Jump to content

Reviewers Reviewing D/T?


JL_HSTRE

Recommended Posts

You may not like it, but that's the way it works according to the guidelines. Just like tree climbing caches, and how someone who is there, but doesn't climb the tree can still log a find when their name appears on the physical log. One would have a hard time arguing with Groundspeak to delete an "attended" log for someone who was there, but didn't participate in the way you prefer them to participate. That's the beauty of events...

 

I have said it before that my arguments do not center around deleting attended logs. The beauty of events for me is not that everyone who just is there for 1 second can log an attended log - such logs are legitimate, but extremely lame.

I've always seen this just as a mechanism to make the handling easier for Groundspeak and to reduce the number of cases where they have to interfere.

 

I would not expect a D=1* rating for a puzzle cache with a difficult puzzle, but where the cache owner adds the statement that whoever urgently needs to log a find for that cache can address him/her and ask for the final coordinates.

 

I see attended logs with a short visit contrary to the real intent of an event as the Groundspeak provided equivalent of the above example for a puzzle cache. I still would expect the D-rating to reflect the difficulty for those who attend according to the true intent.

 

For example suppose that the true intent of an event is to spend time together on a oldtimer train going from A to B and back to A and not to go to the train station at A and say hi and leave then. Taking part in the whole ride (no stations to get off the train in between) requires a commitment of time (say 3 hours at least) that is well comparable to having to spend three hours on a multi cache which then according to Clayjar will not get a D=1* rating.

 

That's the point. It isn't specific--it's objective. One can make 0.5 adjustments one way or the other if specific circumstances might impact the rating one way or the other.

 

I's not objective at all. For example, what is judged as being accomplishable by the average adult is depending on the region, but that's another issue.

Link to comment

I can't roll my eyes hard enough.

 

Your train idea is flawed, and the attack on use of ClayJar to rate a cache is misguided.

 

It may be a longer time commitment to be on your train event, but once you're there...you get the smiley. Not hard at all. So, yes...ClayJar would be inaccurate if used to the letter. It is a tool, and we are the users. The train event you describe should be a 1*D. Not hard at all. Maybe 1.5* because there is a fee and a time commitment to be on board for the duration.

 

The thing about ClayJar's system is that it is designed with geocaches in mind, not events. So yes, it will not be as accurate a guide for event ratings...but it is helpful context if used in conjunction with one's knowledge and community common practice. The question you are equating the rating to is, "How easy is it to find the cache?"

 

Well, event? Super easy to find the "cache".

 

But what you're trying to rate is the ride on the train? That's not how you find the cache. And the distance you raft or duration of a train ride is not for D rating. Put it to you this way: ClayJar also says:

"What is the terrain elevation like?"

  • Basically Flat: Only slight elevation changes. Easy to do in a wheelchair, stroller, bike, etc.
  • Some elevation changes: Changes are slight enough that someone could ride a bike up such a slope.
  • Steep Elevation changes: Change is steep. Probably could not ride a bike up this slope, but could push it.
  • Severe elevation changes: The only way up the slope is to use your hands. Going down may require use of your backside.

 

The train goes up some steep hills. That must mean "Some Elevation Changes", right? <_< No. You're already on board for an event. You're using your backside to hold down a seat cushion while you talk to your neighbor about the sights and perhaps geocaching.

 

When I enter the train event you use as an example, I get 1/1.

 

Your train example is equal to me saying that 1/1 park bench cache in plain sight should be rated higher than 1/1 because I chose to take a picnic lunch to that cache and sat on my backside for 3 hours while taking a food nap.

Edited by NeverSummer
Link to comment

 

That's the point. It isn't specific--it's objective. One can make 0.5 adjustments one way or the other if specific circumstances might impact the rating one way or the other.

 

I's not objective at all. For example, what is judged as being accomplishable by the average adult is depending on the region, but that's another issue.

Have you even looked at the ClayJar tool? :blink:

Link to comment
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.

 

It would probably be a good idea for wording about this be added to the Guidelines before Reviewers start enforcing it. :)

 

I would think CITOs should be in the D2-D3 range since you are usually expected to spend anywhere from 1-3 hours at one and, unlike a regular event, there is an associated activity that is semi-mandatory. (If you hold say a bowling event there you expect some people will just socialize and not bowl; at a CITO, you expect nobody to simply standing around watching other people pick up trash.)

 

What about events that occur at remote locations in the dark? I know at least one CO who is fond of hosting such events (and yes, people do regularly attend them).

 

One of the weird side effects of the current event guidelines pertains to kayak trips. The logical thing is for the posted coords to be the launch point, but that would mean people could attend without participating in the activity (i.e. not paddle) thus the event would not be a 1/5 like common sense says it should be. This has led to kayak events being posted as a meet-n-greet partway downriver so that the T5 rating can be better justified even though it is essentially the same event; the paddling activity technically isn't required as part of the event, it's just by far the easiest way to reach GZ.

Edited by Joshism
Link to comment

Aha! But I seen it argued all over the forums that a logbook is not required for events. So there's no need to worry about anything! You just post an event, have people drive by and wave, and you're good to go. Another smiley! :grin:

Guideline III.2.4 states "Event Cache owners can request that cachers sign a logbook, but this is optional and cannot be a requirement for logging an Event Cache."

 

Reviewers as a general rule don't review the D/T ratings except for the specific examples given elsewhere in this thread. Not until the Reviewer has found the cache as a player could s/he possibly know the D/T. However, the Reviewer will sometimes ask about a D/T rating if something seems out of whack or nudge the Cache Owner toward the ClayJar rating system if the Cache Owner's D/T ratings are consistently high or low.

Edited by Ladybug Kids
Link to comment

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.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

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.

 

I can understand how harsh conditions could justify a higher terrain rating but, unless you can predict a total white out when the event occurs why would it have a D3 rating?

 

Based on the notion that an "in the middle of the summer" CITO event is rated a 2.5/2.5, an event in the middle of a harsh MN winter would be a 3. Like I said, I'll play the game if it's consistent. But it's not.

Link to comment

Going back to the Wheelchair attribute vs T1.0 if I may.

 

What about the situation where GZ is wheelchair accessible but the cache is not accessible from a wheelchair. E.g a level footpath in a park with the cache 6 ft above ground.

 

I had always thought that the T1.0 designation meant retrievable from a wheelchair and the Attribute meant that GZ was accessible. So you could have a T5 cache halfway up a cliff with a wheelchair attribute because the base of the cliff is on a flat concrete path.

 

Or is that just wrong?

Link to comment

During the times when I was in crutches I really got the sense of what it is like when COs under rated their terrain levels when you find them in areas where a wheelchairs or some with other disabled cachers can not get access to the cache by assuming to rate them like a "1" (or even "1.5" for rough trails)just because COs can easily get to it.

 

When I first started putting out caches I was asked if my "1" terrain was wheelchair accessible. After that I always base mine with a "1.5" unless it was truly handicapped accessible (that included using a grabby stick).

 

I once found a cache rated "1" that was on a guardrail. Okay most would say that would be an easy one. But not if you are in a wheelchair and the only way you can reach it is to have your wheelchair in the street. I tried to tell the CO it was too dangerous for wheelchairs, but they just ignored me.

 

Some friends of mine were asked not to overrate their events unless it was really high terrain.

Link to comment
I'd wonder whether a reviewer would even publish it.

It may sound like this belongs in a different thread :unsure: but back in the good ol' days, the reviewers minded their business and geocachers were given a lot more latitude (and longitude) to be creative. You got ideas like liar's caches, the D/T was fake but the logs were a lot longer, because most people participated and made up a story. You had events where you had to solve a puzzle to get the coordinates, or where there was an ALR to log you attended (allowed back in the ol' days). Even fake D/T events were ok to support a theme. One local had a Halloween event that was always rated 5/5 (because it was so scary).

 

I think a bunch of narrow-minded, uncreative geocachers simply decided that if there were ratings they ought to have rules. They first went after cache types (ostensibly because they decided Traditional cache should be findable is you only had the coordinates and didn't read the description). Then they went after caches sizes (complaining that they relied on this to decide if they could leave a trackable in the cache). Later they complained about the Scuba attribute or the snowmobile attribute being used for caches in the desert (as if they were going to pack their scuba gear or snowmobile when the went to look for the cache). Now it's the D/T rating.

 

This game has too many self-righteous puritans who can't stand that some people like to use the attributes is some silly and sometime humorous manner just to keep the whole game light. The invent rules that never existed before and complain until TPTB direct the reviewers to enforce them.

 

I liked it better in the good ol' days. <_<

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment

Events should all be assigned a difficulty of 1. If you can drive to it and roll a wheelchair in then the terrain is a 1 also. Of course the terrain should increase if it's outdoors and a hike or a boat is necessary, but a 1 difficulty should be the standard.

 

I can appreciate reviewers taking the time to correct false D/T ratings, but that doesn't mean that they are correct either. Heard a story about a cache that was forced to be listed as a 5/5 due to a UV light being special equipment. Really?

Link to comment
Coordinates take you to the middle of a field. You look around and see nothing. Turns out there is a well camoed entrance that takes you down into an underground bunker. No, we don't see many events held in hidden places like this but it could happen.
In this hypothetical situation, I'd support a difficulty rating of higher than 1. I've never even heard of such an event taking place, though, and I'd wonder whether a reviewer would even publish it.
I've never heard of an event like that, but similar ideas were suggested one of the previous threads on this topic.

 

IIRC, there used to be a real restaurant that had a private room that was accessible only through a secret door. An event in a secret room like that could justify a difficulty greater than 1.

 

Another approach might be to list the coordinates of a multi-floor building, but not mention the altitude (i.e., the floor) where the event is being held.

Link to comment

Your train idea is flawed, and the attack on use of ClayJar to rate a cache is misguided.

 

I used the train example because such events really have taken place. I did not intend to use the form supporting the ClayJar system for rating th event.

It is just that I always have thought up to now that the time and effort needed has some influence on the D-rating if is not a T-component.

Most multi caches in my area have virtual stages and a container just at the final.

If that container is within plain sight, each such multi cache would have to be a D=1* cache (or 1.5 at most) while according to the ClayJar and my

personal understanding you would end up with a higher value for a cache with say 10 stages and where you need around 3 hours to arrive at the final stage,

the final.

