Reviewers Reviewing D/T?

1.1k · November 19, 2014

Great thread. Seeing "cheese in a maze" was enough for me to think Keystone bailed at the right time. :laughing:

3.1k · November 19, 2014

So tell me one thing: Do you manage to get a D=1* or D=1.5* rating for a simple multi cache with 2 stages (one virtual and one physical and both in plain sight)? By answering "multi leg" yes, you get D=3*.

What I do is setting D to a lower value than 3* manually by using the descriptions of the D-levels. The tool produces garbage when truthfully answering the questions.

Cezanne

Fundamentals of the game. The easiest option in this game is a Traditional, hidden in plain sight at the provided coordinates, that requires little distance to travel and little-to-no barrier to travel.

You add difficulty automatically for the other, non-traditional geocaches. Next easiest is probably a 1 stop (2-leg) multi. Final container in plain sight. Middle stop has a container or tag in plain sight, and does not require calculations. Cache in this "next-least difficult" option requires one to navigate from starting coordinates to another spot to obtain final coordinates. That process is fundamentally more difficult than the previous example. Early on, that difference between the two was determined to factor in as a step increase in rated difficulty (D3).

Now, wiggle room is allowable, so an accurately rated 2-leg multi would be rated from 2.5-3.5 difficulty, based on other factors such as weather, time, or mental effort. One could certainly rate a 2-leg multi as a D2, and I'd agree that this rating would be a more modern approach. Yet, no multi would be rated less than 2-2.5 because of the added "difficulty" of having the cache not be at the primary, listed coordinates.

6.8k · November 19, 2014

Yet, no multi would be rated less than 2-2.5 because of the added "difficulty" of having the cache not be at the primary, listed coordinates.

But if you do that you would belong to a very small minority in those countries where multi caches are nothing uncommon. In some cities the percentage of traditionals is considerably below 50% - the majority are other cache types.

Moreover, as I mentioned before some people stated in this thread that for them the D-rating applies only to the time/effort required at GZ and they thus would have to rate every multi cache with virtual stages as D=1* if the cache is in plain sight.

6.8k · November 19, 2014

By the way this is a very recent D=3* event cache

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC5EP2V_z-wieza-sie-zmierz-vi-schodzimy-do-podziemia

and I do think that D=3* is ok (and no it is not about a maze and cheese .......).

And another one with D=2.5* (this time from the US) which is a maker madness like event

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC5FXPP_the-12-13-14-days-of-christmas

Edited November 19, 2014 by cezanne

1.1k · November 19, 2014

By the way this is a very recent D=3* event cache

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC5EP2V_z-wieza-sie-zmierz-vi-schodzimy-do-podziemia

and I do think that D=3* is ok (and no it is not about a maze and cheese .......).

And another one with D=2.5* (this time from the US) which is a maker madness like event

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC5FXPP_the-12-13-14-days-of-christmas

I would rate D1, but from the Help Center..."you alone are the best judge for rating your geocache".

3k · November 20, 2014

Moreover, as I mentioned before some people stated in this thread that for them the D-rating applies only to the time/effort required at GZ and they thus would have to rate every multi cache with virtual stages as D=1* if the cache is in plain sight.

I think Difficulty includes the time spent on the cache. For a Traditional that is simply the time searching at the posted coords. For a Puzzle that is also the time spent solving the puzzle. For a multi-stage cache I would say your time spent is from the moment you start searching for the first stage until you find the final stage. So even if every individual stage of a Multi is a D1 (plain sight), but the cache should typically take more than an hour to complete I would rate it around a D3 (somewhere it is suggested that one potential criteria for D3 is 'takes more than an hour').

2.7k · November 20, 2014

The first example (based on Google Translate's poor job) may be in a tower or in a tunnel and involves playing some type of game? I find it difficult to attempt a critique of the ratings for that event.

On the second event ( the make a Christmas ornament event) the Difficulty can be no more than 1. What is done as an activity during the event has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the difficulty rating of the event itself.

15.3k · November 20, 2014

That said, if people keep DNFing a cache because they can't find parking or a trailhead the CO really should add one.

Maybe. Maybe not.

I've found caches where much of the challenge and much of the purpose of the cache was for seekers to find a safe and legal route to the cache. Parking or trailhead waypoints could be considered spoilers for caches like that.

On the issue of ratings in general, I think many of the examples in this thread could use a third rating for the "twist" that challenges the seeker in ways that don't really fit the normal concepts of "difficulty" and "terrain".

So an event in the center of the corn maze could have a difficulty rating based on the challenge of finding the group of people once you're at the right coordinates (probably pretty easy), a terrain rating based on the challenge of the walk from the nearest parking, and a "twist" rating based on the challenge of figuring out the maze itself. For a cache that is trivial to spot (D1) but hard to open/retrieve/replace, the "twist" rating could reflect the challenge of opening/retrieving/replacing the cache. For challenge caches, the "twist" rating could reflect the challenge of the ALR challenge, leaving difficulty and terrain to reflect the actual container and location of the cache. For puzzle caches, the "twist" rating could reflect the challenge of the puzzle. And so on.

2.6k · November 20, 2014

I think the D/T discussion (including the maze) comes down to two different approaches to "D".

1. "D" is only about the difficulty once you reach GZ.

2. "D" is about anything which makes the task of finding the cache more difficult which does not relate to the physical aspects (which are already covered by "T").

Both are valid.

I prefer the second one.

I think it comes down to how you view "T". It is logical that "D" should be the "opposite" of T. So if you see "T" as about the journey, then "D" is about GZ only. If you see "T" as about the physical aspects, then anything which is more mental than physical becomes "D"

Note that for puzzles and challenges most people already take the second approach.

For multis, with option 1, "GZ" refers to the total difficulty considering the number of stages and difficulty at GZ for each of the stages.

6.8k · November 20, 2014

On the second event ( the make a Christmas ornament event) the Difficulty can be no more than 1. What is done as an activity during the event has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the difficulty rating of the event itself.

For me it has to some extent as I do not feel comfortable with attending an event against its intention. So it would mean for me an obligation to take along tools, materials and to take part in the activity during the event. I'm aware that one can log an attended log without having met these requirements, but for me caching and attending events is not about writing logs to end up with smilies.

As I neither enjoy such maker type things nor do I have talent for such things, I never ever would attend such an event. I would regard it as extremely lame to attend and not to take part and just sit around and talk to people about other things.

It does not fit the T-rating topic, but I'd like to point out that in my opinion it was a very unfortunate decision of Groundspeak that they changed the event guidelines in such a way that activities like paddling, going up a mountain etc cannot any longer be the event itself and can only enforced by choosing a meeting point which requires prior paddling, hiking etc.

This kind of trick only works for some type of activities.

Somehow the overall message is "An event is nothing else than just showing up for 1 second. Everything else is voluntary and not really part of the event". For me a clear case where I prefer the old geocaching world to the new one.

Edited November 20, 2014 by cezanne

4.6k · November 20, 2014

Somehow the overall message is "An event is nothing else than just showing up for 1 second. Everything else is voluntary and not really part of the event". For me a clear case where I prefer the old geocaching world to the new one.

This is certainly the impression I got after being forced against my will to take an event to appeals in a failed attempt to get answers to some basic questions.

And to this day I've never had answers to those questions.

6.8k · November 20, 2014

I think the D/T discussion (including the maze) comes down to two different approaches to "D".

I agree.

For multis, with option 1, "GZ" refers to the total difficulty considering the number of stages and difficulty at GZ for each of the stages.

It is not as simple as that as for example in picture searching multi caches (I used those two examples intentionally) there are no stages in the traditional sense. You have to

search for the photos along the whole route. Some might refer to such tasks as fields puzzle, but they are typically not regarded as such in the areas where such caches are popular.

You either could refer to the whole walk (which may 2km or more) as GZ or end up with just refering to the final location as GZ and then you end up with the problem that the difficulty of

obtaining the coordinates gets ignored.

Summing up I think that the GZ version cannot be applied to all caches even when one excludes puzzle caches in advance.

3.1k · November 20, 2014

For multis, with option 1, "GZ" refers to the total difficulty considering the number of stages and difficulty at GZ for each of the stages.

It is not as simple as that as for example in picture searching multi caches (I used those two examples intentionally) there are no stages in the traditional sense. You have to search for the photos along the whole route. Some might refer to such tasks as fields puzzle, but they are typically not regarded as such in the areas where such caches are popular. You either could refer to the whole walk (which may 2km or more) as GZ or end up with just refering to the final location as GZ and then you end up with the problem that the difficulty of obtaining the coordinates gets ignored.

Summing up I think that the GZ version cannot be applied to all caches even when one excludes puzzle caches in advance.

