Terrain is relative?

[etarace]

Today I had the opportunity to search for (and find) a puzzle cache located along Catskill trails. I was delighted that this cache brought me to this park, because there are other caches there and I will go back to find them as well, YAY!

 

Anyway, as I was walking to the cache, as a new-bee hider, I thought to myself "how would I rate this terrain?"

 

The majority of the "path" is basically a one-lane truck road. There are some loose large stones in areas, but you could definitely drive down this road (if you could get a vehicle back there).

 

The distance from the parking location and the cache is about 0.9 miles.

 

I believe the elevation change is 900 feet. This is a fairly steady gain, there are not sheer cliffs or anything.

 

The last little bit (less than 0.1 mile) is on a smaller path, though this is still accessible to an ATV - not a deer path, not "bushwhacking" the only possible issue is an overgrowth of ferns, likely due to this being a path less traveled.

 

I decided I would call this terrain a 2 star. I know my grandmother and her youngest great-great-grandchild could go find this cache. Both of them would beat me to it, and neither of them would be winded.

 

Then I thought how I am not quite as fit as a grandmother, and decided to call it 2.5 stars. But that would be my absolute maximum.

 

I checked the description on my gps. It was rated as 3.5 stars for terrain. At first I was incredulous, then I said "it figures."

 

This is definitely the rating that the regular (and/or louder) cachers in my area would give this terrain.

 

I called them babies that cry and went on with my thoughts.

 

I came back to this notion though. Is this the right way to rate terrain?

Around here, if something is rated 1 star, I know for a fact it will be a wheelchair accessible park and grab. There will not be walking for more than 15 feet involved. I don't know why, but that's how the ranking goes 'round these parts. A P&G that isn't wheelchair accessible is a 1.5 star.

 

If you have to transport your body without a car over a quarter of a mile, this will be rated a 2 star. This is even if the distance is entirely on a paved rail-trail that you can ride your amigo cart upon (in other words, one star).

 

If you have to go in the woods, you're probably getting a 3, and if it is over a half mile to the cache or there is a perceptible incline or if you might get your tootsies wet, it will be a 3.5 star for terrain.

 

I know that these ratings are not right. Certain cachers around here will write passive aggressive (up to and including aggressive) comments on cache pages if ratings do not fall within these local guidelines. I know that they are not in line with the Help Center.

But.....

I know what it means. I know what to expect from a # star terrain cache in this area.

 

So, I can almost see both sides of this. I'm sure this little section of Upstate New York is not unique. Do other places have terrain ratings that are relative to the local notions? How do you feel about it? What do you do on your own cache listings?

[+Panther&Pine]

Everywhere has it's own regular ratings, I've cached in Seattle parks with high terrain ratings that I didn't agree with, I've found 1's in Moab that I didn't agree with.

While the clayjar system is meant to help with this not everyone uses it.

[+briansnat]

Even though it shouldn't be, terrain ratings tend to be relative to various areas. Terrain that is usually 2 or 2.5 stars in northern NJ is often 3 - 4 stars when I cache out of state..with the exception of Vermont and parts of NY (Adirondacks) where it seems ratings are more in line with my home area. And when I receive complaints about my terrain ratings being too low it is invariably from an out of stater. I go by the accepted definitions, so I'm not sure what other people are using to arrive at their (sometimes absurd) terrain ratings.

 

Here are the accepted definitions.

 

Terrain rating:

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

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

*** Not suitable for small children. (The average adult or older child should be OK depending on physical condition. Terrain is likely off-trail. May have one or more of the following: some overgrowth, some steep elevation changes, or more than a 2 mile hike.)

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

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

Edited August 22, 2014 by briansnat

[+Touchstone]

900 feet in 0.9 miles? I did a run from the summit of Bald Mountain, Georgia down an incline dubbed "Blue Hell" which lost 1,400 feet in 1.5 miles. I was hanging on to trees on some parts of that section. I would have definitely rated it a 3.5 Terrain

[+wmpastor]

900 feet in 0.9 miles? I did a run from the summit of Bald Mountain, Georgia down an incline dubbed "Blue Hell" which lost 1,400 feet in 1.5 miles. I was hanging on to trees on some parts of that section. I would have definitely rated it a 3.5 Terrain

2.0 IF that gravel road had been level. But a 900 foot elevation change?! 3.5.

[+narcissa]

Terrain and difficult are always subjective.

[+Walts Hunting]

Straying from the guidelines on Terrain is common in 4 wheel areas. They tend to rate the terrain on how difficult it is in a 4 wheel vehicle and even what type you need to get there when requiring 4 wheel drive should be t5. Once you catch on everything works out.

[+Crow-T-Robot]

It sounds as if you have a beef with your caching community rather than terrain ratings. Rate your cache accurately and let the locals howl if they disagree.

