's true that the cache owner shouldn't blow up the bridge to create the cache they want, nor should they have an ALR saying you must use a boat in order to log the find. However the cache owner is free to archive their cache. I contend that this is true even if they haven't met the permanance guideline by being in place for three months. This is a silly guideline anyhow because I've never seen a reveiew unarchive an owner archived cache. The worst I've see is a cache owner who archived the cache and places a new one in the same area where the reviewr would not publsh the new cache. I stongly suspect that the reviewer would be happy to published a 1.5T for the owner who archived their 5 star terrain cache after a bridge was built, even one that uses the same container.

 

This is a rabbit hole, but I'll follow...

 

So I would agree. Nothing stops an owner from placing that D5 cache. Nothing stops them from archiving when the bridge is put in.

 

But the fact remains that the cache was placed in a location. That location does not change, but perhaps slightly. The way to access the cache changed. The cache description page, including D/T ratings, attributes, short description, long description, hint, photos, etc., can be updated to reflect the changing conditions involved in finding the cache at that location.

 

So, an owner has a few choices, including the update of the cache page to reflect the changed conditions of the search, and also including an option to archive the cache.

 

Now, me being me, I'd hope that the owner would let the cache continue in its place, and update the page to reflect the hide accurately. Archiving a cache simply for a bridge being put in and reducing the D/T combo is sour grapes; it is taking your toys and going home. But if one doesn't update the description to reflect the hide, then it either misleads those who are hunting the cache, or it becomes a lie. Or is it a damned lie? Either way it becomes part of one's statistics. And that's the third lie anyway, right?

 

[+niraD]

If you publish a cache with a certain D/T rating and something changes then you have a different cache

Nonsense. If the park system builds a new road, a new parking lot, and a new trailhead, and therefore my cache is now a 1-mile hike (T2) instead of a 12-mile hike (T4), then I have a different cache only if the point of the cache was the 12-mile hike. If the point of the cache was the scenic view, or the historic location, or the interesting rock formation, or anything else, then it's the same cache.

It's hard for me to imagine a cache requiring a 12 mile hike yet for which the 12 mile hike was irrelevant.

I think the 12-mile hike would definitely be relevant. That's why the terrain rating would reflect the 12-mile hike. And when the 12-mile hike is no longer necessary, then that is also relevant, and the terrain rating would reflect that.

 

But just because it's relevant doesn't mean that it is the point of the cache. The point of the cache could be the view from the top of a peak, or the location where Emmett Brown discovered Unobtanium, or the location where I proposed to Mrs niraD, or a set of veins in a rock face that spell out "TFTC", or a location where the coordinates work out for my pet puzzle, or the first place I found where the rocks are the same color as the camouflage I painted on a Lock&Lock that I carried in my backpack for 5 months until I found this location, or any number of things. No matter how much the terrain rating changes, it may have nothing to do with the reason for the cache.

 

But all the same, I understand that if you felt some need to keep that specific cache active instead of re-releasing the same container and hide as a new cache, then of course you'd have to change the terrain rating regardless of what that does to anyone's grid. In the end, you as the CO get to decide which way to go on that tradeoff.

The purpose of the ratings for difficulty, terrain, and even size is to communicate with those who may seek my cache. If someone wants to use that information for some other purpose--say, to play a side game of some sort--then that's fine. But I won't give that side game more weight than the primary purpose of the ratings.

 

And when you consider that different people play different side games, and that helping those who play one side game can hurt those who play a different side game, and vice versa, then that just reinforces my decision to ignore all the side games and stick to the primary purpose of the ratings.

[+cerberus1]

The purpose of the ratings for difficulty, terrain, and even size is to communicate with those who may seek my cache. If someone wants to use that information for some other purpose--say, to play a side game of some sort--then that's fine. But I won't give that side game more weight than the primary purpose of the ratings.

 

And when you consider that different people play different side games, and that helping those who play one side game can hurt those who play a different side game, and vice versa, then that just reinforces my decision to ignore all the side games and stick to the primary purpose of the ratings.

+1

[team tisri]

The purpose of the ratings for difficulty, terrain, and even size is to communicate with those who may seek my cache. If someone wants to use that information for some other purpose--say, to play a side game of some sort--then that's fine. But I won't give that side game more weight than the primary purpose of the ratings.

 

And when you consider that different people play different side games, and that helping those who play one side game can hurt those who play a different side game, and vice versa, then that just reinforces my decision to ignore all the side games and stick to the primary purpose of the ratings.

 

Well said, too much fussing over the side games will see tail of the side games wagging the dog of the primary game.

[+dprovan]

The purpose of the ratings for difficulty, terrain, and even size is to communicate with those who may seek my cache.

Yes, yes, of course I'm not arguing about whether rating should be accurate. I'm arguing whether it's the same cache. My opinion is that "blah, blah, 12-mile hike" is a different cache than "blah, blah, drive up and park" even if the 12 mile hike wasn't the purpose. But that's because for me caching is mostly about getting there. If the CO feels differently, that's OK, but that doesn't mean I won't question the decision. In particular, I'll ask why "Beautiful View" is so important that they wouldn't want to preserve the memory of its 12-mile hike by archiving it and replacing it with "Beautiful View Drive-Up" with all the same qualities except the rating is different and the description doesn't talk about the 12-mile hike. What is so important about keeping it actually the same cache?