 

It may be a longer time commitment to be on your train event, but once you're there...you get the smiley. Not hard at all.

 

True, but I never understood getting a smiley as the goal of geocaching.

 

ClayJar also says:

 

That are the questions of the supporting form. What I regard as ClayJar is this

 

Difficulty rating

* Easy. In plain sight or can be found in a few minutes of searching.

** Average. The average cache hunter would be able to find this in less than 30 minutes of hunting.

*** Challenging. An experienced cache hunter will find this challenging, and it could take up a good portion of an afternoon.

**** Difficult. A real challenge for the experienced cache hunter - may require special skills or knowledge, or in-depth preparation to find. May require multiple days / trips to complete.

***** Extreme. A serious mental or physical challenge. Requires specialized knowledge, skills, or equipment to find cache.

 

Terrain rating

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

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

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

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

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

 

I did not say that I apply this to events, just that it is of course not objective. It does not even result typically in something that makes sense and matches the above the fill in the supporting form.

 

Your train example is equal to me saying that 1/1 park bench cache in plain sight should be rated higher than 1/1 because I chose to take a picnic lunch to that cache and sat on my backside for 3 hours while taking a food nap.

 

To me it's not because for me the event is the whole train ride. Those coming to the train station and saying hi are not taking part in the event from my point of view.

I always thought that the time to be invested to do a cache in the intended way (and this also applies to events), is taken care of in the D-rating.

But apparently now everything is just about getting a smilie.

 

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

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.

 

I fully agree with you, but the modern way of arguing apparently is that you do not have to endure the winter outdoors at the event location, you can get back immediately (you already got the smilie) and they then count this again as terrain rating. Weird .........

 

An event at a downtown restaurant with the same D-rating as an event which is only manageable for outdoor experts.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

As I see it...

 

It seems in general, reviewers don't review D/T ratings. But there are some specific cases which they may question, and an event is one of them.

 

I'm more skeptical about the current definitions of D/T and Clayjar covering everything. In both, Terrain is all about the physical aspects of getting to GZ. How steep, how long to walk, etc. And Difficulty is simply "how easy is it to find the cache".

 

And many build on this saying that "Terrain is about the journey to GZ, Difficulty starts when you reach the cache".

 

What seems to be missing is anything else which makes the overall task more difficult. I.e. the mental aspects of the journey to GZ. Puzzle difficulty isn't covered as a start, but that is accepted as an exception. But even for a Traditional cache there can be other factors which make the task more difficult, which do not fit the above definition.

 

A real example. A nearby cache which is hidden by a church. You can park a car right by it, it is handicapped accessible. But it is hard to find that church - so much that one cacher has just posted their third DNF, saying they still can't find the church! They have never reached GZ. Many others have had the same issue.

 

This cache seems to be greater than 1/1. The difficulty is getting to GZ - but it is handicapped accessible and requires no walking. Now it's not a 5 difficulty; but to me I would make the D higher on this one to reflect this difficulty - not the T.

 

And back to the event... put an event in that church and I think D > 1 is reasonable.

Link to comment

And many build on this saying that "Terrain is about the journey to GZ, Difficulty starts when you reach the cache".

 

I think this HAS to be the case.

 

Imaginary scenario:

 

We have a cache which is in full view with a very clear hint - so a D1.

 

The path(s) to the cache are difficult to locate - for non-locals who aren't familiar with the area - so the CO ups the D rating to, say, D3.

 

A D3 according to the associated clayjar description: Challenging. An experienced cache hunter will find this challenging, and it could take up a good portion of an afternoon

 

A local gets to GZ sees that it's a D3 and spends a couple of hours searching for it and fails to find it...

 

The cache was gone all along and the environment has suffered the impact of a prolonged search - because the rating took into account the fact that some cachers might find it difficult to actually locate GZ.

Link to comment

And many build on this saying that "Terrain is about the journey to GZ, Difficulty starts when you reach the cache".

 

I think this HAS to be the case.

 

I do not agree for several reasons one being that this kind of distinction is problematic for multi caches. What does it mean there "once you reach the cache"?

The other issue is that in the mountains it can end up with very dangerous situations if one applies a rating that strictly applies the statement above.

There it can be very difficult to find the approach of the claimed terrain difficulty and taking a wrong approach can be extremely dangerous. If most cachers will need several attempts to even reach GZ, then this needs to be accounted for in the D-rating. This is not just a question of being local to the area or not.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

And many build on this saying that "Terrain is about the journey to GZ, Difficulty starts when you reach the cache".

 

I think this HAS to be the case.

 

Imaginary scenario:

 

We have a cache which is in full view with a very clear hint - so a D1.

 

The path(s) to the cache are difficult to locate - for non-locals who aren't familiar with the area - so the CO ups the D rating to, say, D3.

 

A D3 according to the associated clayjar description: Challenging. An experienced cache hunter will find this challenging, and it could take up a good portion of an afternoon

 

A local gets to GZ sees that it's a D3 and spends a couple of hours searching for it and fails to find it...

 

The cache was gone all along and the environment has suffered the impact of a prolonged search - because the rating took into account the fact that some cachers might find it difficult to actually locate GZ.

 

I see your point, but I don't agree it has to be the case.

 

If I was the owner of this cache, I would increase the "D" and add explain in the description with something like:

 

"The difficulty of this cache reflects the choice of routes which may be confusing. If you choose the correct route, the walk is easy. Once at GZ, it should be an easy find".

 

I might also up the terrain rating, if choosing the wrong path makes it a much harder walk.

Link to comment

 

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.

 

Interesting. Regardless of if they stay over night or not, timing is something specific to an event which can be considered part of the difficulty. This event would be easier (in my view) if it was at noon.

 

I once failed to "find" an event which was held at 3 AM. I set my alarm, but fell back to sleep and missed it. For most people, attending an event at 3 AM is harder than during the day, so it seems valid to me for the D rating to reflect this.

Link to comment

And many build on this saying that "Terrain is about the journey to GZ, Difficulty starts when you reach the cache".

 

I think this HAS to be the case.

 

I do not agree for several reasons one being that this kind of distinction is problematic for multi caches. What does it mean there "once you reach the cache"?

The other issue is that in the mountains it can end up with very dangerous situations if one applies a rating that strictly applies the statement above.

There it can be very difficult to find the approach of the claimed terrain difficulty and taking a wrong approach can be extremely dangerous. If most cachers will need several attempts to even reach GZ, then this needs to be accounted for in the D-rating. This is not just a question of being local to the area or not.

 

I've just realised that I've made a mistake and that at that point in his post redsox_mark was talking about Terrain rather than Difficulty.

 

I've effectively quoted one part of his post and responded to a different part.

 

To clarify, I think that the D rating should apply to the difficulty of finding the cache once at GZ.

 

Apologies for any confusion caused.

Link to comment

And many build on this saying that "Terrain is about the journey to GZ, Difficulty starts when you reach the cache".

 

I think this HAS to be the case.

 

Imaginary scenario:

 

We have a cache which is in full view with a very clear hint - so a D1.

 

The path(s) to the cache are difficult to locate - for non-locals who aren't familiar with the area - so the CO ups the D rating to, say, D3.

 

A D3 according to the associated clayjar description: Challenging. An experienced cache hunter will find this challenging, and it could take up a good portion of an afternoon

 

A local gets to GZ sees that it's a D3 and spends a couple of hours searching for it and fails to find it...

 

The cache was gone all along and the environment has suffered the impact of a prolonged search - because the rating took into account the fact that some cachers might find it difficult to actually locate GZ.

 

I see your point, but I don't agree it has to be the case.

 

If I was the owner of this cache, I would increase the "D" and add explain in the description with something like:

 

"The difficulty of this cache reflects the choice of routes which may be confusing. If you choose the correct route, the walk is easy. Once at GZ, it should be an easy find".

 

I might also up the terrain rating, if choosing the wrong path makes it a much harder walk.

 

Equally I see your point and while thinking about it have come to realise how it it's far from cut-and-dried either way.

 

Which is best?

 

1. Err on the side of D/T ratings at the higher end of the potential spectrum - and provide clarification behind the reasoning elsewhere on the cache page

 

2. Err of the side of D/T ratings at the lower end of the potential spectrum - and provide clarification behind the reasoning elsewhere on the cache page

Link to comment

 

Equally I see your point and while thinking about it have come to realise how it it's far from cut-and-dried either way.

 

Which is best?

 

1. Err on the side of D/T ratings at the higher end of the potential spectrum - and provide clarification behind the reasoning elsewhere on the cache page

 

2. Err of the side of D/T ratings at the lower end of the potential spectrum - and provide clarification behind the reasoning elsewhere on the cache page

 

I totally agree, it isn't "cut and dried". That is my main point. My interpretation isn't any better than anyone elses.

 

Most of the time - for a traditional cache at least - "T" is generally about the journey to GZ, and "D" is about the search. And that is certainly what Clayjar assumes. It just isn't always this simple.

Link to comment

Other scenarios (both for an event and for a cache) where I think that the difficulty to get to GZ plays a role for the D-rating:

 

a cache/event in the middle of a large maze with many different routes and dead ends (the coordinates will not help much)

a cache/event at the other end of a cave (only reachable by walking through the cave) with many dead ends where in the case of the event not all participants go through the cave together (this is not really a made up example

as caves where it is strictly recommended that all those who are not familiar with the cave should hire a guide as already people died in the cave as they could not find out the way).

Link to comment

Other scenarios (both for an event and for a cache) where I think that the difficulty to get to GZ plays a role for the D-rating:

 

a cache/event in the middle of a large maze with many different routes and dead ends (the coordinates will not help much)

a cache/event at the other end of a cave (only reachable by walking through the cave) with many dead ends where in the case of the event not all participants go through the cave together (this is not really a made up example

as caves where it is strictly recommended that all those who are not familiar with the cave should hire a guide as already people died in the cave as they could not find out the way).

 

I don't see you the D-rating should be influenced in these cases. Although getting to GZ may be "difficult", that difficulty should be reflected in the T rating, because once you're actually at GZ, finding the event would be easy.

Link to comment

Other scenarios (both for an event and for a cache) where I think that the difficulty to get to GZ plays a role for the D-rating:

 

a cache/event in the middle of a large maze with many different routes and dead ends (the coordinates will not help much)

a cache/event at the other end of a cave (only reachable by walking through the cave) with many dead ends where in the case of the event not all participants go through the cave together (this is not really a made up example

as caves where it is strictly recommended that all those who are not familiar with the cave should hire a guide as already people died in the cave as they could not find out the way).