 

I think where the issue gets muddy is when you apply the term "rated for the average cacher". Ok, so you place a cache more than a mile away along a fairly steep terrain trail in the Catskills. The average person who caches around the Catskills, this might be a 2.5 star terrain. An average cacher visiting from Wisconsin would probably consider it a four star terrain. Meanwhile, a four star terrain trail in Wisconsin would probably get laughed at by someone from the Catskills.

[+narcissa]

Straying from the guidelines on Terrain is common in 4 wheel areas. They tend to rate the terrain on how difficult it is in a 4 wheel vehicle and even what type you need to get there when requiring 4 wheel drive should be t5. Once you catch on everything works out.

 

What guidelines?

[+Team Pixos]

When I was relatively healthy and in good shape, terrain ratings meant nothing to me. Now after serious health compromising issues I weigh the terrain on every cache I attempt very carefully. It's essential to my continued life.

 

A couple days ago one string of caches all rated 1.5 equated to some extremely steep hills to climb, to flat walk-ins a wheelchair could do, to heavy bush whacking. I will agree it's all subjective.

 

Way back when (before illness) Hawaii one stars would have equaled a 4.5 at home.

[+niraD]

I checked the description on my gps. It was rated as 3.5 stars for terrain. At first I was incredulous, then I said "it figures."

Well, the description for D3 is "Not suitable for small children", and there are people around here who think that a short walk down the street to the neighborhood school/park is "Not suitable for small children", so...

[+DanOCan]

I checked the description on my gps. It was rated as 3.5 stars for terrain. At first I was incredulous, then I said "it figures."

Well, the description for D3 is "Not suitable for small children", and there are people around here who think that a short walk down the street to the neighborhood school/park is "Not suitable for small children", so...

I think the descriptions of the Terrain ratings are for more useful than anything.

 

I remember finding a cache next to a roadway that had a Terrain of 3. I mentioned in my log that I thought it was highly overrated because it was most certainly accessible by children. The CO wrote me back and stated that because of the "steep incline" it was most certainly a T3. While the incline was most certainly steep (say 45 degrees) it was only about 3 feet high!

 

If I see a T3, I expect a hike of some length, likely a fair amount of elevation, and perhaps some exposure -- not walking 10' off a paved roadway up a short embankment. I certainly understand why terrain is relative based on local areas but I don't think it should really vary that much.

[+Walts Hunting]

Straying from the guidelines on Terrain is common in 4 wheel areas. They tend to rate the terrain on how difficult it is in a 4 wheel vehicle and even what type you need to get there when requiring 4 wheel drive should be t5. Once you catch on everything works out.

 

What guidelines?

There are a set of guidelines generally followed put out by Markwell but I don't know the link to his site. It is often used.

 

There is also a set you can go to in the middle of doing up a cache websheet that gives guidance.

 

The one I do know is that special equipment is T5 i.e. boat, jeep, etc. and on the other end T1 is wheelchair accessible.

[+narcissa]

Straying from the guidelines on Terrain is common in 4 wheel areas. They tend to rate the terrain on how difficult it is in a 4 wheel vehicle and even what type you need to get there when requiring 4 wheel drive should be t5. Once you catch on everything works out.

 

What guidelines?

There are a set of guidelines generally followed put out by Markwell but I don't know the link to his site. It is often used.

 

There is also a set you can go to in the middle of doing up a cache websheet that gives guidance.

 

The one I do know is that special equipment is T5 i.e. boat, jeep, etc. and on the other end T1 is wheelchair accessible.

 

You should be careful about conflating the actual cache placement guidelines with optional methods of determining ratings.

[team tisri]

The distance from the parking location and the cache is about 0.9 miles.

 

I believe the elevation change is 900 feet. This is a fairly steady gain, there are not sheer cliffs or anything.

 

900 feet elevation change in 4500 feet (0.9 miles) is a 20% gradient. That's a pretty steep path. I don't know I'd rate it T3.5 but I can see why people would shift it higher than 2.

 

I'd expect anything rated T1 to be accessible by a wheelchair user, or someone pushing a baby in a regular buggy, or similar. So if it's high off the ground, or involves more than a very short walk along gravel or a short walk along tarmac I'd expect it to be higher than T1. If it's 20 feet from the parking but there's a guard rail in the way I'd still reckon on T1.5, simply because someone unable to step over the guard rail may be unable to reach the cache.

 

I've seen one cache that was rated T4 on the basis it was "relative to other local caches". The cache required a hike of about 2 miles, taking in about 1000 feet of elevation gain. A couple of parts of it were pretty steep but T4 seems excessive to me. The most over-rated cache I ever found was rated T3.5 although the journey was pretty strenuous. I had to park the car, I then had to actually get out of the car and walk a full 50 feet or so to find the cache at the foot of a tree. The 50-foot walk was mostly flat but it was on earth. Earth, I tell you. There might have been, you know, stuff on the earth.

[+NeverSummer]

At first I was incredulous, then I said "it figures."

 

<snip>

 

I called them babies that cry and went on with my thoughts.

Anyone else slightly hung up on these tidbits?