If I was creating a picture-searching multi-cache, then my terrain rating would reflect the adversity of the walk (e.g., distance, elevation changes, bushwhacking). And my difficulty rating would reflect how hard the clues are (e.g., are they obvious landmarks?, is only a small detail shown?, are the objects far away?), since that effort is needed to determine the location of the final coordinates.

BTW: I found one of these types of caches a couple months ago, and the owner opted to classify it as an Unknown cache with a Field Puzzle attribute. Different regions may view this issue differently.

6.8k · November 20, 2014

If I was creating a picture-searching multi-cache, then my terrain rating would reflect the adversity of the walk (e.g., distance, elevation changes, bushwhacking). And my difficulty rating would reflect how hard the clues are (e.g., are they obvious landmarks?, is only a small detail shown?, are the objects far away?), since that effort is needed to determine the location of the final coordinates.

Yes, that's done around here too and it seems reasonable to me and I would apply this strategy also if I owned such a cache. My point was just that the GZ statements made in this thread with regard to measuring difficulty do not really fit for such caches.

BTW: I found one of these types of caches a couple months ago, and the owner opted to classify it as an Unknown cache with a Field Puzzle attribute. Different regions may view this issue differently.

Yes, there are significant regional differences - in some areas even caches where one has to make calculations like 2*A+3*B are classified as mystery caches (unthinkable in my country - too many would object and complain). Around here the picture hunting ones that are classified as unknown are those where there is no route given and the pictures could be anywhere in often quite a large area.

6.1k · November 20, 2014

That said, if people keep DNFing a cache because they can't find parking or a trailhead the CO really should add one.
Maybe. Maybe not.

I've found caches where much of the challenge and much of the purpose of the cache was for seekers to find a safe and legal route to the cache. Parking or trailhead waypoints could be considered spoilers for caches like that.

In the earliest days of geocaching, that was considered part of the challenge. This is why there are a number of older cache pages with an entire paragraph in the hint field describing where to park and which trail to use. Sometime later difficulty was considered to describe the search at GZ, not getting there. Since that is the current use, I cannot imagine any event that should be listed with a difficulty higher than 1. Assigning different levels just because you can is silly.

Edited November 20, 2014 by 4wheelin_fool

6.1k · November 20, 2014

I am actually struggling with one of my submissions but on an event, not a geocache. Apparently my reviewer knows better than me and is insisting I change my 3/3 event to a 1-1.5 / 1-1.5. Not even considering publication unless I change it. While I know I can change it after the fact, I don't play those shenanigans so am trying to work it from the front. Apparently an event on a January 29th northern MN day, with an average temp of 0F and plenty of snow on the ground should be a 1 or 1.5, but the same reviewer publishes his own cito event, outside of the winter season in the metro area as a 2/2. Shrug.

It's a 1/1 if it's wheelchair accessible and indoors, despite how cold it is and the amount of snow is on the ground. If it's outside perhaps its a 1/2, depending on the terrain. On the other hand a CITO conceivably might have a difficulty rating of 2, but I doubt it.

Any event with a high difficulty rating should not be published. I mean, c'mon. You arrive at the restaurant, they ignore you and serve cold food while sneering? If it's a 5 does that mean you are likely to be kicked out? :huh:

3.1k · November 20, 2014

I think the D/T discussion (including the maze) comes down to two different approaches to "D".

1. "D" is only about the difficulty once you reach GZ.

2. "D" is about anything which makes the task of finding the cache more difficult which does not relate to the physical aspects (which are already covered by "T").

Both are valid.

I prefer the second one.

I think it comes down to how you view "T". It is logical that "D" should be the "opposite" of T. So if you see "T" as about the journey, then "D" is about GZ only. If you see "T" as about the physical aspects, then anything which is more mental than physical becomes "D"

Note that for puzzles and challenges most people already take the second approach.

For multis, with option 1, "GZ" refers to the total difficulty considering the number of stages and difficulty at GZ for each of the stages.

I'd agree. But again, as we talk about the example of having an event where the actual event occurs at the center of a maze, the fact remains that one knows where to be and when. It isn't difficult.

The difference is between the fact that an event is specific about time and location, and you won't need to search very hard to find that group of geocachers gathering together. But, with a case where a cache would be at the middle of a maze, you would need to factor in that the maze gets in your way (T), but may also make it more difficult or time consuming to find the container (D). When you get to the middle, you must still find the container and sign the log. That can be difficult because of the muggles or the hide itself (add some to the D, then).

But, again, you don't have time constraints on the physical cache; you have to spend X amount of time from start to finding it in the maze. With the event, you know you need to plan ahead to get there at the designated timeframe. You know that going in, and it's no different than planning on leaving the house a tad early to make it to church on time. It is a subtle, but key difference when rating a physical cache and a similarly traveled-to event.

6.8k · November 20, 2014

But again, as we talk about the example of having an event where the actual event occurs at the center of a maze, the fact remains that one knows where to be and when. It isn't difficult.

When the cache is hidden at a given spot inside the maze, it's the same difficulty to navigate there than for the event. The additional effort for searching a container (or just a piece of information in case of a virtual stage) is something separate.

The difference is between the fact that an event is specific about time and location, and you won't need to search very hard to find that group of geocachers gathering together.

So does a difficult night cache deserve a lower terrain rating as one could arrive at the first day in the evening and for sure will be able to join a group?

I'm rating the difficulties of tasks and not how easy it might be to accomplish something by just following someone else solving the task.

The maze example was just one example. You could also take the example with a tricky key box which needs to be opened in order to get the key for opening the event room.

If I understand you correctly you are working with the following two basic assumptions.

(1) The rating for an event should rate the difficulty of obtaining an attended log.

(2) Any sort of group efforts is fine and whenever someone ends up with a problem there is someone who shows up and offers help.

Under these assumptions it is indeed hard to come up with event scenarios with a higher D-rating, but then our disagreement comes from the fact that I

do not regard these assumptions as valid.

I know that CITOs are a topic of their own, but I could imagine very unpleasant locations to have a CITO where D=1* would be an affront from my point of view. However if for you attending an event

is just showing up, this changes of course the situation considerably. Even for physical caches I try to avoid logging found it logs for caches where I signed the log book, but did the cache in a different way than intended (e.g. when I do a MTB cache on foot and the cache owner asks the finders to come by MTB).

The biggest issue I have with a general rule that all events should be rated D=1 is that I believe that this even strengthens the trend to regard events as

something which are about saying hi, leaving and logging attended it.

Edited November 20, 2014 by cezanne

3.1k · November 20, 2014

But again, as we talk about the example of having an event where the actual event occurs at the center of a maze, the fact remains that one knows where to be and when. It isn't difficult.

When the cache is hidden at a given spot inside the maze, it's the same difficulty to navigate there than for the event. The additional effort for searching a container (or just a piece of information in case of a virtual stage) is something separate.

No, not it's not. The "finding" of an event, or attending an event, is all about being there. If you know you need to be there at noon, you are there at noon. It isn't hard to find. If something gets in your way like a mountain or a maze, that's related to terrain for events, not difficulty. It isn't harder to find the event because of the terrain. That's why we have 2 rating metrics, and not 1.

Now, for a physical cache, it can be harder to find it because of a puzzle-like physical barrier. But perhaps what is nuanced enough to me is reason enough for you to continue to stand off on it: There are physical barriers, and there are mental barriers. For caches it means it takes more time (I can't cache and dash, e.g.), but for events it just means something physical gets in the way (I need to remember to leave early since there's traffic...or there's a mountain to climb, or there's a maze I need to get to the center of).

The difference is between the fact that an event is specific about time and location, and you won't need to search very hard to find that group of geocachers gathering together.

So does a difficult night cache deserve a lower terrain rating as one could arrive at the first day in the evening and for sure will be able to join a group?

I'm rating the difficulties of tasks and not how easy it might be to accomplish something by just following someone else solving the task.

What? No! I don't really understand what you're saying to make a really good response here, or to answer your question. We're talking apples and oranges here. You're talking about a physical cache here, and we're trying to discuss an event cache.

The maze example was just one example. You could also take the example with a tricky key box which needs to be opened in order to get the key for opening the event room.

Wow! Creative idea! I'd be interested to see how that works in real life.

So, riddle me this: if someone can't get the tricky key box open, and knocks on the door to ask to be let in so they don't miss the event, do you refuse?

If I understand you correctly you are working with the following two basic assumptions.

(1) The rating for an event should rate the difficulty of obtaining an attended log.

(2) Any sort of group efforts is fine and whenever someone ends up with a problem there is someone who shows up and offers help.

No, not really. #1, perhaps, but it isn't that simple. #2 is something I don't really understand what you're trying to say, so clearly not something I'm assuming.