 

I don't see you the D-rating should be influenced in these cases. Although getting to GZ may be "difficult", that difficulty should be reflected in the T rating, because once you're actually at GZ, finding the event would be easy.

 

I do not think that walking along an even hard packed path in a maze (that even could be wheelchair accessible in some cases) deserves a higher terrain rating than for the same walk without a maze being there. I do think that the invested higher amount of time and the fact that more one attempt might be necessary should be reflected in the D-rating. I believe that to be true for both events and caches where a container has to be found (my examples apply to both events and normal caches). ALso in the cave example I'd expect the T-rating to reflect the technical difficulty of traversing the cave and not the difficulty to find the right route.

 

Apparently some people here have an understanding of the T and D-rating that is completely different from mine. That's an issue for both classical caches and events and even more for caches with multiple stages (where it's not even clear whether each stage is evaluated separately and one takes the stage with the longest estimated search time into account or sums up over the estimated search times for all stages in the case there is more than one physical stage).

 

Probably this again is associated to the fact that for me caching does not start at GZ, but already before as I need to get there. This is also reflected by the fact that I have no issue with writing a DNF log if something goes wrong way before I arrive at the final container.

 

It would seem pretty much ridiculous to me to raise the T-rating of a an urban walk with a T=1.5* terrain to a higher value if most of the theoretically possible approaches are not legal approaches and one ends up at "Trespassing forbidden" signs or dead ends and only a single approach which is hard to find leads to GZ in a legal manner. If no route description is given in such a case, in my opinion the only proper way to rate such a case would be to raise the D-rating (and mention this difficulty in the cache description). The terrain does not get any more involved when it is hard to find the right approach.

That's a question of in-depth preparation with different sorts of maps and possibly a trial and error approach trying out many approaches before finding the successful one. If this takes place in an urban setting where vehicles can be used, it would me weird and wrong to up the T-rating to say 2.5* or 3*.

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

I would agree navigation should apply to Difficulty. Terrain is more physical: distance, elevation, climbing, water, trail surface. Difficulty is eyesight, camo, patience, problemsolving.

 

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

 

To the person who mentioned UV lights: they are easy to buy but I think most cachers still don't own one so they are specialized equipment.

Link to comment

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

 

That's at the same level as saying that a hint or a spoiler photo should be added if cachers happen to dnf a cache at GZ.

In the case of events, they take part on a specific day and there later additions of waypoints would not make sense anyway.

Not every event is planned as a community event targeted at every sort of cacher - such events typically will have low

terrain and low difficulty ratings anyway.

 

Events like my cave example (and others mentioned in the thread) will certainly not be the events targeted to newcomers for asking their questions about geocaching in general,

but there are enough such events available anyway.

Link to comment

Other scenarios (both for an event and for a cache) where I think that the difficulty to get to GZ plays a role for the D-rating:

 

a cache/event in the middle of a large maze with many different routes and dead ends (the coordinates will not help much)

a cache/event at the other end of a cave (only reachable by walking through the cave) with many dead ends where in the case of the event not all participants go through the cave together (this is not really a made up example

as caves where it is strictly recommended that all those who are not familiar with the cave should hire a guide as already people died in the cave as they could not find out the way).

 

I don't see you the D-rating should be influenced in these cases. Although getting to GZ may be "difficult", that difficulty should be reflected in the T rating, because once you're actually at GZ, finding the event would be easy.

 

The quote above seems to assume that "D" can only cover the search once you reach GZ, which I have questioned.

 

If the maze is wheelchair accessible, and the journey is short if you take all the correct turns, I don't think T should be anything other than 1. But I believe it is valid to increase the D.

Link to comment

Other scenarios (both for an event and for a cache) where I think that the difficulty to get to GZ plays a role for the D-rating:

 

a cache/event in the middle of a large maze with many different routes and dead ends (the coordinates will not help much)

a cache/event at the other end of a cave (only reachable by walking through the cave) with many dead ends where in the case of the event not all participants go through the cave together (this is not really a made up example

as caves where it is strictly recommended that all those who are not familiar with the cave should hire a guide as already people died in the cave as they could not find out the way).

 

I don't see you the D-rating should be influenced in these cases. Although getting to GZ may be "difficult", that difficulty should be reflected in the T rating, because once you're actually at GZ, finding the event would be easy.

 

The quote above seems to assume that "D" can only cover the search once you reach GZ, which I have questioned.

 

If the maze is wheelchair accessible, and the journey is short if you take all the correct turns, I don't think T should be anything other than 1. But I believe it is valid to increase the D.

 

I've always assumed that the difficulty should reflect the difficulty in locating/retrieving the cache once one is at GZ. I also believe that distance from the nearest parking area and GZ can influence the T rating. A cache that is 3 miles down a flat gravel trail (i.e. on a rail trail) might have a higher T rating than a cache that is only 100' from the trailhead. In the case of the maze, the distance probably isn't significant. I'm on the bubble whether or not navigation from a starting point to GZ that requires some decision making [in a maze] should have a impact on the D rating.

 

What I see fairly often though are 5/5 caches which might have a legitimate 5* terrain rating (for example, when a boat is required) but the 5* D rating is grossly inflated, mostly because that CO wants to be able to claim to own a 5/5 cache. For example, paddling a boat to an island and a short walk to the base of a tree would justifiably have a 5* T rating but if one can see the cache from the ground the D rating shouldn't be a 5*.

 

 

Link to comment

I've always assumed that the difficulty should reflect the difficulty in locating/retrieving the cache once one is at GZ.

 

I already guessed that from what you wrote. I have never worked with this assumption. Even in less involved cases than the maze example I would end

up with problems with your approach. The GZ approach somehow assumes that there is a single stage and thus a single GZ.

 

Also the arguments that a cache where it is D=3 to get to GZ and D=1 to find the cache once there cannot be rated as D=3 as otherwise people might ruin the GZ if the cache

is missing, do not work at all in the multi stage case where one never knows to which of the stages the D-rating applies and whether all stages are of that difficulty or only a single one or a few.

So D=4* could be due to a very tricky stage 6 and the first stages could be very simple and it would not justify to spend 2 hours at the first stage and to leave enormous search traces.

 

Somehow one of the problems of the ClayJar system is that it never really matched the situation of caches with multiple stages in a reasonably good way because at the time when the system was introduced multi caches and also puzzle caches were rather an exception while in some areas they make up 50% of the caches and more.

 

 

I also believe that distance from the nearest parking area and GZ can influence the T rating. A cache that is 3 miles down a flat gravel trail (i.e. on a rail trail) might have a higher T rating than a cache that is only 100' from the trailhead. In the case of the maze, the distance probably isn't significant. I'm on the bubble whether or not navigation from a starting point to GZ that requires some decision making [in a maze] should have a impact on the D rating.

 

I definitely think that such aspects should have an impact on the D-rating and definitely not on the T-rating. The maze was just one example of a number of situations where the D-rating is influenced by something which takes place before the arrival at GZ.

 

What I see fairly often though are 5/5 caches which might have a legitimate 5* terrain rating (for example, when a boat is required) but the 5* D rating is grossly inflated, mostly because that CO wants to be able to claim to own a 5/5 cache. For example, paddling a boat to an island and a short walk to the base of a tree would justifiably have a 5* T rating but if one can see the cache from the ground the D rating shouldn't be a 5*.

 

I fully agree. 5/5 and other rare combinations are often abused. But that does not mean that the D-rating only includes components for the search at GZ (and even if you restrict it that way for caches not including puzzles, you still will end up with troubles due to caches with multiple stages).

 

I'd say that except for the special case of classical traditionals the D rating never will provide you with a reliable estimate of just the difficulty of finding (and opening which again complicates the case) the cache container. For most other cases, many additional elements can come into the play (puzzles, fields puzzles, navigational challenges, unknown distribution of the overall difficulty to the parts of a multi cache etc).

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

I've always assumed that the difficulty should reflect the difficulty in locating/retrieving the cache once one is at GZ.

 

I already guessed that from what you wrote. I have never worked with this assumption. Even in less involved cases than the maze example I would end

up with problems with your approach. The GZ approach somehow assumes that there is a single stage and thus a single GZ.

 

The D/T rating system is never going to be perfect and there are always going to be caches that just don't fit the clayjar mold. However, if the initial assumption the D rating should reflect the difficult in locating/retrieving the cache once one is at GZ it's going to work for most cases. Yes, there are going to be exceptions but you're never going to come up with a rating system that covers every possible exception.

 

 

Also the arguments that a cache where it is D=3 to get to GZ and D=1 to find the cache once there cannot be rated as D=3 as otherwise people might ruin the GZ if the cache

is missing, do not work at all in the multi stage case where one never knows to which of the stages the D-rating applies and whether all stages are of that difficulty or only a single one or a few.

So D=4* could be due to a very tricky stage 6 and the first stages could be very simple and it would not justify to spend 2 hours at the first stage and to leave enormous search traces.

 

I've always been under the impression that, for a multi the D/T rating reflects an aggregate of all the stages. If one stage is especially tricky in a D=4* multi, the CO could always mention that in the cache description.

 

Somehow one of the problems of the ClayJar system is that it never really matched the situation of caches with multiple stages in a reasonably good way because at the time when the system was introduced multi caches and also puzzle caches were rather an exception while in some areas they make up 50% of the caches and more.

 

 

I also believe that distance from the nearest parking area and GZ can influence the T rating. A cache that is 3 miles down a flat gravel trail (i.e. on a rail trail) might have a higher T rating than a cache that is only 100' from the trailhead. In the case of the maze, the distance probably isn't significant. I'm on the bubble whether or not navigation from a starting point to GZ that requires some decision making [in a maze] should have a impact on the D rating.

 

I definitely think that such aspects should have an impact on the D-rating and definitely not on the T-rating. The maze was just one example of a number of situations where the D-rating is influenced by something which takes place before the arrival at GZ.

 

What I see fairly often though are 5/5 caches which might have a legitimate 5* terrain rating (for example, when a boat is required) but the 5* D rating is grossly inflated, mostly because that CO wants to be able to claim to own a 5/5 cache. For example, paddling a boat to an island and a short walk to the base of a tree would justifiably have a 5* T rating but if one can see the cache from the ground the D rating shouldn't be a 5*.