 

I'd have to say the attitude displayed with comments (even if in your own head) tell quite a bit about the situation. I have little sympathy for this kind of issue.

 

When I used the ClayJar system to rate what you've described, I came up with 2/3 (D.T). So I can't say I'm surprised if it were rated a 3.5T if, perhaps, the grass and veg grow up during some times of the year, or if the cache were placed in the winter when getting there might be more difficult.

 

Forgive me, but "Incredulous"? Please. "Babies that cry"? Best keep that to yourself.

[+DanOCan]

900 feet elevation change in 4500 feet (0.9 miles) is a 20% gradient. That's a pretty steep path. I don't know I'd rate it T3.5 but I can see why people would shift it higher than 2.

 

I'd expect anything rated T1 to be accessible by a wheelchair user, or someone pushing a baby in a regular buggy, or similar. So if it's high off the ground, or involves more than a very short walk along gravel or a short walk along tarmac I'd expect it to be higher than T1. If it's 20 feet from the parking but there's a guard rail in the way I'd still reckon on T1.5, simply because someone unable to step over the guard rail may be unable to reach the cache.

 

I've seen one cache that was rated T4 on the basis it was "relative to other local caches". The cache required a hike of about 2 miles, taking in about 1000 feet of elevation gain. A couple of parts of it were pretty steep but T4 seems excessive to me. The most over-rated cache I ever found was rated T3.5 although the journey was pretty strenuous. I had to park the car, I then had to actually get out of the car and walk a full 50 feet or so to find the cache at the foot of a tree. The 50-foot walk was mostly flat but it was on earth. Earth, I tell you. There might have been, you know, stuff on the earth.

I agree with your comments.

 

My most overrated cache was just last weekend. A T3 that was in a parking lot. No climbing needed, you could park right next to it. It should have actually been a T1 as there were no obstacles of any sort in the way.

[+wmpastor]

At first I was incredulous, then I said "it figures."

 

<snip>

 

I called them babies that cry and went on with my thoughts.

Anyone else slightly hung up on these tidbits?

 

I'd have to say the attitude displayed with comments (even if in your own head) tell quite a bit about the situation. I have little sympathy for this kind of issue.

 

When I used the ClayJar system to rate what you've described, I came up with 2/3 (D.T). So I can't say I'm surprised if it were rated a 3.5T if, perhaps, the grass and veg grow up during some times of the year, or if the cache were placed in the winter when getting there might be more difficult.

 

Forgive me, but "Incredulous"? Please. "Babies that cry"? Best keep that to yourself.

 

Totally agree. An honest disagreement and debate about geocaching opinions is fine - even a vigorous debate. But there are unfortunately bad vibes in that geocaching community.

 

...the regular (and/or louder) cachers...

 

Some geocachers are essentially being called loud-mouthed, opinionated, cry-baby wimps (even the grandmother and her greatgranddaughter can climb that hill, after all). And those critical words may (or may not) be 100% correct. But the bad vibes in the community are unfortunate.

Edited August 22, 2014 by wmpastor

[etarace]

It sounds as if you have a beef with your caching community rather than terrain ratings. Rate your cache accurately and let the locals howl if they disagree.

 

I think where the issue gets muddy is when you apply the term "rated for the average cacher". Ok, so you place a cache more than a mile away along a fairly steep terrain trail in the Catskills. The average person who caches around the Catskills, this might be a 2.5 star terrain. An average cacher visiting from Wisconsin would probably consider it a four star terrain. Meanwhile, a four star terrain trail in Wisconsin would probably get laughed at by someone from the Catskills.

A few of you have called me out for being a jerk inside my head... and I am, but I'm sorry for exposing you to it. I won't edit it out, because that would be dishonest.

I don't have a "beef" with my local community. I have issues with The Loud Minority making the rules and proclaiming what "everybody" wants - be it in geocaching, or elementary school recess, or whatever.

 

The problem with rating my own caches accurately would be two-fold. First (most importantly) people have probably grown accustomed to Local Relative Terrain Ratings. If I place a cache and call it a 2.5 there might be some people who approach this cache thinking "sure, I can handle an unpaved 1/4 mile trail on level ground." Second the Loud Minority would rant, if I do anything other than thanking them for pointing out my error and changing it to Local Relative Terrain Rating, it makes them ...louder. (I've seen this on cache pages, it's not pretty.)

And, as much as it has been established that I am a jerk, I really don't wish bad things for people, and I really don't want to get other people in a tizzy even if I did call them mean names in this thread.

 

So, on topic, it seems that everyone does agree that terrain ratings are local. Do you personally follow the Local Relative Terrain Ratings on your caches or not?

[+NeverSummer]

So, on topic, it seems that everyone does agree that terrain ratings are local. Do you personally follow the Local Relative Terrain Ratings on your caches or not?

No. I use the listed guidelines, and check them against a ClayJar entry. Generally, that keeps it all pretty consistent.