Under these assumptions it is indeed hard to come up with event scenarios with a higher D-rating, but then our disagreement comes from the fact that I do not regard these assumptions as valid.

I know that CITOs are a topic of their own, but I could imagine very unpleasant locations to have a CITO where D=1* would be an affront from my point of view. However if for you attending an event

is just showing up, this changes of course the situation considerably. Even for physical caches I try to avoid logging found it logs for caches where I signed the log book, but did the cache in a different way than intended (e.g. when I do a MTB cache on foot and the cache owner asks the finders to come by MTB).

I'll stop right there. We're trying to discuss consistency here. Consistent rating of caches for all. So as soon as you cast off your preferences and assumptions, we can start to find common ground.

Just because you think picking up tires versus cigarette butts is "an affront" to a D1 rating doesn't mean that it is really that hard to show for that CITO. Do my wimpy muscles earn me a higher difficulty rating? What about if I have a disability where I can't lift a tire, but I do end up trashing out other paper trash and other light items? Participation in a CITO is a D1. The terrain may be steep, may be roadside with no barriers, etc. That's a T rating, not D.

The biggest issue I have with a general rule that all events should be rated D=1 is that I believe that this even strengthens the trend to regard events as
something which are about saying hi, leaving and logging attended it.

That's not the rating's fault. That's the organizer's "fault. But, it is their listing, not yours. You can push your personal preferences on them (as I would; I agree that such events would be "lame".), but that doesn't change the guidelines.

Just as with other conversations you and I have had and disagreed within, it is because you are imparting your personal preferences and biases on general guidelines. Unfortunately, the conversation needs to be had within the construct of the game guidelines we are all supposed to work within. You did check the box, right?

So, what I'm saying is, that according to the guidelines for events, combined with the guidelines and knowledge books for events, and also combined with tools and the relevant historic context of how the ratings were developed, one should really think about how we're rating events.

If someone can help me understand where the non-biased, non-personal preferred ratings would change the idea that events should be D1, I'm all ears. But insofar as you, cezanne, are talking about your firm stance founded in personal preference, I'm having a hard time being convinced that how I'm interpreting the guidelines and history are leaving room for an event to be rated as "more difficult" to attend...that is, unless one starts the conversation about "not opening the door when someone knocks without the key", or "didn't go through the maze like I asked them to", or "didn't ride the train for 3 hours like I preferred them to", etc.

Edited November 20, 2014 by NeverSummer

6.8k · November 20, 2014

The biggest issue I have with a general rule that all events should be rated D=1 is that I believe that this even strengthens the trend to regard events as
something which are about saying hi, leaving and logging attended it.

That's not the rating's fault. That's the organizer's "fault. But, it is their listing, not yours. You can push your personal preferences on them (as I would; I agree that such events would be "lame".), but that doesn't change the guidelines.

Are you serious? It's the organizer's fault? I do not refer to flash mobs where the intent of the organizers is that people stay only for a short moment and do not care about what the event

is about. Most organizers of events that go beyond meet and greets in a restaurant or bar that I know of are frustrated by the way Groundspeak has changed its stance over the years.

I do not know a single organizer of a hiking event, paddle event, train riding event etc that is happy with the fact that there needs to be a chance for those to write attended logs who do not take part in the real activity. More and more event organizers of non 0815 events end up seriously frustrated.

A train riding event is about riding a train together and not about saying hi at the train station. A hiking event is about hiking together and not meeting in a restaurant and eating food together.

All these additions that have been added over the time "fixed location" (non moving), start and end time etc, they all led to a serious restriction of those events that seemed to meet the spirit of geocaching events and not eating events the best. The new insisting on D=1 fits well in this picture.

So, what I'm saying is, that according to the guidelines for events, combined with the guidelines and knowledge books for events, and also combined with tools and the relevant historic context of how the ratings were developed, one should really think about how we're rating events.

Groundspeak apparently has only very recently decided that events should be rated with D=1. It's Groundspeak site, but I do have the right to regard their decisions as wrong. Events move more and more in the wrong direction and that's mainly Groundspeak's fault by allowing it and even encouraging it.

.that is, unless one starts the conversation about "not opening the door when someone knocks without the key", or "didn't go through the maze like I asked them to", or "didn't ride the train for 3 hours like I preferred them to", etc.

Not helping out is the only valid thing for me when it comes to rate how difficult a task is. Some of my caches are very hard for most cachers, but if I help them, they get easy.

Edited November 20, 2014 by cezanne

3.1k · November 20, 2014

The biggest issue I have with a general rule that all events should be rated D=1 is that I believe that this even strengthens the trend to regard events as
something which are about saying hi, leaving and logging attended it.

That's not the rating's fault. That's the organizer's "fault. But, it is their listing, not yours. You can push your personal preferences on them (as I would; I agree that such events would be "lame".), but that doesn't change the guidelines.

Are you serious? It's the organizer's fault? I do not refer to flash mobs where the intent of the organizers is that people stay only for a short moment and do not care about what the event

is about. Most organizers of events that go beyond meet and greets in a restaurant or bar that I know of are frustrated by the way Groundspeak has changed its stance over the years.

Well,when you put it that way, no. But it really is up to the event organizer to handle their listing--including how it is organized. But, according to the guidelines, there is no reason why an "attendee" can't just show up, say "Hi", and leave. So I let it go, no matter my preference.

If you want to foster the idea that events are better when people don't just come, say "Hi", and leave, then it is up to you--it's up to the cache owner--to create an event that encourages more participation. But, you can't lead a horse to water...yadda yadda...

I do not know a single organizer of a hiking event, paddle event, train riding event etc that is happy with the fact that there needs to be a chance for those to write attended logs who do not take part in the real activity. More and more event organizers of non 0815 events end up seriously frustrated.

A train riding event is about riding a train together and not about saying hi at the train station. A hiking event is about hiking together and not meeting in a restaurant and eating food together.

All these additions that have been added over the time "fixed location" (non moving), start and end time etc, they all led to a serious restriction of those events that seemed to meet the spirit of geocaching events and not eating events the best. The new insisting on D=1 fits well in this picture.

Again, as I said at the end of my last post, then we're really talking about the conversation you said we don't need to talk about: deletion or denial of an "attended" log because someone couldn't or didn't participate in the way you, the listing owner, intended.

So, would you deny an "attended" for someone if they came to the train station, but couldn't ride? Unlikely. And for those who wouldn't ride, they likely wouldn't even bother with coming anyway, am I right?

So, what I'm saying is, that according to the guidelines for events, combined with the guidelines and knowledge books for events, and also combined with tools and the relevant historic context of how the ratings were developed, one should really think about how we're rating events.

Groundspeak apparently has only very recently decided that events should be rated with D=1. It's Groundspeak site, but I do have the right to regard their decisions as wrong. Events move more and more in the wrong direction and that's mainly Groundspeak's fault by allowing it and even encouraging it.

I don't really know if that's true. But, based on the discussions (current and historic), it would appear that events should be rated D1, yes.

.that is, unless one starts the conversation about "not opening the door when someone knocks without the key", or "didn't go through the maze like I asked them to", or "didn't ride the train for 3 hours like I preferred them to", etc.

Not helping out is the only valid thing for me when it comes to rate how difficult a task is. Some of my caches are very hard for most cachers, but if I help them, they get easy.

We're not talking about physical geocaches in this part of the discussion, cezanne.

I don't rate my difficult puzzle caches lower because I'm willing to help someone. But if I have an event, I'm not going to deny help or an "attended" log to someone who couldn't navigate the maze and instead met us with help from someone else. If someone comes to the event at the designated spot and time, they get the smiley--not difficult at all. But navigating traffic, finding a parking spot, hiking to the mountaintop, and navigating the maze are things that I need to plan for terrain barriers.

1.2k · November 20, 2014

This is really entertaining. You guys need to get a show on cable.

1.1k · November 20, 2014

Having followed this thread, I now completely understand why GS feels compelled to step in and take a stand on event D rating.

6.8k · November 20, 2014

Well,when you put it that way, no. But it really is up to the event organizer to handle their listing--including how it is organized.

It would be fine if that were possible and not constantly changing Groundspeak policies interfered.

None of the events that I participated in and particularly enjoyed would be published right now in the same form.

If you want to foster the idea that events are better when people don't just come, say "Hi", and leave, then it is up to you--it's up to the cache owner--to create an event that encourages more participation. But, you can't lead a horse to water...yadda yadda...

The issue is that Groundspeak makes it more and more difficult to come up with such events and makes it more and more easy to come and just say "Hi ....".

If someone wants to organize an event in a hut on a mountain summit and if the hike to the summit is not part of the event, that's perfectly fine.