 

I fully agree. 5/5 and other rare combinations are often abused. But that does not mean that the D-rating only includes components for the search at GZ (and even if you restrict it that way for caches not including puzzles, you still will end up with troubles due to caches with multiple stages).

 

I'd say that except for the special case of classical traditionals the D rating never will provide you with a reliable estimate of just the difficulty of finding (and opening which again complicates the case) the cache container. For most other cases, many additional elements can come into the play (puzzles, fields puzzles, navigational challenges, unknown distribution of the overall difficulty to the parts of a multi cache etc).

 

Cezanne

 

As I said, the D/T rating system works pretty well for most caches, as long as one follows the general principles in the Clayjar system. If a cache has additional elements that contribute D/T rating different from what the clayjar system recommends, mention it in the cache description.

 

Link to comment

The D/T rating system is never going to be perfect and there are always going to be caches that just don't fit the clayjar mold. However, if the initial assumption the D rating should reflect the difficult in locating/retrieving the cache once one is at GZ it's going to work for most cases. Yes, there are going to be exceptions but you're never going to come up with a rating system that covers every possible exception.

 

Actually, in all my caches the difficulty does not come from the search once you arrived at the GZ of the final. I do not own a single traditional however and all of my caches including the mysteries involve several locations.

 

To add to the issue most stages of my multi caches are virtual stages and not physical stages, but of course it could still happen that something goes wrong there even in the cases where no fields puzzles are involved - for example some information might be missing, someone might misinterpret a question, might make a calculation mistake etc

All these things are however not related to the difficulty of location retrieving the final once your are at GZ.

 

So let's for the moment forget about puzzles that have to be solved to obtain the starting point of a cache and forget about multiple stages where at each stage a container or something physical has to be found. Just take into account the aspects I have mentioned above. Do you think that all these factors should be ignored and the resulting class of multi caches should be rated with D=1 just because the only container to be found is in plain sight?

 

To provide an example, consider this multi cache

(unfortunately the description is available only in German)

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GCWDQH_aschenmarkt

One needs to collect variables A up to T and not all of them are easy to find (and by misunderstanding

something one can end up with wrong answers) and do four calculations. Finding the hidden container at GZ is

correctly rated with 2*, but personally I'd rate the whole cache higher (2.5* or even 3* due to the work needed before arriving at GZ).

The cache is nothing particularly complicated in my country - just a normal urban multi cache.

 

 

As I said, the D/T rating system works pretty well for most caches, as long as one follows the general principles in the Clayjar system. If a cache has additional elements that contribute D/T rating different from what the clayjar system recommends, mention it in the cache description.

 

The point I tried to make is a different one. When reading the description of the difficulty levels, I so far always assumed that when the system talks about the time to find the cache that this also includes the effort/difficulty for obtaining the coordinates of the final cache and of course one ends up with different results when one only includes the difficulty of actually finding the hideout of the final container once being already at GZ.

Somehow two people like you and myself could both think that they use Clayjar's system and still come up with completely different results as we work with different concepts what it means to search for a cache. In the case of a 0815 traditional this will not play a big role as we will end up with a similar concept. In the case of more complex caches there is huge difference between only taking into account the difficulty of finding hidden containers or taking into account all aspects.

 

Even for traditionals it is not that trivial as it might seem. I know traditionals that are in plain sight, but people like me need at least 30 minutes to open the container if I manage it at all. So answering Clayjar's question would end up with D=1* while this would be awfully wrong in my opinion as most cachers might need to invest at least 10 minutes or rather more.

 

As events are concerned, I could easily imagine events that use similar ideas than some of traditionals which are tricky to open. For example, a 3D-maze box could contain the key to the entrance door and every attendant of the event would need to get out the key to open the door and then put the key back in the box.

The event would be held at the listed coordinates and still the difficulty would be higher than just finding the house.

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

Aha! But I seen it argued all over the forums that a logbook is not required for events. So there's no need to worry about anything! You just post an event, have people drive by and wave, and you're good to go. Another smiley! :grin:

Guideline III.2.4 states "Event Cache owners can request that cachers sign a logbook, but this is optional and cannot be a requirement for logging an Event Cache."

In general, I think that there's little issue that comes up with erroneous claims of "attended". In fact, I've only heard stories about "drive by" events in the forums, and never seen or heard personally about an event where people didn't actually attend.

 

(LBK, you and I can easily speak to the EduVents here in AK as a positive example of lookbooks being unused)

 

All this to say, I was just goofing around with that part of my post. I know it doesn't happen often, but the forums bring in all kinds of stories from across the globe--sometimes the guidelines are stretched to a point of questionable intent. :anicute:

Link to comment

In terms of the ClayJar rating tool, it's important to consider a few things.

 

First, we are human, and the tool is not. Whereas the tool may use seemingly unrelated questions to obtain a D/T rating for a cache, it gets one in the ballpark for ratings. That's where being human comes in--one can make adjustments a touch here and there, but the rating system is pretty sound IMO.

 

Second, the end descriptions from the ClayJar are not completely inclusive, nor are they exhaustive. They are example descriptions for the ratings, taken from a discussion back in the day here on the forums about D/T ratings. It was hashed out years and years ago right here by users of this listing service. Those conversations provide excellent context about the rating system, and the intent was to set a consistent rating process across borders; they recognized early in the game that consistency was important, and the game play had already seen examples of inconsistency. Because we play this game across many borders (especially state to state here in the US, and region to region, etc.), it is imperative that all users try to find common ground and consistent execution of rating a cache.

 

Third, understanding the way ClayJar's system was created is key to the whole idea. Those "end" descriptions are a generalized conglomeration of what was discussed in the forums for each D or T rating level. The questions the tool asks are the real key. One can ignore the end descriptions--they aren't law, aren't exhaustive, and only provide context to "why" those ratings mean what they mean. The discussions about rating caches has hashed this out over and over--the descriptors used at the result of the tool's use are meant for context, not as the rating itself. The tool's questions help provide a more consistent rating of caches, and the language at the result help explain the overarching generalities that helped the "forerunners" make up the rating scale.

 

Lastly, the ClayJar tool was designed with physical caches in mind. So of course the language is geared more toward "the hunt". But, it isn't altogether inaccurate for events either. If it is used consistently, we'd see more consistent ratings for caches across borders. And the tool isn't all that inaccurate to rate caches; I've never rated my own caches or a cache I been out to find and had that tool rate it in a way that I said, "Woah, that's WAY off". (I've gone to find a cache, seen that the ratings looked off when I planned my hunt, come home and rated my experience to find that ClayJar confirms that the cache was under or overrated, yes.)

 

(Toz, my opinions herein aren't a discussion about liar's caches, etc. Those are apart altogether from what I, personally, am talking about here. I agree that some fun, humor, and enjoyment have a place in the game in cases like that. I'm speaking in general gameplay terms, and also speaking to deliberate use of D/T to obtain a grid square or complete "challenge cache" requirements)

 

In terms of rating for events, I'll add this:

 

Staying overnight in the mountains is, in fact, difficult--and more difficult in cold seasons. There is no denying that fact. But related to geocaching it is not. Here is what I mean:

 

When talking about consistent execution of rating geocaches across borders, there needs to be a baseline understanding. If someone from the tropics comes to Alaska and only packs a short-sleeved shirt and bermuda shorts, they'll be cold for 99% of 3+ seasons of caching here in AK. That doesn't mean caches here are more difficult due to weather. Nor does it make Alaska's mountains higher. It also doesn't mean that those who live and cache in the mountains are more fit for higher terrain caches, and therefore their caches in the mountains should be rated lower because they're "used to it".

 

I can't abide the example that an event where you ride a train for 3 hours, or go for a 2 hour river paddle are "difficult". Holding a seat cushion down for a 3-hour train ride is not difficult. One would know they would be away for 3 hours on the ride, but getting the cache is not hard at all. You just have to show up.

 

For CITO, it isn't any different. The difficulty isn't in having to pick up trash. You know that clean-up is the goal of that specific event. But if one person only picks up cigarette butts, while the other picks up discarded tires and refrigerators, it doesn't make that event more difficult for the second person. Participation, in the loosest of interpretations, is the only requirement for events of any kind. That loose interpretation means, fundamentally, showing up.

 

cezanne, you can try as hard as you want to come up with contrived examples where D ratings might be higher than 1. There are, most assuredly, times where that might be the case--and should be handled as individual cases. However, the method of "attending" an event is fundamentally the same--you "participate"; you show up. The weather, the cognitive level of the attendee, the lack of parking, the time of day, the clothing one may need to wear, the duration of the ride, the labyrinth you navigate...none of those is a fundamental factor of event difficulty.

 

If the getting there is more difficult, that's the terrain rating. (Maze example) If the staying there is more difficult, that's not difficulty (weather, time of day, sitting on a seat in a train, or bobbing in your kayak) either.

 

I'll post one last example to deflate the paddle event D rating: Event is a put-in to pull-out paddle down a river. Rentals available, bring your own if you want. Meet at the put-in at 10am.

 

I show with my kayak at 10am. We meet and greet. We put into the water shortly after, and I paddle a little way out. I suck at kayaking. (Fact.) So I turn back early--only about 100 yards from the shore at the launch.

 

Did I not attend that event? Did I not also fail to attend for the "entire intended amount of time for that event"? Can I say I "attended" via an online log?

 

My fear, unfamiliarity, or lack of skill to complete the duration of that paddle don't change the fact that I showed up. People know for those types of events that they'd need the requisite skills to participate: a knowledge of paddling, or a willingness to try.

 

If someone shows to the launch point, but is aquaphobic, does the listing owner really say to that person, "No, you can't log an attended. You didn't get in the water."?

 

Someone who is aquaphobic might not even show up for that paddle event at all anyway. Someone who is siderodromophobic might not even come close to your train event. But if either shows up to participate in their own way, shouldn't that be an opportunity to be inclusive? And because events really are conditionally inclusive, wouldn't owners simply rate them as "not difficult"? Certainly a kayak trip or raft through rapids would be more difficult to overcome one's fears or familiarity. But to call that a 3-5* difficulty? Come on. I'm scared of drowning in rapids, but I'd not expect to see an event where you ride a raft trip with a 3* difficulty--what's hard for me is overcoming personal fears, not the difficulty of attending the event itself. Again, if I showed up at the launch and chickened out at the last minute, would the event owner be inclined to say, "Well, you didn't raft with us..."

 

This is all to say, if a listing owner deliberately excludes certain users (denies the aquaphobic an attended log for the kayak event they showed up at the launch for, or denies an "Attended" to the siderodromophobic who came to the gate for the train event, for the claustrophobic who couldn't finish the corn maze), then perhaps they can up the D rating; they can then perhaps exclude people. But really, events are about gathering people together, aren't they? If I don't want to kayak, I wouldn't go. But if I showed up to see people off, or got a paddle wet for a moment before turning back, I think that event still has a D1 rating. One's phobia (including social anxiety, or "being an introvert") does not change the D of the cache to be higher. Being there is the key. Showing up.

 

If I give the maze a try, but get hopelessly lost for so long the others who attended the event already left, do I not log an "Attended"? If I can log that I attended, was "giving it a shot" difficult enough to merit a higher D rating? Attending an event is the "getting of coordinates" like a puzzle cache; being at the place at the time is "finding the container". So yes, perhaps a corn maze could be a half-star higher difficulty (but couldn't I just meet everyone at the exit because I'm claustrophobic, rendering the intent of a higher D rating moot?). But riding a train? Kayaking? Remembering to pack my parka for that arctic event? Hardly.

 

Just my opinion, of course.

Link to comment

I know traditionals that are in plain sight, but people like me need at least 30 minutes to open the container if I manage it at all. So answering Clayjar's question would end up with D=1* while this would be awfully wrong in my opinion as most cachers might need to invest at least 10 minutes or rather more.

I find that to be dealt with under the last question:

"Cache likely requires special skills, knowledge, or in-depth preparation to find"

 

That nets a D4 cache.

 

(I'm assuming that you're talking about a puzzle box cache or something like that...not just a rusted-shut tin)

 

Perhaps how the ClayJar questionnaire reads to you is a language barrier? It is quite nuanced in how one can interpret it for different circumstances.

 

If it is a language/translation issue, then perhaps that can help you change perspective on where I, and others, are coming from when talking about how well that system works? Perhaps we need to be aware that the ClayJar tool works best for English speakers?

Link to comment

It was hashed out years and years ago right here by users of this listing service.

 

One of the big issues is that the system was hashed out in the US at a time when geocaching in Europe was just in the beginning stage and hardly anyone from Europe took part in the discussions.

Geocaching in countries like Germany and Austria is quite different and the nature of multi caches and puzzle caches there results in many cases that are neither covered in a meaningful way by the questions asked by the Clayjar tool nor by the descriptions of the ratings.

 

That's in fact not only an issue of the Clayjar tool - it's also an issue with statements that the D-rating only takes care of the difficulty once one is at GZ.

 

Believe me that everything which is difficult in caches like that one

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC4T6HN_standpunkte-points-of-view

and that one

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC4TBM7_stadtbummel-stroll-in-the-town

comes before having arrived at GZ.

 

You need to walk along the given route (just a map picture) and identify the correct order of all

pictures. Some are hard to see and some are very close together. I took me five rounds for the easier one

of the two and even quite visual people who live in Vienna need at will typically need at least two rounds when

done during day light and with not too many tourists around. The walking speed will be much slower than the normal

walking speed.

 

I think that 3* and 4* are correct ratings for the multi caches above. Once at GZ they are both D=1.5*.

 

Clayjar's question do not address such caches at all even though no puzzle is involved.

 

Ok, you again can say that I took specific examples which is true (ignoring for the moment that there many such

caches like the two above). The more important point is that hardly any multi and mystery cache in my area really

gets a proper rating by answering the questions of the Clayjar system which focus way too much on the difficult for

finding the container.

 

 

 

Lastly, the ClayJar tool was designed with physical caches in mind. So of course the language is geared more toward "the hunt". But, it isn't altogether inaccurate for events either.

 

The flaw with focussing on the hunt at GZ is not an issue for events (that would not be a real issue as I do not think that one needs a tool for rating events). The real issue are multi caches and mystery caches in all their varieties.

 

If it is used consistently, we'd see more consistent ratings for caches across borders. And the tool isn't all that inaccurate to rate caches; I've never rated my own caches or a cache I been out to find and had that tool rate it in a way that I said, "Woah, that's WAY off". (I've gone to find a cache, seen that the ratings looked off when I planned my hunt, come home and rated my experience to find that ClayJar confirms that the cache was under or overrated, yes.)

 

How much caching experience do you have in countries like Germany, Austria, the Czech republic?

It is not surprising that the system works far better in the area where it has been created.

 

 

Staying overnight in the mountains is, in fact, difficult--and more difficult in cold seasons. There is no denying that fact. But related to geocaching it is not. Here is what I mean:

 

When talking about consistent execution of rating geocaches across borders, there needs to be a baseline understanding. If someone from the tropics comes to Alaska and only packs a short-sleeved shirt and bermuda shorts, they'll be cold for 99% of 3+ seasons of caching here in AK. That doesn't mean caches here are more difficult due to weather. Nor does it make Alaska's mountains higher.

 

It also doesn't mean that those who live and cache in the mountains are more fit for higher terrain caches, and therefore their caches in the mountains should be rated lower because they're "used to it".

 

But this is what will happen automatically. The guy who can ride up a bicycle on a steep slope will answer the respective question differently than a seriously overweight person.

The typical guy from a rural region in my area (much fitter than I'm by the way) has not the slightest idea that for some people in the US already 500m walking could be is what they call a hike (please do not interpret this is a general statement about the US). It was just an example.

 

 

I can't abide the example that an event where you ride a train for 3 hours, or go for a 2 hour river paddle are "difficult". Holding a seat cushion down for a 3-hour train ride is not difficult. One would know they would be away for 3 hours on the ride, but getting the cache is not hard at all. You just have to show up.

 

It is not difficult in terms of required abilities, I agree. However if a needle in the haystack cache requires turning around 200 numbered stones (or looking into 200 numbered film canisters), it should have a higher difficulty rating even though systematically going through all the possibilities is not difficult either. It just takes time.

 

Up to now I've looked at the difficult rating also as a way to account for the additional time that goes into a cache beyond the physical moving from stage to stage and a cache where a substantial amount of time goes into the non moving part (be it searching, calculating, solving puzzles, thinking whatever) was one that I regarded to deserve a higher D-rating than those where this this amount of time is considerably shorter.

 

cezanne, you can try as hard as you want to come up with contrived examples where D ratings might be higher than 1. There are, most assuredly, times where that might be the case--and should be handled as individual cases.

 

I was arguing against a general rule "events need to have the D=1 rating" (which apparently is applied for example in Poland). I never claimed that the cases where a substantially higher rating makes sense are numerous.

 

However, the method of "attending" an event is fundamentally the same--you "participate"; you show up. The weather, the cognitive level of the attendee, the lack of parking, the time of day, the clothing one may need to wear, the duration of the ride, the labyrinth you navigate...none of those is a fundamental factor of event difficulty.

 

But the labyrinth e.g. cannot be accounted under terrain either.

So do you really think that such a labyrinth event should have the same rating as a meet and greet in an easily findable restaurant where noone will fail to end up with an attended log if nothing happens that is not event-related?

 

If the getting there is more difficult, that's the terrain rating.

 

I do not agree. If the terrain is wheelchair accessible, this is T=1* - there is no debate for me about that.

They can come up with a rule that they only want to have D=1 events, but they can never ever force someone to

rate wheelchair accessible terrain with something above T=1* - it then also would exclude the usage of the wheelchair icon

which is nonsense.

 

But really, events are about gathering people together, aren't they?

 

But it works better if they gather the right sort of people together which fit to a certain event.

Otherwise no one profits. I have attended some events where I learnt that for example myself should not attend

certain events - both to my own and some other people's advantage.

 

If I give the maze a try, but get hopelessly lost for so long the others who attended the event already left, do I not log an "Attended"? If I can log that I attended, was "giving it a shot" difficult enough to merit a higher D rating?

 

I have a situation in mind where the event location is in the middle of the maze. If you never arrive there, you have not attended the event and of course cannot log an attended log.

You might find someone to accompany you inside the maze, but not necessarily.

 

Not every event is thought as a big all inclusive community event.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

It was hashed out years and years ago right here by users of this listing service.

 

One of the big issues is that the system was hashed out in the US at a time when geocaching in Europe was just in the beginning stage and hardly anyone from Europe took part in the discussions.

Geocaching in countries like Germany and Austria is quite different and the nature of multi caches and puzzle caches there results in many cases that are neither covered in a meaningful way by the questions asked by the Clayjar tool nor by the descriptions of the ratings.

 

That's in fact not only an issue of the Clayjar tool - it's also an issue with statements that the D-rating only takes care of the difficulty once one is at GZ.

 

Believe me that everything which is difficult in caches like that one

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC4T6HN_standpunkte-points-of-view

and that one

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC4TBM7_stadtbummel-stroll-in-the-town

comes before having arrived at GZ.

 

You need to walk along the given route (just a map picture) and identify the correct order of all

pictures. Some are hard to see and some are very close together. I took me five rounds for the easier one

of the two and even quite visual people who live in Vienna need at will typically need at least two rounds when

done during day light and with not too many tourists around. The walking speed will be much slower than the normal

walking speed.

 

I think that 3* and 4* are correct ratings for the multi caches above. Once at GZ they are both D=1.5*.

 

Clayjar's question do not address such caches at all even though no puzzle is involved. There is a single question

which is used to obtain the D-rating (while many questions are asked for the T-rating).

If you say yes for multi-leg, then every multi cache gets D=3* (or higher) even though there are multi caches ranging from

D=1* (for example simple offset to a hideout in plain sight) to D=5*.

 

 

Ok, you again can say that I took specific examples which is true (ignoring for the moment that there many such

caches like the two above). The more important point is that hardly any multi and mystery cache in my area really

gets a proper rating by answering the questions of the Clayjar system which focus way too much on the difficult for

finding the container.

 

 

 

Lastly, the ClayJar tool was designed with physical caches in mind. So of course the language is geared more toward "the hunt". But, it isn't altogether inaccurate for events either.

 

The flaw with focussing on the hunt at GZ is not an issue for events (that would not be a real issue as I do not think that one needs a tool for rating events). The real issue are multi caches and mystery caches in all their varieties.

 

If it is used consistently, we'd see more consistent ratings for caches across borders. And the tool isn't all that inaccurate to rate caches; I've never rated my own caches or a cache I been out to find and had that tool rate it in a way that I said, "Woah, that's WAY off". (I've gone to find a cache, seen that the ratings looked off when I planned my hunt, come home and rated my experience to find that ClayJar confirms that the cache was under or overrated, yes.)

 

How much caching experience do you have in countries like Germany, Austria, the Czech republic?

It is not surprising that the system works far better in the area where it has been created.

 

 

Staying overnight in the mountains is, in fact, difficult--and more difficult in cold seasons. There is no denying that fact. But related to geocaching it is not. Here is what I mean:

 

When talking about consistent execution of rating geocaches across borders, there needs to be a baseline understanding. If someone from the tropics comes to Alaska and only packs a short-sleeved shirt and bermuda shorts, they'll be cold for 99% of 3+ seasons of caching here in AK. That doesn't mean caches here are more difficult due to weather. Nor does it make Alaska's mountains higher.

 

It also doesn't mean that those who live and cache in the mountains are more fit for higher terrain caches, and therefore their caches in the mountains should be rated lower because they're "used to it".

 

But this is what will happen automatically. The guy who can ride up a bicycle on a steep slope will answer the respective question differently than a seriously overweight person.

The typical guy from a rural region in my area (much fitter than I'm by the way) has not the slightest idea that for some people in the US already 500m walking could be is what they call a hike (please do not interpret this is a general statement about the US). It was just an example.

 

 

I can't abide the example that an event where you ride a train for 3 hours, or go for a 2 hour river paddle are "difficult". Holding a seat cushion down for a 3-hour train ride is not difficult. One would know they would be away for 3 hours on the ride, but getting the cache is not hard at all. You just have to show up.

 

It is not difficult in terms of required abilities, I agree. However if a needle in the haystack cache requires turning around 200 numbered stones (or looking into 200 numbered film canisters), it should have a higher difficulty rating even though systematically going through all the possibilities is not difficult either. It just takes time.

 

Up to now I've looked at the difficult rating also as a way to account for the additional time that goes into a cache beyond the physical moving from stage to stage and a cache where a substantial amount of time goes into the non moving part (be it searching, calculating, solving puzzles, thinking whatever) was one that I regarded to deserve a higher D-rating than those where this this amount of time is considerably shorter.

 

cezanne, you can try as hard as you want to come up with contrived examples where D ratings might be higher than 1. There are, most assuredly, times where that might be the case--and should be handled as individual cases.

 

I was arguing against a general rule "events need to have the D=1 rating" (which apparently is applied for example in Poland). I never claimed that the cases where a substantially higher rating makes sense are numerous.

 

However, the method of "attending" an event is fundamentally the same--you "participate"; you show up. The weather, the cognitive level of the attendee, the lack of parking, the time of day, the clothing one may need to wear, the duration of the ride, the labyrinth you navigate...none of those is a fundamental factor of event difficulty.

 

But the labyrinth e.g. cannot be accounted under terrain either.

So do you really think that such a labyrinth event should have the same rating as a meet and greet in an easily findable restaurant where noone will fail to end up with an attended log if nothing happens that is not event-related?

 

If the getting there is more difficult, that's the terrain rating.

 

I do not agree. If the terrain is wheelchair accessible, this is T=1* - there is no debate for me about that.

They can come up with a rule that they only want to have D=1 events, but they can never ever force someone to

rate wheelchair accessible terrain with something above T=1* - it then also would exclude the usage of the wheelchair icon

which is nonsense.

 

But really, events are about gathering people together, aren't they?

 

But it works better if they gather the right sort of people together which fit to a certain event.

Otherwise no one profits. I have attended some events where I learnt that for example myself should not attend

certain events - both to my own and some other people's advantage.

 

If I give the maze a try, but get hopelessly lost for so long the others who attended the event already left, do I not log an "Attended"? If I can log that I attended, was "giving it a shot" difficult enough to merit a higher D rating?

 

I have a situation in mind where the event location is in the middle of the maze. If you never arrive there, you have not attended the event and of course cannot log an attended log.

You might find someone to accompany you inside the maze, but not necessarily.

 

Not every event is thought as a big all inclusive community event.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

I know traditionals that are in plain sight, but people like me need at least 30 minutes to open the container if I manage it at all. So answering Clayjar's question would end up with D=1* while this would be awfully wrong in my opinion as most cachers might need to invest at least 10 minutes or rather more.

I find that to be dealt with under the last question:

"Cache likely requires special skills, knowledge, or in-depth preparation to find"

That nets a D4 cache.

 

But that's not the case.

 

I talk about things that just require what the average cacher in my country has no issue with (most of them also can easily repair simpler things at home and regularly are demonstrating this).

 

Most cachers will probably need around 10 minutes, and clumsy people with two left hands will need longer (for example 30 minutes).

D=4* is something completely different - the average hunter will not need several trips and will not regard it as challenging.

The average hunter will have managed it within 30 minutes (the hideout is in plain sight!) - so the description of the difficulty levels gives D=2* (by answering the question "how difficult it is to find the cache" one would get D=1*). So three different ratings with one system.

 

Of course it is detabable what a special skill is.

 

I'm a theory person and most cachers are much more practical. Of course everyone has their own concept of a special skill.

 

My real point was a different one however. I tried to explain that the Clayjar system asks

"How easy is it to find the cache?" (the language barrier can be ignored because I use the English version and I do understand every word of it)

It does not ask "How easy it is to retrieve the log sheet?"

 

So if only finding is in the focus, the ratings will be awfully wrong and that is what I wrote.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

I'm confused. I looked at the examples you posted, and then compared against ClayJar's system. I got very, very similar ratings.

 

Would you say those caches are rated accurately? Without even seeking them I then can confirm, if you think they are rated accurately, that the ClayJar tool agrees. Based on what you're telling me, I got 3/2 for the map/pictures multi. Could stretch to 4D depending on how hard it is to find those spots on the first try. (By the way, there is a cache just like this in Portland, OR. It's not altogether unique to your area :anibad: )

 

I'm thinking more and more that your opposition to this is that we have a language barrier when using that tool. Developed in the US, yes. Written first in English, yes. But I still find it to be accurate with your examples.

 

The tool may read like it is only about GZ, but the nuanced character of the tool comes out more clearly when you add in the context of how that tool was developed.

_____________________________________________________________

 

Picture a maze. A rat must find the cheese in relation to the maze.

 

First example: Cheese is at the end of the maze. Distance is substantial (is mouse scale). Terrain is flat. Clues or indicators are present to move the mouse point-to-point within the maze. Because the mouse must navigate the maze to find the cheese, it is still difficult. D3 or D4 sounds good to me.

 

Second example: Cheese is at the entrance to the maze. Cheese is sealed in a camouflaged container. Terrain is flat. Because the mouse must search for a while without needing to navigate the maze, it is still difficult to find. D2 or D3 sounds good to me. Higher if the container requires special tools, knowledge, or other challenges to open.

 

Third example: Cheese is placed somewhere in the lab. The mouse must complete a task to see where the final location is. That location is obvious when the mouse arrives at the site. Terrain is flat. D2-D5, depending on the difficulty of the task to complete to uncover the location of the cheese.

 

Fourth example: Cheese is located at the entrance to the maze. Cheese is sealed in a camouflaged container. The mouse must complete a task to see where the final location of the cheese is. That location is not obvious when the mouse arrives because of the container camouflage. D3-D5, depending on the difficulty of the task to complete to uncover the location of the camouflaged and sealed container.

 

Fifth example: Cheese is handed to the mouse if it wakes up that morning and is at the maze test site. Terrain is flat. Mouse can navigate the maze at will. Or, mouse must show up at the maze, but then will sit still for 3 hours at/within the maze. D1.

 

The first set are like physical geocaches. The last is more like an event. A crude example, yes. Easy to pick apart because it is crude and not exhaustive, sure. But it is being used to illustrate a point.

Link to comment

I know traditionals that are in plain sight, but people like me need at least 30 minutes to open the container if I manage it at all. So answering Clayjar's question would end up with D=1* while this would be awfully wrong in my opinion as most cachers might need to invest at least 10 minutes or rather more.

I find that to be dealt with under the last question:

"Cache likely requires special skills, knowledge, or in-depth preparation to find"

That nets a D4 cache.

 

But that's not the case.

 

I talk about things that just require what the average cacher in my country has no issue with (most of them also can easily repair simpler things at home and regularly are demonstrating this).

 

Most cachers will probably need around 10 minutes, and clumsy people with two left hands will need longer (for example 30 minutes).

D=4* is something completely different - the average hunter will not need several trips and will not regard it as challenging.

The average hunter will have managed it within 30 minutes (the hideout is in plain sight!) - so the description of the difficulty levels gives D=2* (by answering the question "how difficult it is to find the cache" one would get D=1*). So three different ratings with one system.

 

Of course it is detabable what a special skill is.

 

I'm a theory person and most cachers are much more practical. Of course everyone has their own concept of a special skill.

 

My real point was a different one however. I tried to explain that the Clayjar system asks

"How easy is it to find the cache?" (the language barrier can be ignored because I use the English version and I do understand every word of it)

It does not ask "How easy it is to retrieve the log sheet?"

 

So if only finding is in the focus, the ratings will be awfully wrong and that is what I wrote.

This confirms my suspicions. Either you're being obtuse, or the language is an issue when dealing with the ClayJar tool's use of English words.

 

The example you provided was where a cache was in plain sight, but you must do something when there to open the container causing delay--more time--for some people. That time might be low for those with experience, or high for "2 left handed" people. Most people will fit in the middle. The middle for what amounts to a physical puzzle is the difficulty to not just FIND the cache, but to also complete the required task of opening it and signing the logbook.

 

Again, you've confirmed my suspicion. The implication, based on the context of its design and the conversations about how to come to conclusive and consistent ratings, is that this metric within the ClayJar tool is where one would deal with the "puzzle container" cache.

 

Now that you know that you're either been misinterpreting or are being deliberately obtuse, does it help understand why the tool is actually quite helpful and accurate? Again, when you provide details about these caches, I go into the tool and somehow come out on the end with the same rating as you claim it should have despite the tool. We're speaking the same language, but you're somehow disagreeing with how to get there.

 

What I've shown, and proven really, is that the ClayJar tool is quite accurate, and certainly assists in consistent ratings for geocaches. One must simply know how to use it. It is, more or less, outdated in any case. Puzzle containers weren't mainstream when they designed the tool. There are some areas where one must know how to classify their response within a compartmentalized set of qualitative classifiers.

 

You're clearly experiencing some cognitive dissonance because the language you are using to define things isn't found within the tool. But, as with any qualitative analysis, a questionnaire will need to categorize things with broad, sometimes hard-to-classify consistently, metrics.

 

So, if you change your perspective and regimented and fundamentalist reading of the language within the ClayJar tool, can you not see how that tool actually lines up with what you wish it would match up with?

 

You say "understand" the language, but you do not. You can read it, yes. But it is nuanced and you can say what that word is, and assume you know its meaning. But sadly, you don't comprehend how that last metric in the tool can apply for not just "finding the cache", but also "finding the coordinates" or "opening the container".

 

That last metric is a broad way to ask how hard it is to complete the fundamental task of signing a logbook. It is the generic use of "find" that has different meaning here in this game than it does in dictionary/translated general use in the English language. It is nuanced because of this, and you'll need to understand that so you can see how well this tool really works. (As I can show with each example you have. Let me serve as your translator of the tool, perhaps?)

Edited by NeverSummer
Link to comment

I'm confused. I looked at the examples you posted, and then compared against ClayJar's system. I got very, very similar ratings.

 

But not if you answer the question how difficult it is to find the cache once at GZ as all the work is done before. I used these examples as examples

that the explanation that what goes into difficulty is the work to be done at GZ does not make sense for many caches. The cache containers can be in plain sight or obvious to find, and still the D-rating can be much higher.

 

As ClayJar is regarded you would get D>=3* for each multi cache which is wrong too as there are D=1, D=1.5*, D=2* etc multi caches.

 

By the way, many cachers would not even regard the two caches I linked above as multi caches as there expect for a trailhead no coordinates are provided - so it's neither a classical offset cache nor a classical multi leg cache, but still it's quite a typical multi cache set-up in my country.

 

Based on what you're telling me, I got 3/2 for the map/pictures multi.

 

For the easier one D=3* is ok, the harder one is better rated with 4* which will not be provided by ClayJar.

 

The tool may read like it is only about GZ, but the nuanced character of the tool comes out more clearly when you add in the context of how that tool was developed.

 

The issue with that is that different people use the tool differently because different people understand the questions differently.

 

We two know the context in which the tool has been developed - the big majority of cachers does not.

 

The ratings D=3* and D=4* for the two example caches above have been obtained by a comparison among local caches and what's considered difficult there.

A D=4* puzzle cache in Vienna is typically much more challenging than a D=4* puzzle cache in the Styrian country side - this might not be fortunate, but is true.

 

 

Picture a maze. A rat must find the cheese in relation to the maze.

 

First example: Cheese is at the end of the maze. Distance is substantial (is mouse scale). Terrain is flat. Clues or indicators are present to move the mouse point-to-point within the maze. Because the mouse must navigate the maze to find the cheese, it is still difficult. D3 or D4 sounds good to me.

 

So why do you then insist on D=1 for a maze event?

D=3* would be my result for the maze event.

 

Fifth example: Cheese is handed to the mouse if it wakes up that morning and is at the maze test site. Terrain is flat. Mouse can navigate the maze at will. Or, mouse must show up at the maze, but then will sit still for 3 hours at/within the maze. D1.

 

The first set are like physical geocaches. The last is more like an event.

 

The last is like how you see an event. I see the event I have in mind like the first case.

No attended log without having arrived at the goal very much like the same as no attended log for an event at the summit of a steep mountain if you do not manage to go there.

(An event at the base of the mountain where you are free to join the hike up the mountain is the equivalent of your fifth example in the maze case, but that's not the equivalent of an event up the summit.)

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

I'm confused. I looked at the examples you posted, and then compared against ClayJar's system. I got very, very similar ratings.

 

But not if you answer the question how difficult it is to find the cache once at GZ as all the work is done before. I used these examples as examples

that the explanation that what goes into difficulty is the work to be done at GZ does not make sense for many caches.

 

As ClayJar is regarded you would get D>=3* for each multi cache which is wrong too as there are D=1, D=1.5*, D=2* etc multi caches.

I'm not seeing what you're saying here. Can you explain? (perhaps outside of multi-quoting?)

 

Based on what you're telling me, I got 3/2 for the map/pictures multi.

 

For the easier one D=3* is ok, the harder one is better rated with 4* which will not be provided by ClayJar.

Right. I looked at the example you told me. And if a second, "harder" one is in discussion where it requires more preparation or more time walking through town looking at specific pictures, it would get rated higher because of the additional time/effort to find the final location.

 

Your multi examples are what some would call "field puzzles". You have to prepare or uncover the final location by visiting different sites and/or solving a problem.

 

So, how, "hard is it to find the cache?" That depends on the time taken, and other specialized knowledge needed to complete the task/solve the problems.

 

You're clearly hung up on the GZ "how hard is it to find?" question. What used to be done here is say something in the description: "The ratings are for the overall experience. Finding the cache at GZ would be more of a difficulty of 1*..."

 

Unfortunately (or is it fortunately) we have only one metric for difficulty to "find" the cache. We could add metrics to cache descriptions and submission forms if Groundspeak would implement it, but that is not going to happen. So, for now, we have to rate for difficulty--how hard will it be to do what it takes to find the container and sign the logbook? If an event has a maze component, you can say that "Navigation of the maze is difficult, please allow extra time.", but the event itself is a D1 because you're unlikely to follow each attendee through the maze to assure that their experience finding the event final location was in fact the difficulty you intended. (See helicopter to mountaintop, or handing down a tree-climbing cache)

 

The tool may read like it is only about GZ, but the nuanced character of the tool comes out more clearly when you add in the context of how that tool was developed.

 

The issue with that is that different people use the tool differently because different people understand the questions differently.

 

We two know the context in which the tool has been developed - the big majority of cachers does not.

 

The ratings D=3* and D=4* for the two example caches above have been obtained by a comparison among local caches and what's considered difficult there.

A D=4* puzzle cache in Vienna is typically much more challenging than a D=4* puzzle cache in the Styrian country side - this might not be fortunate, but is true.

True. But that's where a cache owner should ask, honestly, am I inferring local biases when I rate my cache? Can a stupid mouse from the streets do this as easily as a lab-trained rat? Well...no. So one needs to be far more globally aware than this tool can impart on ones' biases.

 

 

Picture a maze. A rat must find the cheese in relation to the maze.

 

First example: Cheese is at the end of the maze. Distance is substantial (is mouse scale). Terrain is flat. Clues or indicators are present to move the mouse point-to-point within the maze. Because the mouse must navigate the maze to find the cheese, it is still difficult. D3 or D4 sounds good to me.

 

So why do you then insist on D=1 for a maze event?

D=3* would be my result for the maze event.

Because you don't have to complete the maze to be at the final location to have attended. See my examples above. Would you really disallow someone from logging an "attended" because they got lost in the maze and instead walked around to the end with a staff person to meet up with the group?

 

Fifth example: Cheese is handed to the mouse if it wakes up that morning and is at the maze test site. Terrain is flat. Mouse can navigate the maze at will. Or, mouse must show up at the maze, but then will sit still for 3 hours at/within the maze. D1.

 

The first set are like physical geocaches. The last is more like an event.

 

The last is like how you see an event. I see the event I have in mind like the first case.

No attended log without having arrived at the goal very much like the same as no attended log for an event at the summit of a steep mountain if you do not manage to go there.

(An event at the base of the mountain where you are free to join the hike up the mountain is the equivalent of your fifth example in the maze case, but that's not the equivalent of an event up the summit.)

It's not how I see an event, it's how the guidelines are written. One just needs to show up to log an event, no?

 

You may see your maze event like the first example, but you need to see that the difficulty you're imparting is not related to the act of "being there" to attend.

 

Again, a mountaintop event would be TERRAIN rating, not difficulty. Actually attending the event is simple--just be there on time. The maze is also TERRAIN rating, because it adds physical barriers to the hunt--distance (time doesn't matter, the event start time is what matters to log an attended. If I'm early and leave or late, I wasn't really there.).

Link to comment

 

It's not how I see an event, it's how the guidelines are written. One just needs to show up to log an event, no?

 

Yes, but if the event is in the middle/end of the maze is must arrive there - it does not help just to give your best and then give up.

 

Again, a mountaintop event would be TERRAIN rating, not difficulty.

 

But in the case of the mountain top the ascent really will not be a T=1* terrain (flat, paved, wheelchair accessible). If the maze path is T=1*, theen T=3* would

be ridiculous.

 

If you agree that the first maze example is D=3* (this is what you wrote), then an event of this type should be D=3* too.

 

Actually attending the event is simple--just be there on time. The maze is also TERRAIN rating, because it adds physical barriers to the hunt--distance (

 

Ok, so we need to agree to disagree. I think it is nonsense to rate wheelchair terrain with >1* and to have to refrain from using the wheelchair icon if it is appropriate.

Link to comment

*Headdesk*

 

But in the case of the mountain top the ascent really will not be a T=1* terrain (flat, paved, wheelchair accessible). If the maze path is T=1*, theen T=3* would

be ridiculous.

 

No.

A trip to the top of the mountain would be all about the terrain rating, cezanne. Regardless of physical cache or event cache. That makes sense. We're talking about difficulty. Logging an event at a mountaintop is difficult because of the terrain, not how hard it is to "attend" the event. Terrain is about the ambulatory or vehicular difficulty of getting there. Difficulty is about either finding coordinates (puzzle, field puzzle), steps to go through to find a final (multi or field puzzle), opening the cache (puzzle box, combination lock), or finding the cache at GZ (camouflage, etc.).

 

Hiking to the top of a mountain, scuba diving to a wreck, or kayaking a river are all about terrain ratings, not difficulty when talking about events. (And to an extent, physical geocaches as well...but let's not open that can of worms again, shall we not?). A mountaintop event would where a hike is required (no tram, no ski lift) would be aptly rated as a 1D/4T. Perhaps 3T, depending on the elevation gains or steepness. It might take an out-of-shape person many hours to get there, and a fit person 45 minutes. But the terrain is hypothetically steep, and it would take an averagely-fit person between that 45 mintues and many hours.

 

Sometimes a cache will have a difficult puzzle, but an easy final find. Rate for the puzzle, mention the final location in the description, and/or hint. Sometimes an event could have a maze, sure. Rate for the event attendance (D1), and mention the difficulty of the "puzzle" to find the event location. (As you've told everyone where the final is. I could gatecrash or skydive to the middle of your labyrinth with less difficulty than navigating it.) For events, the "How hard is the cache to find" is SUPER EASY. You tell people RIGHT where it is, and all you have to do is show up.

 

If you agree that the first maze example is D=3* (this is what you wrote), then an event of this type should be D=3* too.

I don't agree, and I said as much in the story I told. I was talking about a cache like the multi you gave as an example. To find the cache, you won't know the final until you use those photos and find each for clues (a maze).

 

Heck, I even predicted that you'd pick those apart to try and use it to your advantage. Cezanne, what I described in those 5 examples are just that: examples. What you're failing to see is that the event example is where you get to log the event when you show up. Getting there (through a maze) is TERRAIN rating, not difficulty. It may be flat, but there is added distance, including smaller-scale navigation in a confined space. The scale of the terrain is reduced, and you've made a cache that is hard to walk to, not a cache that is hard to "find" or log as "Attended".

 

What a maze does is create a physical barrier that needs to be navigated to get to the location of your event. That physical barrier is like the hike up a mountain example. It's not the "finding" of the event that is hard, it's the getting there. If you show at the right spot at the designated time, you get a smiley. Super, super easy.

 

I think it is nonsense to rate wheelchair terrain with >1* and to have to refrain from using the wheelchair icon if it is appropriate.

And I think that apples are best when eaten in a pie. :blink:

Edited by NeverSummer
Link to comment

Sometimes an event could have a maze, sure. Rate for the event attendance (D1), and mention the difficulty of the "puzzle" to find the event location.

 

But why should that be better than rating for the difficulty of finding the location and mention that the difficulty is for the "puzzle"?

I neither can find anything in the guidelines nor in the ClayJar system which favours one variant over the other.

 

If you agree that the first maze example is D=3* (this is what you wrote), then an event of this type should be D=3* too.

I don't agree, and I said as much in the story I told. I was talking about a cache like the multi you gave as an example.

 

You confuse me.

Let me cite you

 

First example: Cheese is at the end of the maze. Distance is substantial (is mouse scale). Terrain is flat. Clues or indicators are present to move the mouse point-to-point within the maze. Because the mouse must navigate the maze to find the cheese, it is still difficult. D3 or D4 sounds good to me.

 

So why is here D3 or D4 ok? And why do you deny above that you said that D=3 is ok in the first example?

 

Heck, I even predicted that you'd pick those apart to try and use it to your advantage.

 

I did not try to get an advantage, but try to understand why a cache and an event are so different for you and I still did not manage. Sorry.

What you call picking apart is my attempt to understand things and to analyse them.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

You confuse me.

Let me cite you

 

First example: Cheese is at the end of the maze. Distance is substantial (is mouse scale). Terrain is flat. Clues or indicators are present to move the mouse point-to-point within the maze. Because the mouse must navigate the maze to find the cheese, it is still difficult. D3 or D4 sounds good to me.

 

So why is here D3 or D4 ok? And do you deny above that you said that D=3 is ok in the first example?

 

 

I think I see the supposed difference between the above example (senario x) and the example of the event at the centre of a maze (scenario y)

 

In (x) the location of the cheese in the maze is unknown UNTIL the mouse finds it - which impacts the Difficulty of finding the location of the target

 

In (y) the location of the event in the maze is KNOWN at the outset - but the seeker still has to successfully navigate the maze to get there...

 

Hmmmm.... I have to admit that I am struggling to accept the claim that (x) relates only to Difficulty while (y) relates only to Terrain :unsure:

Link to comment

So, if you change your perspective and regimented and fundamentalist reading of the language within the ClayJar tool, can you not see how that tool actually lines up with what you wish it would match up with?

 

You say "understand" the language, but you do not. You can read it, yes. But it is nuanced and you can say what that word is, and assume you know its meaning. But sadly, you don't comprehend how that last metric in the tool can apply for not just "finding the cache", but also "finding the coordinates" or "opening the container".

 

What I tried to say is that different people interpret it differently and I can see and experience that every day.

 

If I would interpret the question "How difficult it is to find the cache" in the way it is stated in the tool, all my caches would have D<=1.5. As you can check none of my caches has a difficulty rating that low.

 

While the two multi caches I used as an example (to demonstrate that the statement that the D-rating only should take care of what happens at GZ is wrong) are indeed multi caches where a rating D>=3* is ok, there are many multi caches where a lower rating is appropriate and by answering the question that the cache is multi leg, Clayjar provides already D=3 regardless of whatever else you answer. This means that Clayjar's tool has some serious flaws for caches which are no puzzle caches too.

 

 

 

That last metric is a broad way to ask how hard it is to complete the fundamental task of signing a logbook.

 

Don't you think that it would be better to state it that way?

 

It is the generic use of "find" that has different meaning here in this game than it does in dictionary/translated general use in the English language. It is nuanced because of this, and you'll need to understand that so you can see how well this tool really works. (As I can show with each example you have. Let me serve as your translator of the tool, perhaps?)

 

That will not help as I was trying to explain why different people obtain so different results with the tool for the same caches. The tool should produce more or less the same result for ever user who is willing to learn how to use it, but that's not the case.

 

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

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

You confuse me.

Let me cite you

 

First example: Cheese is at the end of the maze. Distance is substantial (is mouse scale). Terrain is flat. Clues or indicators are present to move the mouse point-to-point within the maze. Because the mouse must navigate the maze to find the cheese, it is still difficult. D3 or D4 sounds good to me.

 

So why is here D3 or D4 ok? And do you deny above that you said that D=3 is ok in the first example?

 

 

I think I see the supposed difference between the above example (senario x) and the example of the event at the centre of a maze (scenario y)

 

In (x) the location of the cheese in the maze is unknown UNTIL the mouse finds it - which impacts the Difficulty of finding the location of the target

 

In (y) the location of the event in the maze is KNOWN at the outset - but the seeker still has to successfully navigate the maze to get there...

 

Hmmmm.... I have to admit that I am struggling to accept the claim that (x) relates only to Difficulty while (y) relates only to Terrain :unsure:

I never said it only reflects difficulty; rather I only talk about the difficulty rating. You've outlined the issue perfectly, however. With an event, you know where to be, and when to be there. If a physical (ambulatory or vehicular) barrier is there to get to the event (a corn maze, a hike up a mountain, e.g.), it is a terrain rating issue, not a "how the heck to I find that final location?" issue.

 

Even if you said, "Come to the entrance of the maze, the event is at the center finishing point at high noon...", one knows where the event is, and when to be there. Getting there only is impacted by the physical barrier of the maze.

Link to comment

So, if you change your perspective and regimented and fundamentalist reading of the language within the ClayJar tool, can you not see how that tool actually lines up with what you wish it would match up with?

 

You say "understand" the language, but you do not. You can read it, yes. But it is nuanced and you can say what that word is, and assume you know its meaning. But sadly, you don't comprehend how that last metric in the tool can apply for not just "finding the cache", but also "finding the coordinates" or "opening the container".

 

What I tried to say is that different people interpret it differently and I can see and experience that every day.

 

If I would interpret the question "How difficult it is to find the cache" in the way it is stated in the tool, all my caches would have D<=1.5. As you can check none of my caches has a difficulty rating that low.

 

While the two multi caches I used as an example (to demonstrate that the statement that the D-rating only should take care of what happens at GZ is wrong) are indeed multi caches where a rating D>=3* is ok, there are many multi caches where a lower rating is appropriate and by answering the question that the cache is multi leg, Clayjar provides already D=3 regardless of whatever else you answer. This means that Clayjar's tool has some serious flaws for caches which are no puzzle caches too.

That's where I'm saying you need to accept the fact that the last query on the ClayJar tool relates to "finding the cache", "finding the coordinates" and/or "opening the container". Do you see anywhere else in the tool that asks those questions? No. So that is where one needs to use the most accurate qualitative metric. It's that simple.

 

That last metric is a broad way to ask how hard it is to complete the fundamental task of signing a logbook.

 

Don't you think that it would be better to state it that way?

No. But do I think that the ClayJar tool could be edited for "modern" language? Sure. Could it be refined, yes.

 

It is the generic use of "find" that has different meaning here in this game than it does in dictionary/translated general use in the English language. It is nuanced because of this, and you'll need to understand that so you can see how well this tool really works. (As I can show with each example you have. Let me serve as your translator of the tool, perhaps?)

 

That will not help as I was trying to explain why different people obtain so different results with the tool for the same caches. The tool should produce more or less the same result for ever user who is willing to learn how to use it, but that's not the case.

 

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*.

Unable to respond. Insufficient information.

 

If, and only if, those are the only qualifiers, then yes. That's the rating. But the selection for "multi-leg" also says this, in whole: "Cache may be very well hidden, may be multi-leg, or may use clues to location."

 

So...:

 

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

You are well within your right to make that adjustment. You see that you should not rate your 2-leg multi outside of a reasonable amount from D3. Therein is the consistency. You say that some multis are D1. According to consistent use of the ClayJar tool, a multi would be more accurately rated for difficulty if between 2-4 stars for the case you describe.

 

What the tool is saying was supported by discussion long ago about rating caches. Multi-leg caches were determined to equal higher difficulty. (Right around D3, yes.) Can a multi be "SUPER EASY!"? Yes. You could be told exact locations to go to, the next stage obvious (with either a physical container in plain sight and no tools to open, or a tag/sign with clear destination information for the next stage). But the fact remains that a multi-leg cache should be rated in the D3 neighborhood, not D1.

 

This is where you're arguing based on regionality, and personal opinion versus tools that help us all with consistency. Saying, "I think this multi is easy. It should be a D1 rating" is not in alignment with how D/T ratings were developed in conversations early on. It's not how ClayJar created the tool to output based on those discussions. By nature, a multi-leg cache was determined to have a D rating around 3 stars. That's the facts. Dem's da berries. It is what it is.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...