 

Again, I ran what you stated through ClayJar, and it came in 2/3 D/T. Doesn't sound like a 3.5T instead of a 3 is anything to worry about.

 

Personally, I'm not a fan of "local ratings". This is a global game, and we were given guidelines and a great tool (designed by conversations on the forums, and developed by ClayJar for use) to help keep things more or less consistent across borders. As an example, some will visit Alaska and find a D2T2 cache that requires a slog and scramble up a steep hill for not more than a few hundred feet. Now, to me, if I have to scramble--or I imagine someone less fit than I having to scramble--I think it deserves more than a 2* T rating. But people argue in AK that this "is just how it is...we're used to this kind of thing, and flatlander tourists aren't..."

 

I think that attitude is unkind, and generally sets a bad tone for how we should consider and treat other cachers...let alone other people. I like to leave it to the tool of the ClayJar page to guide my ratings; it takes the subjective nature of the ratings and smooths out the wrinkles better than someone who thinks "overrated" caches are from "babies who cry".

[+wmpastor]

So terrain ratings ideally are universal, not local, & I would think that universal ratings are determined by "average" abilities - neither those of a sedentary person or one with limited mobility, nor those of a fitness guru who bikes 35 miles 3 times a week.

 

In this case, it would seem a T 3.0 might be a reasonable compromise, & since some see it as maybe a 3.5, and others as maybe a 2.5, then the smal gap between either number and 3.0 would be within a normal margin of error and acceptable to all reasonable members of the local community.

[+BAMBOOZLE]

I also vote for about a 3.5.

I think local terrain has a lot to do with it....in mountainous areas like Austria or the U.S. Rockies caches rated 1 1/2 or 2 would be much higher in south LA.,......I get a kick out of it sometime, I tell my wife "remember, this is only 1/2 star over wheelchair."

[etarace]

So, on topic, it seems that everyone does agree that terrain ratings are local. Do you personally follow the Local Relative Terrain Ratings on your caches or not?

No. I use the listed guidelines, and check them against a ClayJar entry. Generally, that keeps it all pretty consistent.

 

Again, I ran what you stated through ClayJar, and it came in 2/3 D/T. Doesn't sound like a 3.5T instead of a 3 is anything to worry about.

 

Personally, I'm not a fan of "local ratings". This is a global game, and we were given guidelines and a great tool (designed by conversations on the forums, and developed by ClayJar for use) to help keep things more or less consistent across borders. As an example, some will visit Alaska and find a D2T2 cache that requires a slog and scramble up a steep hill for not more than a few hundred feet. Now, to me, if I have to scramble--or I imagine someone less fit than I having to scramble--I think it deserves more than a 2* T rating. But people argue in AK that this "is just how it is...we're used to this kind of thing, and flatlander tourists aren't..."

 

I think that attitude is unkind, and generally sets a bad tone for how we should consider and treat other cachers...let alone other people. I like to leave it to the tool of the ClayJar page to guide my ratings; it takes the subjective nature of the ratings and smooths out the wrinkles better than someone who thinks "overrated" caches are from "babies who cry".

 

Thanks for answering my question, even if still pointing out how much of a jerk I am. It was not at all the CO who was the baby by the way... he rated the cache according to local terms. I don't fault him for that.

I lived in Alaska for ten years and still consider their attitude of "this is how (whatever) here, and you don't understand" to be rude and bizarre.

 

I wasn't asking you to rate this particular cache by the way, and I said nothing about the difficulty rating. It just happened to be an recent example.

[+nosynellies]

A few of you have called me out for being a jerk inside my head... and I am, but I'm sorry for exposing you to it. I won't edit it out, because that would be dishonest.

I don't have a "beef" with my local community. I have issues with The Loud Minority making the rules and proclaiming what "everybody" wants - be it in geocaching, or elementary school recess, or whatever.

 

The problem with rating my own caches accurately would be two-fold. First (most importantly) people have probably grown accustomed to Local Relative Terrain Ratings. If I place a cache and call it a 2.5 there might be some people who approach this cache thinking "sure, I can handle an unpaved 1/4 mile trail on level ground." Second the Loud Minority would rant, if I do anything other than thanking them for pointing out my error and changing it to Local Relative Terrain Rating, it makes them ...louder. (I've seen this on cache pages, it's not pretty.)

And, as much as it has been established that I am a jerk, I really don't wish bad things for people, and I really don't want to get other people in a tizzy even if I did call them mean names in this thread.

For someone who claims to be quite content saying things the way you see them regardless of their "meanness", you sure seem to worry an awful lot about what your community might say.

I would list according to the guidelines and in the description say that is how you rated it even though your local community seems a little tougher and would consider it lower. We all enjoy a good natured ribbing, right? I would just be sure not to include the crybaby comments.

[etarace]

So terrain ratings ideally are universal, not local, & I would think that universal ratings are determined by "average" abilities - neither those of a sedentary person or one with limited mobility, nor those of a fitness guru who bikes 35 miles 3 times a week.