The same is true for an event that takes part on an island.

What I do not like is that one cannot any longer have events where the event is the hike, the paddle tour etc

There is no freedom to choose for the organizers.

So, would you deny an "attended" for someone if they came to the train station, but couldn't ride? Unlikely. And for those who wouldn't ride, they likely wouldn't even bother with coming anyway, am I right?

Based on the current guidelines noone could deny such logs anyway.

I would however choose the D-rating and a lot of other things with having those in mind that take part.

As your question is regarded, yes, there are people who come and do not take part in the activity, be it a train ride, a skating event or whatever. If it's a day where souvenirs are awarded

then the number of such visitors can even be larger than the number of regular visitors.

I don't really know if that's true. But, based on the discussions (current and historic), it would appear that events should be rated D1, yes.

Given all the many events worldwide with a D-rating higher than 1 and also the fact that Keystone wrote GS HQ recently asked the reviewers to keep an eye on the D-ratings of events,

what I wrote appears to be true. Since events are nothing new and have taken place for more than a decade, I find it quite weird that they start with this now and I cannot help feeling that

at least to some part the changed attitude towards events and that being there for a few seconds suffices plays a role in the changes going on.

I don't rate my difficult puzzle caches lower because I'm willing to help someone. But if I have an event, I'm not going to deny help or an "attended" log to someone who couldn't navigate the maze and instead met us with help from someone else.

That seems inconsistent to me (not that you offer help). Difficulty stays difficulty in my eyes.

Cezanne

1.1k · November 20, 2014

I cannot help feeling that

at least to some part the changed attitude towards events and that being there for a few seconds suffices plays a role in the changes going on.

I just cannot accept that cachers who would have historically stayed for a extended period of time at an event are now just stopping in to say hello because they can. I do not believe they were historically required to stay for an extended period of time. I do not believe they participated in activities because they felt obligated. I do, however, believe that many cachers see events as "got my smiley" opportunities just like how they see caches. This is more a reflection of evolving caching culture than GS event crack-down.

6.8k · November 20, 2014

I cannot help feeling that

at least to some part the changed attitude towards events and that being there for a few seconds suffices plays a role in the changes going on.

I just cannot accept that cachers who would have historically stayed for a extended period of time at an event are now just stopping in to say hello because they can. I do not believe they were historically required to stay for an extended period of time.

If you refer to events in restaurants I guess there never has been a way to have such a requirement except that of course it could happen that someone popped in when noone was there any longer as it was not required to announce end times for the event.

The kind of events I have in mind are of the type that the event group was moving. You were somehow forced to be there and take part in the activity. The hike started and it could happen that spontaneously during the hike the route was adapted, or a decision made to have a break at restaurant A etc

You could not just come at an arbitrary time and join the group and leave then soon.

Moreover, the guidelines back then did not stress that it suffices to simply show up. So noone would have dared to just show up at the train station in case of a train ride and then log an attended log.

While the guidelines never mentioned event log books, I do know that event log books have been quite popular in some areas for many years and have provided a further way to come up with barriers for those not taking part in the intended manner.

I'm unhappy not only with the D-rating aspect for events, it also concerns to some extent the T-rating.

Let's consider e.g. an urban ice skating event (such events exist - I did not make them up). There is no trick to enforce that the visitors really participate in ice skating if one cannot use a log book. For those who just come to the ice skating area and collect outside of the area, it's certainly a T=1* (1.5* at most) and then one might argue that any higher terrain rating is wrong as T=1 suffices for ending up with an attended log. I participated at one such event and after having not used skates for 3 decades, it was a serious physical and mental challenge for me to take part in the intended manner. I had lived through many hours of doubt whether I should dare to attend that event at all (in the real sense and not just being there physically) and it was a huge fight with myself between yes and no. The kind of logic that what counts is the difficulty to obtain an attended log is what annoys me. From that point of view such an event is of course a 1/1 event, but's that so far from what the event is really about.

I do not believe they participated in activities because they felt obligated. I do, however, believe that many cachers see events as "got my smiley" opportunities just like how they see caches. This is more a reflection of evolving caching culture than GS event crack-down.

Certainly this plays a role also, but I still think that GS is to be blamed for the larger part of the problem. It hardly happens nowadays that event organizers do not have to revise something in their cache writeup against their will if it is not a 0815 event if they get the event published at all.

6.8k · November 20, 2014

I cannot help feeling that

at least to some part the changed attitude towards events and that being there for a few seconds suffices plays a role in the changes going on.

I just cannot accept that cachers who would have historically stayed for a extended period of time at an event are now just stopping in to say hello because they can. I do not believe they were historically required to stay for an extended period of time.

If you refer to events in restaurants I guess there never has been a way to have such a requirement except that of course it could happen that someone popped in when noone was there any longer as it was not required to announce end times for the event.

The kind of events I have in mind are of the type that the event group was moving. You were somehow forced to be there and take part in the activity. The hike started and it could happen that spontaneously during the hike the route was adapted, or a decision made to have a break at restaurant A etc

You could not just come at an arbitrary time and join the group and leave then soon.

Moreover, the guidelines back then did not stress that it suffices to simply show up. So noone would have dared to just show up at the train station in case of a train ride and then log an attended log.

While the guidelines never mentioned event log books, I do know that event log books have been quite popular in some areas for many years and have provided a further way to come up with barriers for those not taking part in the intended manner.

Without log books there is no way to enforce a certain way of attending which is something I can live with. But is it really necessary that the reviewers insist for a train riding event that

the description contains a statement like "Those who do not want to take part in the train ride can show up at the train station during the period 10:00-10:15 and log the event as attended"?

Do we really need to encourage such visits?

I'm unhappy not only with the D-rating aspect for events, it also concerns to some extent the T-rating.

Let's consider e.g. an urban ice skating event (such events exist - I did not make them up). There is no trick to enforce that the visitors really participate in ice skating if one cannot use a log book. For those who just come to the ice skating area and collect outside of the area, it's certainly a T=1* (1.5* at most) and then one might argue that any higher terrain rating is wrong as T=1 suffices for ending up with an attended log. I participated at one such event and after having not used skates for 3 decades, it was a serious physical and mental challenge for me to take part in the intended manner. I had lived through many hours of doubt whether I should dare to attend that event at all (in the real sense and not just being there physically) and it was a huge fight with myself between yes and no. The kind of logic that what counts is the difficulty to obtain an attended log is what annoys me. From that point of view such an event is of course a 1/1 event, but's that so far from what the event is really about.

I do not believe they participated in activities because they felt obligated. I do, however, believe that many cachers see events as "got my smiley" opportunities just like how they see caches. This is more a reflection of evolving caching culture than GS event crack-down.

Certainly this plays a role also, but I still think that GS is to be blamed for the larger part of the problem. It hardly happens nowadays that event organizers do not have to revise something in their cache writeup against their will if it is not a 0815 event if they get the event published at all.

1.1k · November 20, 2014

The kind of events I have in mind are of the type that the event group was moving. You were somehow forced to be there and take part in the activity. The hike started and it could happen that spontaneously during the hike the route was adapted, or a decision made to have a break at restaurant A etc

You could not just come at an arbitrary time and join the group and leave then soon.

Why can that event not happen today?

6.8k · November 20, 2014

The kind of events I have in mind are of the type that the event group was moving. You were somehow forced to be there and take part in the activity. The hike started and it could happen that spontaneously during the hike the route was adapted, or a decision made to have a break at restaurant A etc

You could not just come at an arbitrary time and join the group and leave then soon.

Why can that event not happen today?

Because events in this form do not get published any longer. Now they require that events have to take part at a fixed location which is announced in advance (header coordinates of the cache) and moreover need to have a fixed start and end time. This also ruined real hiking, paddling etc events but for those at least often some workarounds are possible which are better than nothing

(like declaring the event to be just the time spend on an island and the paddle tour is then just one way of getting to the event location).

So more and more possibilities to have events with a different activity than sitting around at a fixed location get eliminated. The activities get degraded to something which has to take place before or after the official event (if at all).

3.1k · November 20, 2014

The kind of events I have in mind are of the type that the event group was moving. You were somehow forced to be there and take part in the activity. The hike started and it could happen that spontaneously during the hike the route was adapted, or a decision made to have a break at restaurant A etc

You could not just come at an arbitrary time and join the group and leave then soon.

Why can that event not happen today?

It can, and does.

What of the person, cezanne, that calls their buddy to say, "Hey, we took a detour--you coming? Meet us at the coffee shop instead of the bakery..." Does that latecomer not attend the event,even if they missed the kick-off? I'd certainly let them log as attended. Not hard, and they can catch up.

'Round and 'round we go... We can go through every single hypothetical you can come up with, cezanne. That's fine. It's like a juried review process instead of the standard Volunteer Reviewer process. What fun!

1.3k · November 20, 2014

I've never understood how an regular event can't be anything but a 1 difficulty. Even it's on top of Mount Everest, it's still a 1 difficulty but would be a 5 for the terrain. Or 500 feet in the ocean in scuba, it's still a 1 difficulty.

Have you ever NOT been able to find an event once you reach ground zero?????

I attended a campout event that was held in the Adirondack wildness in February. The event started at midnight. Getting there on snowshoes after a several mile hike was the terrain rating, but being able to endure an Adirondack winter night outdoors was the difficulty, so I think that that event earned a difficulty rating above 1 star.

Disagree. That would be a difficulty of 1, and would warrant a high terrain... Being able to withstand weather elements has nothing to do with the difficulty. You found the event with no problem. Not that it really matters though....

But I do think with terrain 1's, that has to be vigorously protected. Could even put Groundspeak in trouble with the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) if it is not enforced.

6.8k · November 20, 2014

The kind of events I have in mind are of the type that the event group was moving. You were somehow forced to be there and take part in the activity. The hike started and it could happen that spontaneously during the hike the route was adapted, or a decision made to have a break at restaurant A etc

You could not just come at an arbitrary time and join the group and leave then soon.

Why can that event not happen today?

It can, and does.

What of the person, cezanne, that calls their buddy to say, "Hey, we took a detour--you coming? Meet us at the coffee shop instead of the bakery..." Does that latecomer not attend the event,even if they missed the kick-off? I'd certainly let them log as attended. Not hard, and they can catch up.

You talk about something completely different. Events of the type I described above do not get published any longer. Of course back then someone could have called a buddy and they could have logged an attended log though it never happened at any event I have heard about. If such events still got published, it might happen that such things would happen occasionally, but still less frequently than if they are encouraged by the system. Why do you think that for examples they changed the guidelines to enforce end times for events?

'Round and 'round we go... We can go through every single hypothetical you can come up with, cezanne. That's fine. It's like a juried review process instead of the standard Volunteer Reviewer process. What fun!

I do not wish to have a stricter review process for events, but rather the converse. I prefer the flexibility of the old days. So why do you blame me with things like a juried review process?

Cezanne

Edited November 20, 2014 by cezanne

1.1k · November 20, 2014

Because events in this form do not get published any longer. Now they require that events have to take part at a fixed location which is announced in advance (header coordinates of the cache) and moreover need to have a fixed start and end time. This also ruined real hiking, paddling etc events but for those at least often some workarounds are possible which are better than nothing

(like declaring the event to be just the time spend on an island and the paddle tour is then just one way of getting to the event location).

So more and more possibilities to have events with a different activity than sitting around at a fixed location get eliminated. The activities get degraded to something which has to take place before or after the official event (if at all).

Have a fixed start and stop (maybe half hour) as the meet-up. Put in the description that the hike will begin thereafter. There is always a way, Cezanne. I would really enjoy the event as you describe. All too often, it is geocaching after the event. I really do not enjoy group geocaching. My brain struggles between talking and finding. I end up talking mostly and I think the others get annoyed.

4.6k · November 20, 2014

Because events in this form do not get published any longer. Now they require that events have to take part at a fixed location which is announced in advance (header coordinates of the cache) and moreover need to have a fixed start and end time. This also ruined real hiking, paddling etc events but for those at least often some workarounds are possible which are better than nothing

(like declaring the event to be just the time spend on an island and the paddle tour is then just one way of getting to the event location).

So more and more possibilities to have events with a different activity than sitting around at a fixed location get eliminated. The activities get degraded to something which has to take place before or after the official event (if at all).

Have a fixed start and stop (maybe half hour) as the meet-up. Put in the description that the hike will begin thereafter. There is always a way, Cezanne. I would really enjoy the event as you describe. All too often, it is geocaching after the event. I really do not enjoy group geocaching. My brain struggles between talking and finding. I end up talking mostly and I think the others get annoyed.

As much as I'm reaching the point of removing this thread from my watch list because of the sheer volume of emails falling into my inbox - and the fact I think the original topic has been utterly lost in the furore - and even for me it's reaching TLDR status, I too find the idea that the event is now a thing which cannot move and which must have a start and finish* time etched in stone somewhat frustrating - and it actually makes organising an event AND properly informing prospective attendees considerably more difficult than I think it needs to be.

i.e. which part of the event is the event and which part of the event is not the event and should the start and finish time apply to the event part of the event or include the not the event part of the event and then how do I write a page for the event that accurately informs those who wish to attend just the event part of the event and also those who are staying for the whole event including the not event part of the event? :blink:

Granted I'm a noob in the event organising game and have only organised two - and the frustration of re-hashing the page until it met with the strict requirements in place (note the use of the word REQUIREMENTS here - not GUIDELINES) has made me think twice about doing another one - even though I and the attendees (if the logs are anything to go by) got massive enjoyment out of it in the end.

*Unless, it seems, the event is in a pub. It seems that there's an unwritten rule that if the event is in a pub, and the finish time is missing - that's OK. :unsure:

6.8k · November 20, 2014

and the fact I think the original topic has been utterly lost in the furore

I do think that the current discussions are closely related to the original question when it comes to events.

It has a huge influence on the D/T rating for events what is regarded as the event. If activities like the hike or taking part in ice skating or whatever are just some additional element not being part of the official event, then this will lead to many 1/1 or 1/1.5 events and only those on a mountain top or on an island will be exceptions (at least for the terrain)

Maybe it now becomes more understandable why these issues are linked with the D/T rating business for events.

3.1k · November 20, 2014

The kind of events I have in mind are of the type that the event group was moving. You were somehow forced to be there and take part in the activity. The hike started and it could happen that spontaneously during the hike the route was adapted, or a decision made to have a break at restaurant A etc

You could not just come at an arbitrary time and join the group and leave then soon.

Why can that event not happen today?

It can, and does.

What of the person, cezanne, that calls their buddy to say, "Hey, we took a detour--you coming? Meet us at the coffee shop instead of the bakery..." Does that latecomer not attend the event,even if they missed the kick-off? I'd certainly let them log as attended. Not hard, and they can catch up.

You talk about something completely different. Events of the type I described above do not get published any longer. Of course back then someone could have called a buddy and they could have logged an attended log though it never happened at any event I have heard about. If such events still got published, it might happen that such things would happen occasionally, but still less frequently than if they are encouraged by the system. Why do you think that for examples they changed the guidelines to enforce end times for events?

I do?? :blink:

Seems to me you can still have an event with a hike, a walk through the city, a train ride, a raft trip, or any other example where you meet at a spot and then depart for an activity.

The only thing you can't do is have an event where that activity is overtly described as a cache-finding event, or "cache machine". Is that what you're implying here? You didn't say so, therefore I reacted to the example given.

'Round and 'round we go... We can go through every single hypothetical you can come up with, cezanne. That's fine. It's like a juried review process instead of the standard Volunteer Reviewer process. What fun!

I do not wish to have a stricter review process for events, but rather the converse. I prefer the flexibility of the old days. So why do you blame me with things like a juried review process?

Cezanne

:laughing: 'Twas a joke. I just think its moot to have you come in and exhaust all possibilities for a theoretical higher D rating for an event. We're here debating it, and it's really up to the Reviewers.

I guess the debate we're having is helpful to evolving the guidelines, clarifying them for all across borders, or at least bringing to light the examples where events should be kept as D1 by nature.

3.1k · November 21, 2014

Events are just that: an event. Like a carnival--there are rides, food, and other activities to take part in. That entire event is the event. That could mean sunup to sundown. Think of Megas, or some of the big annual picnics or whatever that people have for geocaching events. The activities within the event are not themselves events, and will not get approved.

Meaning, I can't throw a party, then have "Pin the tail on the donkey", and "Door prize raffle" be their own events within the event.

I can have an event where we meet, sing a song, and leave (Flash mob). "Show early and mingle. Flash mob will occur at noon, and we will melt into the crowd again at 12:05..."

I can have an event where we meet for a rafting trip down the Kenai River, "meet at the rafting office at 10am, we should be off the water by 4pm..."

I can have an event where we meet at the center of a maze. "Meet at the center of the maze at noon. The coordinates provided are for the entrance to the maze..." (Or, "The coordinates provided are for the center. Parking for the maze is found at XX XX.XXX, YYY YY.YYY. The entrance is found at AA AA.AAA, BB BB.BBB...see the waypoints below.)

I can have an event where we meet and go for a hike. "Meet at the trailhead at the posted coordinates. We leave to hike the Bird Point to Girdwood trail at 9am, please arrive on time..."