 

In this case, it would seem a T 3.0 might be a reasonable compromise, & since some see it as maybe a 3.5, and others as maybe a 2.5, then the smal gap between either number and 3.0 would be within a normal margin of error and acceptable to all reasonable members of the local community.

I agree completely with your first statement.

 

The second part needs to be looked at though, since it is only a five point scale. It fairly contradicts your first statement.

What if I go hide a cache in the same park, one mile further out than the existing one. The terrain remains the same, but it is a longer hike. I don't have any problem taking a 4 year old to the original cache - nice walk, nothing so steep they can't get up on their own. The second cache is now a 4 mile round trip hike. I wouldn't take small children. I would rate this a 3 - 3.5 ... but if the original cache is ALREADY a 3.5 in "reasonable" minds, and this new one is definitely in a different category, then it would have to be rated 4 or higher. Which isn't in line with the guidelines, or ClayJar.

I'm not trying to be unreasonable, I'm just trying to be rational.

[team tisri]

So terrain ratings ideally are universal, not local, & I would think that universal ratings are determined by "average" abilities - neither those of a sedentary person or one with limited mobility, nor those of a fitness guru who bikes 35 miles 3 times a week.

 

In this case, it would seem a T 3.0 might be a reasonable compromise, & since some see it as maybe a 3.5, and others as maybe a 2.5, then the smal gap between either number and 3.0 would be within a normal margin of error and acceptable to all reasonable members of the local community.

 

The thing with the Clayjar system that people have mentioned is that it doesn't relate to the abilities of the cacher, only the terrain.

 

For many wheelchair users I'd imagine that a cache at the end of a mile-long flat gravel path might as well be on the moon. For an ultramarathon runner the cache that's 25 miles from the nearest parking might be a fairly easy daytrip. The fitness of the person seeking doesn't come into it, the terrain just tells you what sort of journey it's going to be. From there you can decide for yourself whether you're capable of getting to the cache and, if so, how much time to allocate it.

 

Personally, as an able-bodied cacher who is reasonably fit, I'd expect to be able to get to anything rated up to T4 without excessive exertion as long as it didn't involve too much climbing (in the sense of climbing trees or cliff faces). If it involves a 20 mile hike that's fine, if it involves steep gradients that's fine, if it involves using ropes and other climbing gear I'll pass it by. Others can set their own thresholds based on their abilities and confidence.

 

In many ways the handicaching system of some years ago (don't know if it's even still running) was very good, in that it gave more detailed figures for caches so that people who are less than fully able-bodied could compare their own limitations to the requirements to get to the cache. So if you're someone who can walk all day but can't bend down to ground level you might visit a cache that involves a 5-mile walk but is at chest height in a tree while ignoring a cache that's a park-and-grab but at the foot of a tree.

[+wmpastor]

So terrain ratings ideally are universal, not local, & I would think that universal ratings are determined by "average" abilities - neither those of a sedentary person or one with limited mobility, nor those of a fitness guru who bikes 35 miles 3 times a week.

 

In this case, it would seem a T 3.0 might be a reasonable compromise, & since some see it as maybe a 3.5, and others as maybe a 2.5, then the smal gap between either number and 3.0 would be within a normal margin of error and acceptable to all reasonable members of the local community.

I agree completely with your first statement.

 

The second part needs to be looked at though, since it is only a five point scale. It fairly contradicts your first statement.

What if I go hide a cache in the same park, one mile further out than the existing one. The terrain remains the same, but it is a longer hike. I don't have any problem taking a 4 year old to the original cache - nice walk, nothing so steep they can't get up on their own. The second cache is now a 4 mile round trip hike. I wouldn't take small children. I would rate this a 3 - 3.5 ... but if the original cache is ALREADY a 3.5 in "reasonable" minds, and this new one is definitely in a different category, then it would have to be rated 4 or higher. Which isn't in line with the guidelines, or ClayJar.

I'm not trying to be unreasonable, I'm just trying to be rational.

Yes, there an art to it, & experience finding caches helps. It's not an exact science. Judgments must be made. And yet the system works pretty well. Virtually all the caches I've found have been rated the same as I would rate them, within 0.5 points. Maybe 2% differed by 1.0. I don't recall any greater variation.

 

On a very few caches I read the slightest hint of a polite question about the rating in people's logs. Fortunately there's none of the sharp criticism that the OP says some of the cachers in that community often have.

 

Good point on the cache under discussion. That's why I was convinced earlier to back off my initial impression of 3.5. Of course actually seeing and walking the terrain makes evaluation easier.

 

Edit to add: 3.0. That's my final answer! I looked at the guidelines again. Sure, some children probably *can* do this cache. However, the change in elevation is considerable. That's a big factor in distinguishing a 2.0 from a 3.0.

 

The OP didn't ask us to rate the cache -but people seemed to have fun doing that!

Edited August 23, 2014 by wmpastor

[+wmpastor]

Can I revise slightly?

 

We've got two 1,000 mts. nearby so I understand the 900 feet in the example given. There's elevation and then there's elevation. Kudos to anyone who climbs 900 feet without getting winded. 3.0 or 3.5. Anything else is incorrect, IMHO. End of story!

[+L0ne.R]

So, on topic, it seems that everyone does agree that terrain ratings are local. Do you personally follow the Local Relative Terrain Ratings on your caches or not?

No. I use the listed guidelines, and check them against a ClayJar entry. Generally, that keeps it all pretty consistent.

 

+1

[+BAMBOOZLE]

So, on topic, it seems that everyone does agree that terrain ratings are local. Do you personally follow the Local Relative Terrain Ratings on your caches or not?

No. I use the listed guidelines, and check them against a ClayJar entry. Generally, that keeps it all pretty consistent.

 

Again, I ran what you stated through ClayJar, and it came in 2/3 D/T. Doesn't sound like a 3.5T instead of a 3 is anything to worry about.

 

 

I'm not sure about ClayJar ratings.....he's a friend but I happen to know he finds a lot of them using a Jet Ski or sometimes a helicopter.

[+dprovan]

The way I see it, the terrain ratings have a local bias, but that's because people are seeking consistency while ignoring the official ratings because they are no longer as useful as they should be. The official ratings were devised when caching was almost exclusively an addition to hiking, so the ratings spread caches out based on the length of the hike.

 

Nowadays, a vast majority of caches don't involve a hike, so almost all of them would be officially rated T1.5 or less. That makes the terrain rating useless. Instead of going that way, I've noticed a tendency to use the terrain rating to reflect unusual terrain challenges which, admittedly, are laughable when compared to 5 miles, but are still useful to flag. In the case you cite, the cache isn't right next to the trail but, from the sounds of it, involves a somewhat rustic side trail. I think the CO took the T2 of the hike itself, and then bumped it a little -- perhaps too much -- as a way of alerting the seeker that there's more involved than a simple 2 mile hike. I use that kind of rating all the time to alert me that I shouldn't doggedly follow the main trail expecting it to take me to the cache. Another "standard" I've seen is that T3.5 or more means, "Yes, you do have to climb that tree (or rock or whatever)" even though the actual challenge isn't really that great.

 

I mean, come on, if all the caches of the type you described were rating no more than T2, then only .01% of caches would ever be rated more than T2. We might as well do away with the terrain rating entirely if it can't be used to express variations in the typical cache population of today.

[+Ambrosia]

So terrain ratings ideally are universal, not local, & I would think that universal ratings are determined by "average" abilities - neither those of a sedentary person or one with limited mobility, nor those of a fitness guru who bikes 35 miles 3 times a week.

 

In this case, it would seem a T 3.0 might be a reasonable compromise, & since some see it as maybe a 3.5, and others as maybe a 2.5, then the smal gap between either number and 3.0 would be within a normal margin of error and acceptable to all reasonable members of the local community.

I agree completely with your first statement.

 

The second part needs to be looked at though, since it is only a five point scale. It fairly contradicts your first statement.

What if I go hide a cache in the same park, one mile further out than the existing one. The terrain remains the same, but it is a longer hike. I don't have any problem taking a 4 year old to the original cache - nice walk, nothing so steep they can't get up on their own. The second cache is now a 4 mile round trip hike. I wouldn't take small children. I would rate this a 3 - 3.5 ... but if the original cache is ALREADY a 3.5 in "reasonable" minds, and this new one is definitely in a different category, then it would have to be rated 4 or higher. Which isn't in line with the guidelines, or ClayJar.

I'm not trying to be unreasonable, I'm just trying to be rational.

See, that's still relative. My first cache placement is a 4-5 mile hike (although not much elevation change). We took our 5 and 8 year old kids on it, not a problem at all. Our description says, "A great walk to take the family on, in fact we went with Water Lily and Kboy, who are both under ten years old. It took us about 2 hours." I rated that one a 2 star for terrain.

[+NeverSummer]

So, on topic, it seems that everyone does agree that terrain ratings are local. Do you personally follow the Local Relative Terrain Ratings on your caches or not?

No. I use the listed guidelines, and check them against a ClayJar entry. Generally, that keeps it all pretty consistent.

 

Again, I ran what you stated through ClayJar, and it came in 2/3 D/T. Doesn't sound like a 3.5T instead of a 3 is anything to worry about.

 

 

I'm not sure about ClayJar ratings.....he's a friend but I happen to know he finds a lot of them using a Jet Ski or sometimes a helicopter.

Well, this is where the ClayJar system comes in as a baseline. As stated above, the terrain is rated on a scale that was collated from community feedback to make it consistent.

 

I can hike up to about a 4* without much concern, but my nearly 70-year-old parents cannot. That doesn't change that it is a 4* based on the ClayJar. If one chooses to jet ski instead of swim, or waits until the lake freezes and walks across, that doesn't render the rating inaccurate, does it? No. It's simply a consistent way to rate a cache which can be used by an increasingly diverse group of users with varying abilities and means for travel.

 

The way I see it, the terrain ratings have a local bias, but that's because people are seeking consistency while ignoring the official ratings because they are no longer as useful as they should be. The official ratings were devised when caching was almost exclusively an addition to hiking, so the ratings spread caches out based on the length of the hike.

 

Nowadays, a vast majority of caches don't involve a hike, so almost all of them would be officially rated T1.5 or less. That makes the terrain rating useless. Instead of going that way, I've noticed a tendency to use the terrain rating to reflect unusual terrain challenges which, admittedly, are laughable when compared to 5 miles, but are still useful to flag. In the case you cite, the cache isn't right next to the trail but, from the sounds of it, involves a somewhat rustic side trail. <snip>

Are you sure about that bolded part? Conversations were had about vehicles and "special tools". `

 

The Clayjar rules in length of "hike". A "walk" is still a "hike" in the basic sense of a "hike" being a walk that you don't intend to take to get to the grocery store (or some lame example like that). I digress... Back to the points well taken in regard to this issue...

 

So, in regard to someone else's point about "5 levels" of terrain rating, the terrain rating system has 9 levels. The 5 main levels are more clear-cut in the guidelines, and widely supported by use of the ClayJar system. What comes in with the other 4 levels is what we can call "wiggle room". A cache where you walk a level ground from a parking lot to a lamp post 3 miles away is still a 3-mile hike (if that's the only way to access the cache). Rate that cache accordingly, not a "1.5 because it's just level ground...")

 

I think the CO took the T2 of the hike itself, and then bumped it a little -- perhaps too much -- as a way of alerting the seeker that there's more involved than a simple 2 mile hike. I use that kind of rating all the time to alert me that I shouldn't doggedly follow the main trail expecting it to take me to the cache. Another "standard" I've seen is that T3.5 or more means, "Yes, you do have to climb that tree (or rock or whatever)" even though the actual challenge isn't really that great.

 

I mean, come on, if all the caches of the type you described were rating no more than T2, then only .01% of caches would ever be rated more than T2. We might as well do away with the terrain rating entirely if it can't be used to express variations in the typical cache population of today.

This is a good point. So, even if the hike to the cache is easy, a terrain rating (even within the ClayJar rating system) includes things like bushwhacking or the like. So if I hike a level path for 100 yards from parking, but then have to dive into chest-high grass for 10 feet to get to a cache, then the terrain should more accurately reflect the worst terrain you'll encounter; it's a hint about where the cache is located--be it in a briar patch, a tree, or 1 foot from the path under a rock.

[+NeverSummer]

So, on topic, it seems that everyone does agree that terrain ratings are local. Do you personally follow the Local Relative Terrain Ratings on your caches or not?

No. I use the listed guidelines, and check them against a ClayJar entry. Generally, that keeps it all pretty consistent.

 

Again, I ran what you stated through ClayJar, and it came in 2/3 D/T. Doesn't sound like a 3.5T instead of a 3 is anything to worry about.

 

Personally, I'm not a fan of "local ratings". This is a global game, and we were given guidelines and a great tool (designed by conversations on the forums, and developed by ClayJar for use) to help keep things more or less consistent across borders. As an example, some will visit Alaska and find a D2T2 cache that requires a slog and scramble up a steep hill for not more than a few hundred feet. Now, to me, if I have to scramble--or I imagine someone less fit than I having to scramble--I think it deserves more than a 2* T rating. But people argue in AK that this "is just how it is...we're used to this kind of thing, and flatlander tourists aren't..."

 

I think that attitude is unkind, and generally sets a bad tone for how we should consider and treat other cachers...let alone other people. I like to leave it to the tool of the ClayJar page to guide my ratings; it takes the subjective nature of the ratings and smooths out the wrinkles better than someone who thinks "overrated" caches are from "babies who cry".

 

Thanks for answering my question, even if still pointing out how much of a jerk I am. It was not at all the CO who was the baby by the way... he rated the cache according to local terms. I don't fault him for that.

I lived in Alaska for ten years and still consider their attitude of "this is how (whatever) here, and you don't understand" to be rude and bizarre.

 

I wasn't asking you to rate this particular cache by the way, and I said nothing about the difficulty rating. It just happened to be an recent example.

You didn't ask, I know. But I used the ClayJar system to rate an example you gave where you thought it was rated improperly. It seems like it wasn't all that inaccurate.

 

As for "pointing out how much of a jerk [you] are", I'm only trying to help you understand the community aspect of this game. It takes all types, and accepts all types. Being diplomatic and still following guidelines can sometimes seem to end up in conflict. However, in this case, it seems like you've painted a picture of an accurately-rated geocache, and your consternation with that rating because of how you feel people "over rate" or are "babies that cry".

 

Again, as in my first post, you might want to avoid that attitude (in public), and not post such things if you don't want to be taken as rude or as a jerk.

 

So, as we say, back to the topic at hand. The guidelines are there, and there is an endorsed system to help rate caches consistently. If you use those tools, and apply some consistency within your own rating according to those guidelines and the endorsed system, you'll be in great shape. In fact, when this game was played by far fewer people, it was them that batted around the details of how to rate caches with care, and the guidelines we have today are a direct adaptation of that still-readable thread on the forums. Those people were visionary, yet they didn't consider that this game would explode to this many diverse users who would start to adopt their own, "local" ratings for caches. The idea behind the guidelines and the ClayJar system was to have consistency between caches, across borders, and through time. Apparently that much has been lost in the watered-down pool that is our vast and expanding membership.

[+wmpastor]

So terrain ratings ideally are universal, not local, & I would think that universal ratings are determined by "average" abilities - neither those of a sedentary person or one with limited mobility, nor those of a fitness guru who bikes 35 miles 3 times a week.

 

In this case, it would seem a T 3.0 might be a reasonable compromise, & since some see it as maybe a 3.5, and others as maybe a 2.5, then the smal gap between either number and 3.0 would be within a normal margin of error and acceptable to all reasonable members of the local community.

I agree completely with your first statement.

 

The second part needs to be looked at though, since it is only a five point scale. It fairly contradicts your first statement.

What if I go hide a cache in the same park, one mile further out than the existing one. The terrain remains the same, but it is a longer hike. I don't have any problem taking a 4 year old to the original cache - nice walk, nothing so steep they can't get up on their own. The second cache is now a 4 mile round trip hike. I wouldn't take small children. I would rate this a 3 - 3.5 ... but if the original cache is ALREADY a 3.5 in "reasonable" minds, and this new one is definitely in a different category, then it would have to be rated 4 or higher. Which isn't in line with the guidelines, or ClayJar.

I'm not trying to be unreasonable, I'm just trying to be rational.

See, that's still relative. My first cache placement is a 4-5 mile hike (although not much elevation change). We took our 5 and 8 year old kids on it, not a problem at all. Our description says, "A great walk to take the family on, in fact we went with Water Lily and Kboy, who are both under ten years old. It took us about 2 hours." I rated that one a 2 star for terrain.

The goal is to *approach* uniformity so travelers know what to expect.

 

Anyone who uses a fitness monitor (Polar, Fitbit, etc.) sees an objective measure of the exertion and effort put out during an activity. Changes in altitude *hugely* affect the required effort of a hike. A 900+ foot change in elevation *greatly* increases the difficulty of the moderate hike of the cache in question. Not opinion - measureable fact. Changing the incline on a treadmill can quickly demonstrate this in a subjective way even without the fitness monitor.

[team tisri]

So terrain ratings ideally are universal, not local, & I would think that universal ratings are determined by "average" abilities - neither those of a sedentary person or one with limited mobility, nor those of a fitness guru who bikes 35 miles 3 times a week.

 

In this case, it would seem a T 3.0 might be a reasonable compromise, & since some see it as maybe a 3.5, and others as maybe a 2.5, then the smal gap between either number and 3.0 would be within a normal margin of error and acceptable to all reasonable members of the local community.

I agree completely with your first statement.

 

The second part needs to be looked at though, since it is only a five point scale. It fairly contradicts your first statement.

What if I go hide a cache in the same park, one mile further out than the existing one. The terrain remains the same, but it is a longer hike. I don't have any problem taking a 4 year old to the original cache - nice walk, nothing so steep they can't get up on their own. The second cache is now a 4 mile round trip hike. I wouldn't take small children. I would rate this a 3 - 3.5 ... but if the original cache is ALREADY a 3.5 in "reasonable" minds, and this new one is definitely in a different category, then it would have to be rated 4 or higher. Which isn't in line with the guidelines, or ClayJar.

I'm not trying to be unreasonable, I'm just trying to be rational.

See, that's still relative. My first cache placement is a 4-5 mile hike (although not much elevation change). We took our 5 and 8 year old kids on it, not a problem at all. Our description says, "A great walk to take the family on, in fact we went with Water Lily and Kboy, who are both under ten years old. It took us about 2 hours." I rated that one a 2 star for terrain.

 

... which is, IMO, a perfect way to qualify the terrain rating with some words that describe what to expect.

 

The problem someone listed earlier about just about everything being T1.5 because there's no significant walk to get to them is all well and good but if there's endless distinction between accessing GZ in a variety of ways that an able-bodied cacher would consider trivial, the price would be a lack of distinction between caches at the high end of the terrain scale.

 

The old handicaching site seemed a great way of helping those who aren't fully able-bodied to determine whether they were likely to be able to physically access the cache based on whatever limitations they faced, while the terrain rating provides a quick overview of what sort of thing is likely to be faced. As always, if people aren't sure whether the terrain rating represents something they are able to do or willing to attempt, they can read the words to get a better indication.