I can have an event where we clean stuff up (insert CITO language to any of the above...)

The only things you can't do is say, "Meet at the coordinates at 10am. We'll set out to start that end of the ET trail, and go until sundown..." That's where the event is to go geocaching, not an event apart from an organized geocaching hunt. Or, "Join us for the picnic at 8am-9pm. See event GC12345Z for the pie eating contest at noon. See event GC09876A for the dinner service at 5pm..."

And the requirement for a provision of an end time is to help people know that they won't find anyone when they've all gone home. It helps others...is that so bad? I'd like to know that an event starts at 9, but I might not be able to make it until 11. But if the event ends/disperses at 10, I won't know that I'll be all by myself and have missed the event.

I can say, "Event starts at 5pm, and goes until 9pm. People are welcome to stay after that time, but the official event will end at 9pm. See you there!" That covers the "open ended" issue if you just want to have a hang-out. There just needs to be clarity and consistency so people know when to show up (between).]

Edit to add:

I see what you were talking about here:

The issue is that Groundspeak makes it more and more difficult to come up with such events and makes it more and more easy to come and just say "Hi ....".

If someone wants to organize an event in a hut on a mountain summit and if the hike to the summit is not part of the event, that's perfectly fine.

The same is true for an event that takes part on an island.

What I do not like is that one cannot any longer have events where the event is the hike, the paddle tour etc

There is no freedom to choose for the organizers.

You can have an event where it is the hike, or it is the event at the top. I think what you're saying is that you can't "stack" events anymore.

Also, for an event where the hike is the event, the mountainous terrain would be T, not D. See above about how we happen to have these 2, separate metrics for rating caches, and their associated reasoning and relationship to geocaches and hunting geocaches.

Another edit to add (and keep notifications from inundating inboxes...sorry!):

I'm hung up on this from cezzane:

Yet, no multi would be rated less than 2-2.5 because of the added "difficulty" of having the cache not be at the primary, listed coordinates.

But if you do that you would belong to a very small minority in those countries where multi caches are nothing uncommon. In some cities the percentage of traditionals is considerably below 50% - the majority are other cache types.

Moreover, as I mentioned before some people stated in this thread that for them the D-rating applies only to the time/effort required at GZ and they thus would have to rate every multi cache with virtual stages as D=1* if the cache is in plain sight.

This is really, really troubling me...to the point of being annoyed. This is a perfect example of how regional differences need to be checked. The "easiest" multi is still more difficult than the easiest Traditional because of the additional work to find the cache. It is built into the fundamental differences between cache types.

A traditional is automatically less difficult than a multi, a puzzle, Wherigo, or a letterbox hybrid. (It is circumstantially debateable about a webcam, a virtual, or other grandfathered cache types.) There should also therefore not be any such thing as a multi of less-than 2* difficulty, and I'd argue that use of the provided, established tool of ClayJar would make an arguement that any multi should be rated at least a D2.5*.

I know this goes against many local common practices, and makes for a certain battle for enforcement, but it really is the case. It would be much more helpful if ratings were consistent across the entirety of the game--location to location, region to region, etc.

(And yes, Toz, I know that exceptions can and should be made. I like "fun" too! But overall it would be nice to at least have a more consistent baseline...)

Edited November 21, 2014 by NeverSummer

4.6k · November 21, 2014

I can have an event where we meet for a rafting trip down the Kenai River, "meet at the rafting office at 10am, we should be off the water by 4pm..."

That sounds to me like a moving event - and according to what I've been told by two local volunteer reviewers and Groundspeak, moving events are not allowed.

1.1k · November 21, 2014

A traditional is automatically less difficult than a multi, a puzzle, Wherigo, or a letterbox hybrid. (It is circumstantially debateable about a webcam, a virtual, or other grandfathered cache types.) There should also therefore not be any such thing as a multi of less-than 2* difficulty, and I'd argue that use of the provided, established tool of ClayJar would make an arguement that any multi should be rated at least a D2.5*.

Sorry but it's a nonsense. There are multis when you need to read 1 number, add it to the coordinates, the final is the standard hide and the whole takes about 5 minutes. And you want to rate it D2.5? It shouldn't even be D1.5!

Multis taking about an hour are perfectly normal. It's the idea of the multi! If no station is a particular problem, there's absolutely no need to rate it over 1.5! There's an information in the listing how many waypoints there are etc.

Such high difficulty ranking you should reserve for the caches, where it's reasonable to assume, many cachers will fail.

6.8k · November 21, 2014

Seems to me you can still have an event with a hike, a walk through the city, a train ride, a raft trip, or any other example where you meet at a spot and then depart for an activity.

The only thing you can't do is have an event where that activity is overtly described as a cache-finding event, or "cache machine". Is that what you're implying here? You didn't say so, therefore I reacted to the example given.

No, I do not have cache machines and cache finding events in mind. Such events have never taken place in my country.

It is about events which are about a joint activity like hiking, paddling, skating or whatever and the socializing takes place during this activity.

Since quite a while the reviewers apparently only accept events when the activity is a voluntary part that takes part before or after what counts as official event and which is the only

part relevant for logging an attended log.

I know numerous examples of events that have taken place with the same type of descriptions for years and then suddenly from a certain moment on the descriptions had to be changed or the events got rejected.

If events are viewed from this very narrow point of view, then no wonder that the D/T ratings should be low (except for T-ratings for events where the meeting point is hard to reach).

What typically happens with the new type of events is that small groups form which reach the event location independently and in different ways and those who are not belonging to a group stay alone. The event is then just meeting 30 minutes at some location and the return then typically works in the same way as the way to the location. The atmosphere of such events is very different from those where the event is the group hike. I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with events of the first type, I just do not like that the organizers have no choice and the idea of an event got deformed that much from what it meant in the beginning.

Cezanne

4.6k · November 21, 2014

Seems to me you can still have an event with a hike, a walk through the city, a train ride, a raft trip, or any other example where you meet at a spot and then depart for an activity.

The only thing you can't do is have an event where that activity is overtly described as a cache-finding event, or "cache machine". Is that what you're implying here? You didn't say so, therefore I reacted to the example given.

No, I do not have cache machines and cache finding events in mind. Such events have never taken place in my country.

It is about events which are about a joint activity like hiking, paddling, skating or whatever and the socializing takes place during this activity.

Since quite a while the reviewers apparently only accept events when the activity is a voluntary part that takes part before or after what counts as official event and which is the only

part relevant for logging an attended log.

I know numerous examples of events that have taken place with the same type of descriptions for years and then suddenly from a certain moment on the descriptions had to be changed or the events got rejected.

If events are viewed from this very narrow point of view, then no wonder that the D/T ratings should be low (except for T-ratings for events where the meeting point is hard to reach).

What typically happens with the new type of events is that small groups form which reach the event location independently and in different ways and those who are not belonging to a group stay alone. The event is then just meeting 30 minutes at some location and the return then typically works in the same way as the way to the location. The atmosphere of such events is very different from those where the event is the group hike. I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with events of the first type, I just do not like that the organizers have no choice and the idea of an event got deformed that much from what it meant in the beginning.

Cezanne

Cezanne's post here fits closely with my recent experience.

6.8k · November 21, 2014

This is really, really troubling me...to the point of being annoyed. This is a perfect example of how regional differences need to be checked. The "easiest" multi is still more difficult than the easiest Traditional because of the additional work to find the cache. It is built into the fundamental differences between cache types.

A traditional is automatically less difficult than a multi, a puzzle, Wherigo, or a letterbox hybrid. (It is circumstantially debateable about a webcam, a virtual, or other grandfathered cache types.) There should also therefore not be any such thing as a multi of less-than 2* difficulty, and I'd argue that use of the provided, established tool of ClayJar would make an arguement that any multi should be rated at least a D2.5*.

I know this goes against many local common practices, and makes for a certain battle for enforcement, but it really is the case. It would be much more helpful if ratings were consistent across the entirety of the game--location to location, region to region, etc.

What you do not like

is essentially the only meaningful rating approach in those areas. I have mentioned before that unfortunately the ClayJar form (not the description of the difficulty ratings) does not take into account major aspects of how geocaching works in many European countries. There are offset multi caches that are easier than 90% of the traditionals I have done because everything (the sign and the cache) is in plain sight and not even calculations are involved - it could be just walk A meters in direction B where A and B are obtained from a sign). The cachers in countries where multi caches are not exotic and where virtual stages are common in multi caches (where nothing has to be searched and found) need something which helps them distinguish between multi caches that are trivial and can be done in less than 5 minutes extra effort, those where one might need up to 30 minutes extra effort, those that might need much more time and the extremely difficult ones. The text description of the difficulty levels makes much more sense and this is what I try to apply when I rate my caches with multiple stages (including my mysteries).

It's the Clayjar tool that would need the update and not the common practice how multis are rated in those countries where they are not exotic. I have addressed this already many years ago. If the tool stays as it is, you will have to live with the result which makes much more sense than rating all multis with at least D=2.5*. I'm sure you would change your mind if you had caching experience in a setting where the whole variety of multi caches shows up. It's not a coincidence that the only other cacher from continental Europe taking part in this thread told you that your statement is nonsense.

One could possibly debate whether to use 1.5* as lower limit for multi caches, but given the description of 1* I would not say that there cannot be a 1* multi cache (there can be caches of the same rating that are not equally hard because there is only a finite and small set of different rating levels).

I'm pretty convinced that what Clayjar had in mind with multi leg was definitely having multiple containers (back in the early times for example offset caches were not handled as multi caches). What also played a role is that multi caches were used much less frequently in the US and often when someone wanted to give something a special twist. There are countries however where multi caches are the standard format for certain types of caches. For example urban traditionals which do not have a tricky hideout, have no chance to end up with high FP ratios in my country while guided city walks with standard hideouts typically get quite a number of FPS. These kind of multi caches are not regarded as more difficult (if the questions are asked properly of course) than traditionals and they can be much easier and less time consuming than a lot of urban D=2*-2.5* traditionals I have found.

While I understand your desire for a consistent rating across the world, I need to stress that I think that is pretty unrealistic to think that some rating tool which has been thought up many years ago with a completely different scenario in mind and with multi caches being maybe 5% of the caches, will be applied in an unchanged way in a place like Vienna where even today 50% of the caches are not traditionals (it used to be even more some years ago). I have raised some concerns already back in 2003, but they have never been heard. So then what happened is the current situation where one needs to be aware that there are considerable regional differences.

Edited November 21, 2014 by cezanne

2.6k · November 21, 2014

Groundspeak should made a statement about that, if wrong D/T and size is against guidelines or not. They've made that with events - in my region all must have D=1.

That is another specific, targeted example where Geocaching HQ has asked reviewers to guard against artificial difficulty ratings. An event can be held on the top of a mountain, but that goes to terrain. Difficulty defines how hard it is to locate the cache once arriving at ground zero, including solving any puzzles. Event caches don't have puzzles. So what would justify an event cache difficulty rating greater than 1 star? Are the attendees hiding in the dark down in the basement of the pub? If they are in plain sight, that aligns to a rating of 1 star difficulty.

Back to the question of events...

Personally, I think "D" greater than 1 can make sense at an event - but only if you interpret that "D" applies to anything not covered by the physical terrain aspects of "T". One example is an event which starts at 3 AM. Most people would find this more difficult to attend than one at 6 PM, so I think adjusting "D" is appropriate.

But if "D" only can apply at GZ.. then most all events would need to be D=1. As once you reach GZ, you are at the event. Possible exception could be the camouflaged entrance.

Having said all that - if Groundspeak has a rule that events must be D=1, I don't mind that.

I looked at the events published in my country (UK) in the past month. 57 out of 216 have D other than 1. Most of these are D=1.5; there are 9 with D > 1.5. Three have D of 3.5 or more. So my region doesn't seem to have the rule that D must be 1. (Or these slipped through).

Of the three with D of 3.5 or more (with D/T listed)

- One is at night out in the cold - a bit like briansnat's example. (3.5/5.0)

- One is a CITO. (3.5/4.0)

- One is an International Earthcache day event. (4.5/2.0)

CITO is an interesting one... collecting trash is more difficult than just attending at a pub. But I think you can claim attended even if you don't collect trash.

I'm not sure what is difficult about the International Earthcache day event. It involves a virtual 5K run.

6.8k · November 21, 2014

But if "D" only can apply at GZ, then most all events would need to be D=1.

Yes, indeed, but I think that this restriction of the D-rating to GZ (except for puzzles) is an essential flaw for many cache types and it was that part of Keystone's

post that troubled me the most. There is much more than puzzles that goes into the difficulty of caches and still not happens at GZ.

I sincerely hope that it will never happen that reviewers start to ask that the D-rating of caches is chosen in such a restricted manner (normal caches trouble

me even much more than events and this threads appears to be not restricted to events).

Edited November 21, 2014 by cezanne

3.1k · November 21, 2014

A traditional is automatically less difficult than a multi, a puzzle, Wherigo, or a letterbox hybrid. (It is circumstantially debateable about a webcam, a virtual, or other grandfathered cache types.) There should also therefore not be any such thing as a multi of less-than 2* difficulty, and I'd argue that use of the provided, established tool of ClayJar would make an arguement that any multi should be rated at least a D2.5*.

Sorry but it's a nonsense. There are multis when you need to read 1 number, add it to the coordinates, the final is the standard hide and the whole takes about 5 minutes. And you want to rate it D2.5? It shouldn't even be D1.5!

Multis taking about an hour are perfectly normal. It's the idea of the multi! If no station is a particular problem, there's absolutely no need to rate it over 1.5! There's an information in the listing how many waypoints there are etc.

Such high difficulty ranking you should reserve for the caches, where it's reasonable to assume, many cachers will fail.

I'm sorry, but says you. You're a relatively new cacher, and your opinion is a very "new school" take on this. Therein is, again, and example of how consistent rating of caches is thrown out the window.

The ideas that founded the rating system were to help make it consistent. Throwing out that work means we have to re-hash it all over again. And really, that means for many cachers who started playing years and years ago this new-school approach means tossing out the tool Groundspeak itself posts to assist cachers in rating their caches.

Therein you're proving that, if you used that tool which was developed to make ratings consistent, you'd see the result and say, "That's not right"...and rate it any way you like.

3.1k · November 21, 2014

Seems to me you can still have an event with a hike, a walk through the city, a train ride, a raft trip, or any other example where you meet at a spot and then depart for an activity.

The only thing you can't do is have an event where that activity is overtly described as a cache-finding event, or "cache machine". Is that what you're implying here? You didn't say so, therefore I reacted to the example given.

No, I do not have cache machines and cache finding events in mind. Such events have never taken place in my country.

It is about events which are about a joint activity like hiking, paddling, skating or whatever and the socializing takes place during this activity.

Since quite a while the reviewers apparently only accept events when the activity is a voluntary part that takes part before or after what counts as official event and which is the only

part relevant for logging an attended log.

I know numerous examples of events that have taken place with the same type of descriptions for years and then suddenly from a certain moment on the descriptions had to be changed or the events got rejected.

If events are viewed from this very narrow point of view, then no wonder that the D/T ratings should be low (except for T-ratings for events where the meeting point is hard to reach).

What typically happens with the new type of events is that small groups form which reach the event location independently and in different ways and those who are not belonging to a group stay alone. The event is then just meeting 30 minutes at some location and the return then typically works in the same way as the way to the location. The atmosphere of such events is very different from those where the event is the group hike. I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with events of the first type, I just do not like that the organizers have no choice and the idea of an event got deformed that much from what it meant in the beginning.

Cezanne

Ah-ha.

This makes your opinion make more sense to me. (Still just an opinion, however.) I can tell you're troubled with the fact that you can't have an event be "as the owner intended", and some may "abuse" the attended log by just "dropping in". But, that's just how it goes. The guidelines are what they are, and those "drop ins" are caching how they like.

It's just as the conversation is going about logging only "Tftc" or "TFTC" on a cache--it sucks, yes. But we can't do squat about it if that cacher signed the log. Just as we really can't do squat if those "drop ins" only stayed for 15 minutes.

4.6k · November 21, 2014

I can tell you're troubled with the fact that you can't have an event be "as the owner intended", and some may "abuse" the attended log by just "dropping in".

It 'aint necessarily so.

Of course I can't speak for Cezanne but what troubled me was:

1. The difficulty of explaining the scope of the event in a clear way for all attendees

2. The fact that effectively I had to pretend that the event was the first thirty minutes of what actually lasted most of an afternoon - and that thirty minutes amounted to standing around on a car park (parking lot for US viewers) waiting to engage in what was really the focus of the event.

3.1k · November 21, 2014

This is really, really troubling me...to the point of being annoyed. This is a perfect example of how regional differences need to be checked. The "easiest" multi is still more difficult than the easiest Traditional because of the additional work to find the cache. It is built into the fundamental differences between cache types.

A traditional is automatically less difficult than a multi, a puzzle, Wherigo, or a letterbox hybrid. (It is circumstantially debateable about a webcam, a virtual, or other grandfathered cache types.) There should also therefore not be any such thing as a multi of less-than 2* difficulty, and I'd argue that use of the provided, established tool of ClayJar would make an arguement that any multi should be rated at least a D2.5*.

I know this goes against many local common practices, and makes for a certain battle for enforcement, but it really is the case. It would be much more helpful if ratings were consistent across the entirety of the game--location to location, region to region, etc.

What you do not like is essentially the only meaningful rating approach in those areas. I have mentioned before that unfortunately the ClayJar form (not the description of the difficulty ratings) does not take into account major aspects of how geocaching works in many European countries. There are offset multi caches that are easier than 90% of the traditionals I have done because everything (the sign and the cache) is in plain sight and not even calculations are involved - it could be just walk A meters in direction B where A and B are obtained from a sign).

Let me stop you right there. You've described an easy multi. You've also described a difficult traditional. What you're failing to see is that the easiest traditional is always easier than the easiest multi.

You've described "the easiest multi" in your terms, and are comparing it, apples to oranges, to a difficult traditional. That doesn't make any sense.

The cachers in countries where multi caches are not exotic and where virtual stages are common in multi caches (where nothing has to be searched and found) need something which helps them distinguish between multi caches that are trivial and can be done in less than 5 minutes extra effort, those where one might need up to 30 minutes extra effort, those that might need much more time and the extremely difficult ones. The text description of the difficulty levels makes much more sense and this is what I try to apply when I rate my caches with multiple stages (including my mysteries).

It has nothing to do with the novelty or exotic nature of multi caches. It's the fact that more effort goes into finding those other caches in the simplest forms. Again, I can't plant my palm to my face, or my head to the desk fast enough...

It's the Clayjar tool that would need the update and not the common practice how multis are rated in those countries where they are not exotic. I have addressed this already many years ago. If the tool stays as it is, you will have to live with the result which makes much more sense than rating all multis with at least D=2.5*. I'm sure you would change your mind if you had caching experience in a setting where the whole variety of multi caches shows up. It's not a coincidence that the only other cacher from continental Europe taking part in this thread told you that your statement is nonsense.
One could possibly debate whether to use 1.5* as lower limit for multi caches, but given the description of 1* I would not say that there cannot be a 1* multi cache (there can be caches of the same rating that are not equally hard because there is only a finite and small set of different rating levels).

I'm pretty convinced that what Clayjar had in mind with multi leg was definitely having multiple containers (back in the early times for example offset caches were not handled as multi caches).

Well, you could email ClayJar to ask, or you could read the forum topics discussing how to rate geocaches to see where these ideas were rooted to create a foundation to the way we play.

What also played a role is that multi caches were used much less frequently in the US and often when someone wanted to give something a special twist. There are countries however where multi caches are the standard format for certain types of caches. For example urban traditionals which do not have a tricky hideout, have no chance to end up with high FP ratios in my country while guided city walks with standard hideouts typically get quite a number of FPS. These kind of multi caches are not regarded as more difficult (if the questions are asked properly of course) than traditionals and they can be much easier and less time consuming than a lot of urban D=2*-2.5* traditionals I have found.

Get off the idea that multis are "more difficult in the USA because there are fewer of them". That's not how caches are rated--by their rarity. Again: Head, desk; face, palm.

It sounds like you're encountering poorly-rated traditional caches. Perhaps their ratings need to be increased? Take a look at those caches, and then enter your experience in the ClayJar tool. See what the output is. Then you'll know. I've done that a few dozen times when I question the ratings of a cache--and found that they rated poorly, and based on personal opinion, not objective cases.

It's the old "I think a lamp-post cache is easy. It's a D1...". but for any new or unfamiliar cache, it is still going to take a while for someone to find it. These types of caches are often underrated for difficulty because of the misconception that "everyone knows about LPCs..."

While I understand your desire for a consistent rating across the world, I need to stress that I think that is pretty unrealistic to think that some rating tool which has been thought up many years ago with a completely different scenario in mind and with multi caches being maybe 5% of the caches, will be applied in an unchanged way in a place like Vienna where even today 50% of the caches are not traditionals (it used to be even more some years ago). I have raised some concerns already back in 2003, but they have never been heard. So then what happened is the current situation where one needs to be aware that there are considerable regional differences.

Your idea of difficulty is all about how common a cache is, apparently(?). You also are comparing apples to oranges on the daily.

There can be a traditional more difficult than a multi. It has nothing to do with familiarity, and everything to do with the metrics decided back in those early days. The ratings you're using were created with those metrics in mind, cezanne. You've tossed the baby with the bathwater, and created a new system in your mind that isn't how the system was designed in the first place.

It doesn't need a change, you need to see that if you stuck to that system and rated caches using it, you'd find more consistent ratings in your own area. It's been hashed out before all of this in this thread, and I can't explain it any more clearly than I already have.

Edited November 21, 2014 by NeverSummer

3.1k · November 21, 2014

I can tell you're troubled with the fact that you can't have an event be "as the owner intended", and some may "abuse" the attended log by just "dropping in".

It 'aint necessarily so.

Of course I can't speak for Cezanne but what troubled me was:

1. The difficulty of explaining the scope of the event in a clear way for all attendees

2. The fact that effectively I had to pretend that the event was the first thirty minutes of what actually lasted most of an afternoon - and that thirty minutes amounted to standing around on a car park (parking lot for US viewers) waiting to engage in what was really the focus of the event.

So, what I see you saying here is that you'd like to see event listings have more clearly written descriptions. Simple enough a hope, yes. Tough to convince all of the users to be on the same page and "do better", but that's life.

I'd agree wholeheartedly that some events need to be more clear about the what, when, and where. And that is, unfortunately, not the real focus of this thread.

____________

As a follow-up to another post above...since when can't you have a "traveling" event? We just had a raft trip event posted here in Alaska this fall. Meet at the launch, and we're going rafting. I think some folks showed, but didn't raft, so they logged the event...I think. (I haven't checked at this moment to be sure, but that's what I recall)

In that case, if someone showed to the launch after the listed time and nobody was there, they just assumed they missed the event and went on their merry way. But the event was about getting some folks to join in for a raft trip on a scenic river in the peak of fall color. I'm sure the owner didn't mind if people came to the launch but didn't join in. There were limited seats, and it cost enough to be prohibitive to some cachers, so it doesn't sound unreasonable to be welcoming and happy to see anyone who showed, and not deny them a (trivial, really) "attended" log for that event even if they didn't raft.

4.6k · November 21, 2014

I can tell you're troubled with the fact that you can't have an event be "as the owner intended", and some may "abuse" the attended log by just "dropping in".

It 'aint necessarily so.

Of course I can't speak for Cezanne but what troubled me was:

1. The difficulty of explaining the scope of the event in a clear way for all attendees

2. The fact that effectively I had to pretend that the event was the first thirty minutes of what actually lasted most of an afternoon - and that thirty minutes amounted to standing around on a car park (parking lot for US viewers) waiting to engage in what was really the focus of the event.

So, what I see you saying here is that you'd like to see event listings have more clearly written descriptions. Simple enough a hope, yes. Tough to convince all of the users to be on the same page and "do better", but that's life.

I'd agree wholeheartedly that some events need to be more clear about the what, when, and where. And that is, unfortunately, not the real focus of this thread.

No - that wasn't what I was saying at all. Try reading it again.

The focus of the thread is meant to be about Reviewers Reviewing D/T. In the case of my event the reviewer didn't do this - but did restrict fairly heavily how the rest of the page had to be presented - and I rated the D/T for the whole event as I saw it - incuding the activities Groundspeak classed as not a part of the event. Had I rated it according to what Groundspeak classed as the event it would have related to standing on a flat car park for 30 minutes which would have completely misinformed all but the one attendee who attended and did only that.

So you see my post is entirely related to the thread. Thanks for making me justify it :rolleyes:

____________

As a follow-up to another post above...since when can't you have a "traveling" event? We just had a raft trip event posted here in Alaska this fall. Meet at the launch, and we're going rafting. I think some folks showed, but didn't raft, so they logged the event...I think. (I haven't checked at this moment to be sure, but that's what I recall)

In that case, if someone showed to the launch after the listed time and nobody was there, they just assumed they missed the event and went on their merry way. But the event was about getting some folks to join in for a raft trip on a scenic river in the peak of fall color. I'm sure the owner didn't mind if people came to the launch but didn't join in. There were limited seats, and it cost enough to be prohibitive to some cachers, so it doesn't sound unreasonable to be welcoming and happy to see anyone who showed, and not deny them a (trivial, really) "attended" log for that event even if they didn't raft.

Short answer - I don't know since when but it applied to the event I organised in October.

Is it just me, or is it getting a bit chilly in here?

Reviewers Reviewing D/T?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment