Jump to content

Reviewers Reviewing D/T?


JL_HSTRE
Followers 0

Recommended Posts

Below is the language for the descriptions.
Maybe it's a language barrier. When I read the Help Center page, it says (emphasis added), "Below are the definitions that came as a result of those discussions."

 

You seem to regard the text as mere descriptions, where others of us seem to regard the text as definitions. Given that, it follows that we don't view the rating tool as the definition of the ratings.

 

That's where I'd suggest updating the rating tool's language to be closer to what I posted before--that the tool should state more clearly, somehow, that a simple/easy multi should prompt a click on the second button, not third.
It looks like we agree that the rating tool doesn't accurately reflect the definitions of the ratings. Perhaps we just disagree on how inaccurate the rating tool is, and under what circumstances. And on whether the definitions of the ratings need to change to accomodate the inaccuracies of the rating tool.

 

No, you're right. I'm being imprecise. Thanks for calling that to attention...it's muddying the waters.

 

However, the definitions came from discussion. To get the definitions, the discussion included the metrics which ClayJar directly employed within the rating tool. Meaning, he collated the discussion, qualitatively analyzed them for similarities, modified and summarized to be as inclusive (or broad) as possible to include the myriad of possible cache ideas (ala what cezanne has pointed out for a multitude of cases and examples), and then created a simple methodology so that the "survey" would help create some consistency in rating a cache so that it pops out in line with the definitions. "Temper the subjectivity", if you will.

 

Again, it's still about starting from the discussions (the tool) to end up with the definitions (the descriptions/end user definitions). Without being able to refer every single cacher to the thread discussing the rating processes back in 2001-2002/3, Groundspeak adopted the tool first as a less-than-obvious, small font link within the cache former versions of the submission page, and now has added more obvious links within the new submission page and the Help Center article. They're doing their best to make it obvious and to help foster some of the consistency people have been asking for over the last decade+...you can lead a horse to water, yadda yadda.

 

Even in small circles off the Groundspeak/geocaching.com site when I learned to "stash hunt"in 2001 the discussion was there about how to properly prepare a seeker for what was in store for them. Details of ratings were discussed over coffee, and some of the same ideas were discussed without knowing that the same conversations were going on "over here" in the Groundspeak forums. Lo and behold, it's an ongoing consideration which needs to be revisited from time to time. We don't have much help to be consistent in a now more global game, but the reduction in subjectivity that the use of the rating tool provides can help do its best to make the game approachable and easy to understand no matter where and when you're playing.

 

So forgive me for trying to point people back in that direction. I know this topic in this forum isn't going to change the world. It's hard to go over what has already been gone over, and then convince anyone that use of a tool they disagree with is a tool worth using for any reason at all. But, the examples are there, and the data so far shows that there isn't an epidemic of rating inconsistency. (Isn't that nice?) And yet, there is some frustration and denial being displayed here in this thread over the idea of using the tool versus ignoring it. That's all.

 

Edit to add: I do think the language could get an update to tweak it just a bit.

Edited by NeverSummer
Link to comment

Just an opinion on D ratings for multi's...Anything other than rating the cache based upon the most difficult stage defeats the intent of helping the finder anticipate whether they have the skill to get to the final.

 

You apparently have multi caches with several physical containers in mind (such as your two caches). There I agree with you.

 

However, in some European countries there is a large number of multi caches where all the stages before the final are virtual stages (question to answer).

Sometimes there are 20 or even much more such virtual stages, all of which are however completely straightforward and where there is nothing to search, guess or whatever.

 

I still think that trying to estimate the average time that is needed at these virtual stages is a reasonable approach for what to take into account for rating the difficulty of such multi caches apart from the difficulty which comes from searching for the final.

 

In picture hunting caches the difficulty is mainly related in matching photos and reality - the difficulty hardly ever comes from finding the final container.

 

There are many different kinds of multi caches. Those which are like yours, fit the idea of the Clayjar tool much better than multi caches with much more virtual elements.

 

When the Clayjar tool has been set up, those who were involved in the discussions did not think about of certain type of caches which are hard to rate anyway.

One prime example are long distance hiking caches. They are not intended to be finished within a day and sometimes the distances are so large that it could take a month or more. However the terrain of each of the day legs is often 2.5* or at most 3*. Of course one could rate such caches with T=4.5*, but it would only be part of the truth. If instead 30 separate caches were hidden none of them would end up as 4.5*.

The same applies somehow to rating the difficulty.

The majority of hiders of long distance hiking caches have adopted the strategy to rate on the basis of the difficulty and terrain rating of a typical split up into day legs which in my opinion makes more sense than assigning a 4.5*/4.5* rating per default to all of them making them completely undistinguishable.

 

One of the most famous long distance hiking multi caches (Munich-Venice)

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC1FPN1_munchen-venedig-munich-venice-monaco-venezia?guid=9e649f3d-7a10-43d8-ad2f-6db609c1a574

also applies this strategy and as the stages are easy I think that D=2* makes sense. D=4.5* would some people make believe that the caching aspect of this cache is challenging while it's only the hike and it length all it is about.

 

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

Just an opinion on D ratings for multi's...Anything other than rating the cache based upon the most difficult stage defeats the intent of helping the finder anticipate whether they have the skill to get to the final.

 

You apparently have multi caches with several physical containers in mind (such as your two caches). There I agree with you.

 

However, in some European countries there is a large number of multi caches where all the stages before the final are virtual stages (question to answer).

Sometimes there are 20 or even much more such virtual stages, all of which are however completely straightforward and where there is nothing to search, guess or whatever.

 

I still think that trying to estimate the average time that is needed at these virtual stages is a reasonable approach for what to take into account for rating the difficulty of such multi caches apart from the difficulty which comes from searching for the final.

 

In picture hunting caches the difficulty is mainly related in matching photos and reality - the difficulty hardly ever comes from finding the final container.

 

There are many different kinds of multi caches. Those which are like yours, fit the idea of the Clayjar tool much better than multi caches with much more virtual elements.

 

 

Cezanne

I still think that if each stage is straightforward, increasing the D beyond the toughest stage gives the impression that it is too hard to complete. Where I disagree w/ the Clayjar approach is it ups the D for time. That can be handled w/ an attribute.

Link to comment

I still think that if each stage is straightforward, increasing the D beyond the toughest stage gives the impression that it is too hard to complete. Where I disagree w/ the Clayjar approach is it ups the D for time. That can be handled w/ an attribute.

 

I think there needs to a compromise. If you e.g. need to do 20 very simple routine calculations, it still adds to the effort and increases the chances that someone makes a mistake.

 

I neither would rate such a multi cache with 3* nor with 1* (even not if the hideout is in plain sight).

 

 

As attributes are regarded, currently there is just takes less than an hour and takes more than an hour. Definitely not enough. I like the feature of opencaching.de where one can enter estimates for time and length on a voluntary basis.

 

However, note that such time estimates are typically for the overall time (including the moving time) while when I talk about taking into account the extra time needed for the D-rating I exclude the moving time from stage to stage and to the final (and the definitions of the difficulty levels are based on that time in my understanding and not the overall time including the moving time).

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

When the Clayjar tool has been set up, those who were involved in the discussions did not think about of certain type of caches which are hard to rate anyway.

One prime example are long distance hiking caches. They are not intended to be finished within a day and sometimes the distances are so large that it could take a month or more. However the terrain of each of the day legs is often 2.5* or at most 3*. Of course one could rate such caches with T=4.5*, but it would only be part of the truth. If instead 30 separate caches were hidden none of them would end up as 4.5*.

The same applies somehow to rating the difficulty.

The majority of hiders of long distance hiking caches have adopted the strategy to rate on the basis of the difficulty and terrain rating of a typical split up into day legs which in my opinion makes more sense than assigning a 4.5*/4.5* rating per default to all of them making them completely undistinguishable.

They didn't? Do you know that? How do you know that with such certainty? Did you read the threads when they were active or available? I did. There were nearly as many seemingly exhaustive examples brought up then as you are doing now.

 

Difficulty in this case is not exponentially increased for the duration of the trip required to find the cache. It can increase the difficulty a bit over a similarly made, yet shorter duration cache, but not so substantially as it couldn't be handled with the rating tool for terrain and a solid description on the cache page.

 

From the information given, I got a D1/T4 rating for the "many day, long distance" cache. In that case, the reason the tool chose it is because of the nuance of terrain versus difficulty of finding the cache itself. The tool defaults to rating the length of the hike versus calling the duration of the trip part of "difficulty". If you are ambulatory and in ok shape, you can complete a traverse to a final location quite easily--the perceived "difficulty" is in enduring the hike for a couple/few days to get there. But beyond that, finding the cache is simple. In this case, I'd then make the decision to up the D rating to 1.5, and leave the terrain at 4. If people moan about the D rating, I can always up to a 2 without breaking too much of a sweat---so long as I've been abundantly clear in the description for what a seeker can expect for planning and timing of the cache.

 

This is the same as calling an outdoor winter event "difficult"--it really isn't difficult to log the cache, it's difficult to overcome one's desire to just stay inside in the warmth of your home. That's not geocaching's fault, that's the person just not wanting to do it. I can hike 10+ miles a day in mountainous terrain in the backcountry. I've done it. But I don't go out and seek those caches every weekend. It's not because they have a higher D rating, it's because I'm lazy.

...Anyhow, that's just how I look at this example. The rating tool isn't that far off from "reality" beyond the fact that it puts your undies in a bundle is due to the fact that the "definitions" say that anything which takes many days should be a D4. I don't think that time should be the litmus test for D ratings in a case like this--so that's why I'd use the tool for consistency, adjust the rating for the non-exponential relationship between longer duration and the terrain (that's the barrier that makes it take so long, e.g.), and then be very, very clear in the description why the cache is rated as such while detailing what the seeker can expect.

 

Now, if I placed a nano in the woods at the end of a 3-day traverse, I'd up the D rating accordingly for the fact that I placed a nano in the woods at the end of a D4 hike.

 

The "may take many days or trips to complete" language had more to do with finding the cache-- a tough field puzzle, a hide that has such amazing camo that you keep coming back for more personal DNFs than finds ever logged on the cache, etc. It wasn't so much about the "time" being how long it takes to get to the cache--that was handled by the T rating. (Walk it backward to go forward...) The terrain is the barrier to finding the cache--a long hike in this case--and the difficulty of finding the cache is because of the length of the hike, or terrain, to get to the cache. THIS is why rating a cache off of the "definitions" is not rendering accurate ratings. The definitions say "MAY require multiple days / trips to complete." That is to say, it might not.

 

That metric has less to do with how long it takes to get to the cache location than it does with how long it takes to solve a puzzle, find a photographed location from a list, or uncover a tiny cache with difficult camouflage. That is why I'm saying you need to work top to bottom--rate the cache first, then look at the definitions. Adjust slightly for conditions if necessary. Done deal.

Edited by NeverSummer
Link to comment

They didn't? Do you know that? How do you know that with such certainty? Did you read the threads when they were active or available? I did. There were nearly as many seemingly exhaustive examples brought up then as you are doing now.

 

Yes, I read a lot of the posts, maybe not every single one, I cannot remember.

 

How many

 

Difficulty in this case is not exponentially increased for the duration of the trip required to find the cache. It can increase the difficulty a bit over a similarly made, yet shorter duration cache, but not so substantially as it couldn't be handled with the rating tool for terrain and a solid description on the cache page.

 

There is still the issue that the question on Clayjar's site is about the length of the trip and if you say it is more than 10 miles, you will end up with at least 4*. The form does not ask whether the distance is covered on multiple days.

 

From the information given, I got a D1/T4 rating for the "many day, long distance" cache.

 

That's very interesting as you need to collect more than 20 variables and there are more than 20 stages and several calculations to be performed.

 

At the start of this thread you told me that even the most simple multi cache should be D1.5 and you told me a lot of how difficult it it is to handle several waypoints and not just click " go to" etc.

 

BTW: If I answer the questions in the rating tool, I end up with T=4.25 which does not exist.

 

This is the same as calling an outdoor winter event "difficult"--it really isn't difficult to log the cache,

 

No it is not the same. In case of a large number of stages, there is always a danger that some information might be missing, cannot be recovered, one makes a mistake in writing down a variable, makes a calculation mistake etc

 

I think that D=2* is a proper rating for my most recent cache

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC4Z9E0_forget-your-sorrows-lets-walk-around-kumberg?guid=9738a5ba-4f6a-4dea-8c4a-5accb82f2362

with ten virtual stages. I would never rate it with 2.5* or 3*, but 1.5* seems to low to me.

 

And I would not go below D=2* for the Munich-Venice cache.

 

But that's all based much more on common sense and experience and the definitions than on the rating tool.

Link to comment

Does it matter how many days the trek takes? That much is covered via the T rating for length of hike. It is a simple issue that doesn't matter if it takes a few days--you ask "How long is this hike", and the tool rates the terrain for that length. 10 miles in 1 day or 10 in 3 doesn't matter--one still needs to get over 10 miles of distance to get there. It may be a run, it may be a walk, it may be bike, it may be a hike, it may be with a fox, it may be in a box...No matter what, it's still the same distance.

 

Then, if it takes many days to do that distance for some reason or another, you can bump up the difficulty a half star or so to relate better to the end definitions. It isn't that hard.

 

I said "From the information given, I got a D1/T4 rating for the "many day, long distance" cache." I didn't realize we were talking about a Multicache. Meaning, I was rating a Traditional cache with a "many day, long distance" hike.

 

If you must do a field puzzle (if you read my whole post), it relates to the D rating directly. (Read: field puzzle can be mathematical, photo hunt, read a plaque and transpose letters for numbers...whatever. Many virtual-stage--non-physical stage--Muiltis I have done are under that umbrella) I don't have a clue how you got a D4.25. Can you screenshot your selections so I can understand what you're using to rate the cache we're talking about? If you get a "T4.25", then rate it either a 4 or a 4.5. This isn't rocket surgery!

 

Terrain: The physical barriers to getting to the cache.

Difficulty: The barriers to finding/opening the cache.

 

For your cache that you posted as reference, I read your description and got a D3/T4. I don't know how hard the cache is to find, so that's what the tool coughed out. Based on what you're saying, I'd easily see it rated as a D2.5/T4 because your cache "could be in one of several locations " and "may be multi-leg, or may use clues to location."--a combination of the buttons you'd press to see D2 or D3. Also, this cache would take more than 30 minutes, but possibly less than a whole day. Sounds like a 2.5 is a great D rating for that cache. Again, I wouldn't cry about the D2 you gave it, but we're talking about the tool, not personal preferences. D3 says "could take up a good portion of an afternoon" for the definition. A 10 mile hike will take a good portion of the afternoon, especially because you have 10 virtual waypoints to visit and solve for the next location to visit.

 

According to the tool, and to your rationale of using the definitions, your cache should really be rated a D3/T4. You've significantly contradicted yourself, and also proven the tool as pretty durn accurate. :anicute:

 

Edit to add:

The definitions use the word, "Challenging". That term is the big problem in this discussion. One person's challenge is another's walk in the park. Calling anyone "average" is going to be very hard to determine. Therefore, I think it best to assume most people aren't as savvy as me and my caching buddies. Plus, we don't really care about the D/T, because we set out to find caches based on where they are, or if we feel up for a tough puzzle or difficult hide. Writing a puzzle in Apple Basic might be a cinch for a programmer who did it in college in the 1980s, but many folks will struggle to even know where to start if they see that on a cache page. That's still rather "challenging" to the general population. Remember, you're rating caches for others, not just your buddies and your countrymen.

 

Edit for a typo

Edited by NeverSummer
Link to comment

I said "From the information given, I got a D1/T4 rating for the "many day, long distance" cache." I didn't realize we were talking about a Multicache. Meaning, I was rating a Traditional cache with a "many day, long distance" hike.

 

It is absolutely impossible to come up with a traditional cache that takes 28 days in Europe.

 

If you must do a field puzzle (if you read my whole post), it relates to the D rating directly.

(Read: field puzzle can be mathematical, photo hunt, read a plaque and transpose letters for numbers...whatever.

 

In the countries where I have cached noone uses the fields puzzle attribute for standard calculations which are part of almost every non traditional.

Such calculations are here like pressing "go to" on the GPS-receiver if they are of the simpler type. You will not change that.

 

Fields puzzle is used when really puzzles have to be solved or questions are asked the answer of which is not available on site etc

 

I don't have a clue how you got a D4.25.

 

T=4.25 while you got T=4.

I wrote T and did not make a mistake!

 

Can you screenshot your selections so I can understand what you're using to rate the cache we're talking about? If you get a "D4.25", then rate it either a 4 or a 4.5. This isn't rocket surgery!

 

 

For your cache that you posted as reference, I read your description and got a D3/T4. I don't know how hard the cache is to find, so that's what the tool coughed out. Based on what you're saying, I'd easily see it rated as a D2.5/T4 because your cache "could be in one of several locations " and "may be multi-leg, or may use clues to location."--a combination of the buttons you'd press to see D2 or D3. Also, this cache would take more than 30 minutes, but possibly less than a whole day. Sounds like a 2.5 is a great D rating for that cache. Again, I wouldn't cry about the D2 you gave it, but we're talking about the tool, not personal preferences. D3 says "could take up a good portion of an afternoon" for the definition.

 

A 10 mile hike will take a good portion of the afternoon, especially because you have 10 virtual waypoints to visit and solve for the next location to visit.

 

The hike takes the time, but the stages take less than 1 minute per stage.

 

According to the tool, and to your rationale of using the definitions, your cache should really be rated a D3/T4. You've significantly contradicted yourself, and also proven the tool as pretty durn accurate. :anicute:

 

T=4* is absolutely nonsense for that cache as it is not even close to "for outdoor experts only". The cache is feasible also for people with limited fitness, joint troubles, etc

The technical difficulty of the terrain never gets over 2*.

 

When going for a 50km hike, I want to know about the technical difficulty. I can cover 50km by splitting the distance up into parts, but I need to know whether the 50km contain a part not manageable for and others need to know the same.

 

The argument I tried to provide ran as follows: Compare a 50km multi cache which can be conveniently split up into 10 legs of 5 km.

In scenario A someone hides 10 multi caches along this route and in scenario B someone hides 1 multi cache with virtual stages at the

finals of first 9 multi caches and the final at the final of the 10-th. It's absurd to rate the terrain in scenario A with 10 times 2 (or 2.5)

and in scenario B by 4. It is the same route and it's within reach for the exact same group of people.

A route does not become "for outdoor experts only" just because one has to work harder for a single "found it" log.

 

 

Edit to add:

The definitions use the word, "Challenging". That term is the big problem in this discussion. One person's challenge is another's walk in the park. Calling anyone "average" is going to be very hard to determine. Therefore, I think it best to assume most people aren't as savvy as me and my caching buddies. Plus, we don't really care about the D/T, because we set out to find caches based on where they are, or if we feel up for a tough puzzle or difficult hide. Writing a puzzle in Apple Basic might be a cinch for a programmer who did it in college in the 1980s, but many folks will struggle to even know where to start if they see that on a cache page. That's still rather "challenging" to the general population. Remember, you're rating caches for others, not just your buddies and your countrymen.

 

All the visitors of my cache wrote that they appreciate the fact that one can concentrate on the hike due to the simple set up. There are hiking multi caches where a lot of calculations have to be done to obtain the next waypoints while all waypoints are given in my case which also makes it easy to split up the cache if someone wanted to do that.

I do not know a single cacher for whom my cache is challenging who really wants to do that cache. I'm not saying that no such cachers exist.

 

While most longer multi caches in my country are in Alpine terrain and require experience and skills needed in that terrain, my cache is just a walk where you are always close to civilization and have the option to break off. It's completely misleading to rate such a cache with T=4* and that's why hardly noone would do it.

 

The terrain is also kid-friendly, it's just too boring for them. Believe me: the area is very far from being the area where outdoor experts are pleased.

While many hikes in the mountains can indeed e.g. be a challenge for people from say the Netherlands who suffer from a lack of experience in such terrain,

the terrain of my walk does not pose any challenge except the length which is spelled out however and can be ignored by splitting up the cache.

 

As a T=4* cache, the cache would be ignored by many of those who are my main target audience (including myself).

 

I stick with my opinion that my rating together with the very detailled information provided in the cache description will make it very clear to every cacher

what is to be expected and will avoid that cachers ignore the cache just because of a too high rating before even having looked at the description.

 

As my cache is not even close to requiring outdoor expertise (this might be completely different for a lonesome 16km hike in Canada) I do not

have a bad conscience at all to rate it with T=2.5*. That's in perfect accordance with what are the definitions of the difficulty and terrain ratings.

And it's not based on subjective input. Anyone who knows my route (regardless from which country) will certify you that you need not be an outdoor expert.

 

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

I said "From the information given, I got a D1/T4 rating for the "many day, long distance" cache." I didn't realize we were talking about a Multicache. Meaning, I was rating a Traditional cache with a "many day, long distance" hike.

 

It is absolutely impossible to come up with a traditional cache that takes 28 days in Europe.

Is it? What if the only path to get to the cache requires a long traverse? And, if you prefer that it become a Multicache, then we're really comparing apples to oranges. I'm starting to think you can't clear the red mist to see things that are plain and clear here.

 

Sounds to me like that'd be a minimum 4/4 cache in any case, and more likely a 4/4.5 for the distance required to cover for that cache in 28 days.

If you must do a field puzzle (if you read my whole post), it relates to the D rating directly.

(Read: field puzzle can be mathematical, photo hunt, read a plaque and transpose letters for numbers...whatever.

 

In the countries where I have cached noone uses the fields puzzle attribute for standard calculations which are part of almost every non traditional.

Such calculations are here like pressing "go to" on the GPS-receiver if they are of the simpler type. You will not change that.

 

Fields puzzle is used when really puzzles have to be solved or questions are asked the answer of which is not available on site etc

You mean like the Multi you own that you posted about above?

 

Just because "nobody" uses it does not mean its the right way to approach it according to the rating tools and the available attributes (which are completely optional anyway--tell me again how you force someone to put a "Field Puzzle" attribute on their cache?)

 

I don't have a clue how you got a D4.25.

 

T=4.25 while you got T=4.

I wrote T and did not make a mistake!

I made a mistake! Ooops! I corrected it above, and am not too big a person that I can't admit that I made a simple mistake with switching D for T. My apologies.

 

My point still stands, however.

 

How did you get 4.25 for any rating?

 

Can you screenshot your selections so I can understand what you're using to rate the cache we're talking about? If you get a "D4.25", then rate it either a 4 or a 4.5. This isn't rocket surgery!

 

For your cache that you posted as reference, I read your description and got a D3/T4. I don't know how hard the cache is to find, so that's what the tool coughed out. Based on what you're saying, I'd easily see it rated as a D2.5/T4 because your cache "could be in one of several locations " and "may be multi-leg, or may use clues to location."--a combination of the buttons you'd press to see D2 or D3. Also, this cache would take more than 30 minutes, but possibly less than a whole day. Sounds like a 2.5 is a great D rating for that cache. Again, I wouldn't cry about the D2 you gave it, but we're talking about the tool, not personal preferences. D3 says "could take up a good portion of an afternoon" for the definition.

 

A 10 mile hike will take a good portion of the afternoon, especially because you have 10 virtual waypoints to visit and solve for the next location to visit.

 

The hike takes the time, but the stages take less than 1 minute per stage.

So explain to me how that makes the cache distance less than 10 miles? And even if it "takes less than 1 minute per stage" (which I doubt when I read through your descriptions), it still takes calculations and additional work. It's not like to walk to the spot and find a container with the logbook there. It's more difficult, and you have 10 stages over 10 miles where work needs to be done in the field to calculate for the final location. The 10 miles/16km of distance is for the T rating, and the number of waypoints and necessary virtual spots with required, even simple, calculations impacts the D rating.

 

According to the tool, and to your rationale of using the definitions, your cache should really be rated a D3/T4. You've significantly contradicted yourself, and also proven the tool as pretty durn accurate. :anicute:

 

T=4* is absolutely nonsense for that cache as it is not even close to "for outdoor experts only". The cache is feasible also for people with limited fitness, joint troubles, etc

The technical difficulty of the terrain never gets over 2*.

 

When going for a 50km hike, I want to know about the technical difficulty. I can cover 50km by splitting the distance up into parts, but I need to know whether the 50km contain a part not manageable for and others need to know the same.

 

The argument I tried to provide ran as follows: Compare a 50km multi cache which can be conveniently split up into 10 legs of 5 km.

In scenario A someone hides 10 multi caches along this route and in scenario B someone hides 1 multi cache with virtual stages at the

finals of first 9 multi caches and the final at the final of the 10-th. It's absurd to rate the terrain in scenario A with 10 times 2 (or 2.5)

and in scenario B by 4. It is the same route and it's within reach for the exact same group of people.

A route does not become "for outdoor experts only" just because one has to work harder for a single "found it" log.

I'm not convinced that you just don't get it. You don't want to get it.

 

You have argued over and over with contradicting points. Do you rate with the definitions or not? If yes, you're not rating properly according to the very definitions you cite. If you are using the definitions, but adjust to your will beyond a half star or so, then you're really not using anything to rate your cache other than your gut and wishes that people don't pass them over because the appear "too hard" or something--which is not helping with consistency; you're making your caches "cezanne-measured".

 

DISTANCE, total distance, is an integral part of how one should be calculating Terrain ratings. That's foundational for how the ratings were chopped into 5 levels to be more clear and consistent for people hiding caches. What you're saying is that the "ups and downs" and the type of path taken are not that difficult. Sadly, those 2 items aren't the sole decider in how to rate for terrain. Distance is another of the metrics to weigh. That, and plant growth for example. You're picking and choosing what you rate, and that's not the whole picture for those who seek the cache.

 

Point I've made before: You can, as you have, list the conditions for your T4 cache so that those who are looking at it know that they are in for a 10 mile hike with moderate to easy elevation changes on paved or hardpacked trails. The distance is the overall important trump card here, and you should be rating your cache based on that fact.

Edited by NeverSummer
Link to comment

While most longer multi caches in my country are in Alpine terrain and require experience and skills needed in that terrain, my cache is just a walk where you are always close to civilization and have the option to break off. It's completely misleading to rate such a cache with T=4* and that's why hardly noone would do it.

No, that's simply not true. You're assuming a lot here. If you're clear as you are in your description, you're not scaring anyone off with that T4. I'm fully aware that when I view a cache that has a high terrain rating, it will include many variables which also includes distance. I can then decide if I'm "up for it" to walk 10 miles in a day for 1 cache. I don't care if it's paved or level or whatever at that point. What I'm concerned about is that it is rated properly for the terrain--which in your case is for distance required overland.

 

The terrain is also kid-friendly, it's just too boring for them. Believe me: the area is very far from being the area where outdoor experts are pleased.

While many hikes in the mountains can indeed e.g. be a challenge for people from say the Netherlands who suffer from a lack of experience in such terrain,

the terrain of my walk does not pose any challenge except the length which is spelled out however and can be ignored by splitting up the cache.

 

Waitwaitwaitwait....now you're rating for "child boredom"? <_< It doesn't matter how "enjoyable" the views and terrain are for the cache; we don't rate for intrinsic value beyond seeing a favorite point awarded.

 

As a T=4* cache, the cache would be ignored by many of those who are my main target audience (including myself).

And that's too bad that you and others would toss a cache without looking over the entire story. But the fact remains, you sound like you down-rate caches to make them more approachable for people, while wholly ignoring the true rating of the cache. That's not consistent, and certainly falls into the case where a Reviewer might step in when enough people note that the cache is rated incorrectly and/or inaccurately. (And now that you've admitted as much openly as to rating caches low on purpose, this is an easier case!) The issue for you versus the rest of the world is that is sounds like you might have a sympathetic group of "regular" cachers in your area that accept such aberration as the norm. That, and you likely have a Reviewer who feels the same way. This doesn't change the fact that you're purposefully down-rating your caches and not rating consistently.

 

I stick with my opinion that my rating together with the very detailled information provided in the cache description will make it very clear to every cacher

what is to be expected and will avoid that cachers ignore the cache just because of a too high rating before even having looked at the description.

 

Your opinion is fine. But, for the sake of the greater community, you should be rating more accurately and just deal with the fact that others just might not be reasonable enough to read a whole cache description before passing it over completely.

 

As my cache is not even close to requiring outdoor expertise (this might be completely different for a lonesome 16km hike in Canada) I do not

have a bad conscience at all to rate it with T=2.5*. That's in perfect accordance with what are the definitions of the difficulty and terrain ratings.

And it's not based on subjective input. Anyone who knows my route (regardless from which country) will certify you that you need not be an outdoor expert.

No, no it's not. A cache with a hike that is at 10 miles should be a T4. Do not rate solely on the definitions. Those are a guide for the end user. You're picking and choosing the wrong language from that same definition you claim supports your subjective input:

 

"T4: 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."

 

Edit because I swapped D for T again...this time I caught it.

Edited by NeverSummer
Link to comment

No, that's simply not true. You're assuming a lot here. If you're clear as you are in your description, you're not scaring anyone off with that T4. I'm fully aware that when I view a cache that has a high terrain rating, it will include many variables which also includes distance. I can then decide if I'm "up for it" to walk 10 miles in a day for 1 cache. I don't care if it's paved or level or whatever at that point. What I'm concerned about is that it is rated properly for the terrain--which in your case is for distance required overland.

 

That's you. Most cachers in my country and in particular those who visit my caches, have different expectations and I'm not hiding my cache for you.

 

By the way, the length is a bit less than 16km and so in any case below 10 miles, so the question longer than 10 miles has to be answered negatively even though it is not much off from 10 miles. Moreover, if I counted only the distance until the cache container, the distance would decrease even further.

The 16km are an upper bound (not tight) for the entire length, including the way way back to my provided parking coordinates while the tool

only asks for the distance to the cache.

 

 

The terrain is also kid-friendly, it's just too boring for them. Believe me: the area is very far from being the area where outdoor experts are pleased.

While many hikes in the mountains can indeed e.g. be a challenge for people from say the Netherlands who suffer from a lack of experience in such terrain,

the terrain of my walk does not pose any challenge except the length which is spelled out however and can be ignored by splitting up the cache.

 

Waitwaitwaitwait....now you're rating for "child boredom"? <_< It doesn't matter how "enjoyable" the views and terrain are for the cache; we don't rate for intrinsic value beyond seeing a favorite point awarded.

 

My intention was to explain why I think that T=2.5* makes sense (the tool would suggest something between 3 and 3.25). The terrain is feasible for small children, but it's too boring for them. I would not rate it as T=2* even though the terrain never gets harder than that.

 

 

And that's too bad that you and others would toss a cache without looking over the entire story. But the fact remains, you sound like you down-rate caches to make them more approachable for people, while wholly ignoring the true rating of the cache.

 

No, I'm rating with regard to the definition of the difficulty levels as does almost anyone in my country and several other countries I have cached in.

As I said, the terrain fits to the description of 3* with a tendency towards 2* is very far from the description of 4*.

 

For me it's the description that comes first, if something contradictory comes up, then it's the fault of the system.

 

Moreover, as I said, the terrain of one 50km cache that is intended to be done in 10 legs of 5 km stays the same as the terrain of a chain of 10 multi caches of 5km each.

One is doing 10 walks of 5km in both cases. It does not make sense to rate the terrain difficulty differently.

 

 

The issue for you versus the rest of the world is that is sounds like you might have a sympathetic group of "regular" cachers in your area that accept such aberration as the norm. That, and you likely have a Reviewer who feels the same way. This doesn't change the fact that you're purposefully down-rating your caches and not rating consistently.

 

It is definitely not me versus the rest of the world. My cache is less than 10 miles long. You will encounter lots of caches which are more than 5 times as long and rated with 3* or lower, and yes, I think that this makes sense in those cases, too.

 

Those caches which are rated with 3* can indeed done by the average adult depending on health condition (which exactly is the definition of 3*).

 

You cannot avoid that lots of cachers regard the text version of the difficulty levels as the definitions and anything else just as a recommendation.

 

It's ridiculous to rate a relaxing walk on marked, comfortable trails where you are never more than 1km away from the next road and a village and which you can split up

into many small parts, as "Experienced outdoor enthusiasts only."

 

There are long walks/hikes which cannot be split up reasonably (at least not without a tent). If you could stop or start anew at least every 2 km, you can split up the less than 10 mile walk in

as essentially as many parts as you want so that the length does not play any longer any role at all.

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

I guess you need to ask "What is more useful - knowing the overall difficulty or the difficulty of the most difficult component?"

 

Clearly the overall difficulty should not be less than the difficulty of the most difficult component, but it isn't clear how much weight to give to the less difficult components or to the number of components.

Link to comment

I guess you need to ask "What is more useful - knowing the overall difficulty or the difficulty of the most difficult component?"

 

Clearly the overall difficulty should not be less than the difficulty of the most difficult component, but it isn't clear how much weight to give to the less difficult components or to the number of components.

I dunno...maybe a half star? :ph34r::laughing:

Link to comment

I guess you need to ask "What is more useful - knowing the overall difficulty or the difficulty of the most difficult component?"

 

Clearly the overall difficulty should not be less than the difficulty of the most difficult component, but it isn't clear how much weight to give to the less difficult components or to the number of components.

 

I fully agree. I ask myself similar questions for all my caches (all have multiple stages involved) and try to come up with something that seems to make sense to me, but I'm ready to make corrections based on the input of those who visited my caches.

Link to comment

No, that's simply not true. You're assuming a lot here. If you're clear as you are in your description, you're not scaring anyone off with that T4. I'm fully aware that when I view a cache that has a high terrain rating, it will include many variables which also includes distance. I can then decide if I'm "up for it" to walk 10 miles in a day for 1 cache. I don't care if it's paved or level or whatever at that point. What I'm concerned about is that it is rated properly for the terrain--which in your case is for distance required overland.

 

That's you. Most cachers in my country and in particular those who visit my caches, have different expectations and I'm not hiding my cache for you.

See my comment "The issue for you versus the rest of the world is that is sounds like you might have a sympathetic group of "regular" cachers in your area that accept such aberration as the norm. That, and you likely have a Reviewer who feels the same way. This doesn't change the fact that you're purposefully down-rating your caches and not rating consistently." above.

 

By the way, the length is a bit less than 16km and so in any case below 10 miles, so the question longer than 10 miles has to be answered negatively even though it is not much off from 10 miles. Moreover, if I counted only the distance until the cache container, the distance would decrease even further.

The 16km are an upper bound (not tight) for the entire length, including the way way back to my provided parking coordinates while the tool

only asks for the distance to the cache.

From your cache page: "Route information: The tour starts and ends in Kumberg. Expect a hike of around 16km with in total 500+ height meters (well distributed and in my opinion hardly noticable). Depending on your walking speed and the length of your breaks expect to need 3-5.5 hours for this cache (runners will be faster)." 16k=9.9miles. You got me there...dang. Sounds like perhaps T3.5 for that 1/10th of a mile you shave off. :rolleyes:

 

It still doesn't change the fact that you must go around looking for clues and do calculations over that distance to find the final. You don't rate for the hypotenuse or shortcut if there isn't one. The stages of your multi require that one go along the 16km (9.9mi) distance before coming to the final.

 

 

My intention was to explain why I think that T=2.5* makes sense (the tool would suggest something between 3 and 3.25). The terrain is feasible for small children, but it's too boring for them. I would not rate it as T=2* even though the terrain never gets harder than that.

It doesn't make sense. You've only stated that you're down-rating caches to make it more "approachable" to a cursory viewing of the cache. You're still not rating for the actual D or T.

 

And that's too bad that you and others would toss a cache without looking over the entire story. But the fact remains, you sound like you down-rate caches to make them more approachable for people, while wholly ignoring the true rating of the cache.

 

No, I'm rating with regard to the definition of the difficulty levels as does almost anyone in my country and several other countries I have cached in.

As I said, the terrain fits to the description of 3* with a tendency towards 2* is very far from the description of 4*.

 

For me it's the description that comes first, if something contradictory comes up, then it's the fault of the system.

 

Moreover, as I said, the terrain of one 50km cache that is intended to be done in 10 legs of 5 km stays the same as the terrain of a chain of 10 multi caches of 5km each.

One is doing 10 walks of 5km in both cases. It does not make sense to rate the terrain difficulty differently.

I can't facepalm or headdesk enough here...I'm risking a concussion.

 

Your terrain includes the distance required to find the cache. 9.9miles gets you right up to T4 (so you rate it T4, since "up to" includes the number, right? *heavy sarcastic eyeroll again*).

 

It is definitely not me versus the rest of the world. My cache is less than 10 miles long. You will encounter lots of caches which are more than 5 times as long and rated with 3* or lower, and yes, I think that this makes sense in those cases, too.

 

Those caches which are rated with 3* can indeed done by the average adult depending on health condition (which exactly is the definition of 3*).

No, no it's not. T4 states quite clearly that it is 10 miles or greater, which your cache bumps right up against. Plus, if you use the rating tool, you'd understand more clearly why a D4 might be a better choice. (you state in the description that there are some elevation changes over the course of the hike (+500m/+~1500ft))

 

You cannot avoid that lots of cachers regard the text version of the difficulty levels as the definitions and anything else just as a recommendation.

 

It's ridiculous to rate a relaxing walk on marked, comfortable trails where you are never more than 1km away from the next road and a village and which you can split up

into many small parts, as "Experienced outdoor enthusiasts only."

 

There are long walks/hikes which cannot be split up reasonably (at least not without a tent). If you could stop or start anew at least every 2 km, you can split up the less than 10 mile walk in

as essentially as many parts as you want so that the length does not play any longer any role at all.

To the bolded: No, no it's not. Not when you must also hike 10 miles of that relaxing walk on marked, comfortable trails. You don't rate strictly on the "Experienced outdoor enthusiasts only" language--you'd ignore the other important factors that go into rating terrain. This is why I not surprised anymore that you don't use the rating tool, and the fact that you can't grasp that there's more to ratings than your "cezanne style". <_<

 

I'm beginning to think that Germany and Austria need their own version of geocaching apart from geocaching.com, what with all of the logging liberties taken worldwide and examples like this where one seems to care more for a subjective and personal-regional style over trying to modulate based on the guidelines and recommendations of the "US" geocaching.com.

Edited by NeverSummer
Link to comment

From your cache page: "Route information: The tour starts and ends in Kumberg. Expect a hike of around 16km with in total 500+ height meters (well distributed and in my opinion hardly noticable). Depending on your walking speed and the length of your breaks expect to need 3-5.5 hours for this cache (runners will be faster)." 16k=9.9miles. You got me there...dang.

 

I already said that the 16km are approximate (in reality it's something like 15.8km, I just rounded up.).

 

Sounds like perhaps T3.5 for that 1/10th of a mile you shave off. :rolleyes:

 

As I said, if I answer the questions of Clajyar's tool I end up with 3 or 3.25.

The elevation is never so steep that I cannot easily ride a bike up the slope and I have a ruined knee.

There is no overgrowth. The length is less than 10 miles. Try it out.

 

It still doesn't change the fact that you must go around looking for clues and do calculations over that distance to find the final.

 

You talked about the terrain.

 

As difficulty is regarded, there is a single calculation at the end of the cache and all stages are immediate and done in less than 1 minute

per stage. The cache hideout is very simple and a photograph and hint are provided.

Definitely less than 30 minutes effort overall when not taking the walk into account and this has been proved by all visitors.

 

You don't rate for the hypotenuse or shortcut if there isn't one. The stages of your multi require that one go along the 16km (9.9mi) distance before coming to the final.

 

No, my final is not at the parking lot. After the final you have a distance that is not neglectable to return to the car. The round trip parking lot - stages - cache - parking lot

is about 15.8km long. The trip parking lot-stages-cache is shorter.

 

It doesn't make sense. You've only stated that you're down-rating caches to make it more "approachable" to a cursory viewing of the cache. You're still not rating for the actual D or T.

 

No, I'm convinced of the properness of my rating based on what defines the rating levels for me.

I just argued why I would never ever rate the cache with 4* as long the definitions are the way they are.

 

Moreover, as I said, the terrain of one 50km cache that is intended to be done in 10 legs of 5 km stays the same as the terrain of a chain of 10 multi caches of 5km each.

One is doing 10 walks of 5km in both cases. It does not make sense to rate the terrain difficulty differently.

I can't facepalm or headdesk enough here...I'm risking a concussion.

 

Why? What I write is true.

 

The idea behind such 50+km caches is the hike and not searching for plastic containers. Several day hikes are linked together and only at the very end, last day

a container is to be found.

I've done multi caches where I ended up with 10 day hikes and others even with more. I wrote a log for each day trip and in the end a found it log.

What was important for me was the terrain difficulty of the day hikes and that's what is important for every person who is doing such caches.

I'm quite certain that you would not choose to do such a cache given all the other options available.

 

Choosing a terrain rating appropriate for the day hikes helps those who really want to visit such a cache. The others will stop as soon as they read

e.g. 150km hike anyway.

 

 

Your terrain includes the distance required to find the cache. 9.9miles gets you right up to T4 (so you rate it T4, since "up to" includes the number, right? *heavy sarcastic eyeroll again*).

 

Yes, up to 10 includes 10 for me, but as I said the overall trip is 15.8km and the trip to the cache is more than 1 km shorter.

 

T4 states quite clearly that it is 10 miles or greater, which your cache bumps right up against.

 

No, it does not. The Clayjar tool defines cache as the cache container. My numbers are for the entire hike and not for the hike to the container.

 

Plus, if you use the rating tool, you'd understand more clearly why a D4 might be a better choice. (you state in the description that there are some elevation changes over the course of the hike (+500m/+~1500ft))

 

I answered truefully that there are elevation changes but that there are not steep and so there is no necessity to push a bicycle.

Even I could ride a bicycle there (all cachers around me who do such caches are much fitter than me and have no physical restrictions).

So it's a clear case for selecting the button for

"Some elevation changes

Changes are slight enough that someone could ride a bike up such a slope."

It's not a mountain climb. It's just very gentle and small elevation changes that accumulate over the distance.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

Events default to 1/1. Sweet. Makes sense. To others... :rolleyes: :

 

I do not think that a default of 1/1 makes any more sense than e.g. 1/1.5

 

There are lots of event locations (including restaurants) that are not handicapped accessible and I rather would have a 1.5* rated event that

in reality is 1* than the other way around.

In my experience the change of the default from 1/1 to 1.5/1.5 some years ago, reduced the number of T=1* caches which were not handicapped accessible.

Link to comment

The tool does not say "container". Stating "cache" means the whole of the experience. I can only tell you you're wrong, I can't help you understand it more than I have already tried.

 

With your added clarifications (you may want to be more precise here from the go, as well as in your listing FYI, IMHO), I got 3/3 from the rating tool. Since the distance is very, very close to 16km total distance, I would say it should then be a 3/3.5. A 2.5/2 it is not--you still have to take a long time (5+ hours) and travel nearly 16km, all while solving 10 different yet simple field puzzles.

 

It's a moot point anyway. I've resigned myself to that fact. You're going to keep doing what you do, and you're going to ignore the tool and any attempt to foster consistency in your ratings. Add on to the frustration the fact that you also have openly stated that you rate lower as to make your cache more approachable for users...rather than rating honestly and accurately to reflect actual conditions. You don't have to admit it, as you've made it abundantly clear your position on the subject, and how you overtly downgrade ratings so people will not be turned off by a higher rating. Your prerogative, albeit a misguided one.

Link to comment

Events default to 1/1. Sweet. Makes sense. To others... :rolleyes: :

 

I do not think that a default of 1/1 makes any more sense than e.g. 1/1.5

 

There are lots of event locations (including restaurants) that are not handicapped accessible and I rather would have a 1.5* rated event that

in reality is 1* than the other way around.

In my experience the change of the default from 1/1 to 1.5/1.5 some years ago, reduced the number of T=1* caches which were not handicapped accessible.

I'm talking about your consternation about not rating events above D1. OF COURSE if a cache isn't handicap accessible you should rate the terrain accurately. We went through that discussion when talking about a hike up a mountain to an event at the top.

Link to comment

OF COURSE if a cache isn't handicap accessible you should rate the terrain accurately.

 

Yes, of course but I questioned the change of the *default* value for T for events from 1.5* down to 1*.

The default value always can be changed, that was not my point.

Read my post above and you will see that I compared 1/1.5* to 1/1* so D was 1* in both cases.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

OF COURSE if a cache isn't handicap accessible you should rate the terrain accurately.

 

Yes, of course but I questioned the change of the *default* value for T for events from 1.5* down to 1*.

The default value always can be changed, that was not my point.

Read my post above and you will see that I compared 1/1.5* to 1/1* so D was 1* in both cases.

Here, let me help you:

Events default to 1/1. Sweet. Makes sense. To others... :rolleyes: :

 

I do not think that a default of 1/1 makes any more sense than e.g. 1/1.5

 

There are lots of event locations (including restaurants) that are not handicapped accessible and I rather would have a 1.5* rated event that

in reality is 1* than the other way around.

In my experience the change of the default from 1/1 to 1.5/1.5 some years ago, reduced the number of T=1* caches which were not handicapped accessible.

I'm talking about your consternation about not rating events above D1. OF COURSE if a cache isn't handicap accessible you should rate the terrain accurately. We went through that discussion when talking about a hike up a mountain to an event at the top.

 

I know there's a lot going on, but keeping track seems to be my job...

Link to comment

With your added clarifications (you may want to be more precise here from the go, as well as in your listing FYI, IMHO),

 

I hide caches in my spare time. I take the liberty to write approximately 16 km even if it is less (I'm careful not to round down).

There are hundreds of multi caches out there which do not provide information on the length at all.

At some point your arguments start to become ridiculous.

 

I got 3/3 from the rating tool.

 

Yes, because you answered "multi leg". Now we are back at the point that this contradicts the opinion shared by most cachers

I know that there are multi caches of all difficulty levels.

 

All my other caches have higher D-ratings because none of the others falls into the category "within 30 minutes for an average hunter".

 

The 5 hours are an upper bound and are based on slow walking and not on delays at the stages. My average net speed can well be below 3km/h.

Some moderately fit cachers told me that they took around 3 hours.

There are cachers who can finish the entire cache including searching the container in less than 2.5 hours.

 

Since the distance is very, very close to 16km total distance, I would say it should then be a 3/3.5. A 2.5/2 it is not--you still have to take a long time (5+ hours) and travel nearly 16km, all while solving 10 different yet simple field puzzles.

 

There is no puzzle at all but the easiest form of questions that arise in countries like mine for multi caches.

 

The tool delivers 3*, you modify the rating by adding 0.5 and I subtract 0.5 - we can both come up with arguments for doing so which are valid depending on the point of view one takes.

 

According to your definition 90% of the multis in continental Europe would involve fields puzzles. The icon was introduced for

puzzles and tricky tasks and not for writing down a number.

 

 

You're going to keep doing what you do, and you're going to ignore the tool and any attempt to foster consistency in your ratings.

 

My ratings fit perfectly to the ratings in the whole country and that's where the visitors of my caches come from.

I cannot have both: consistency with your dreams and consistency with what is applied in all areas where I have found caches.

 

If suddenly all multi caches were rated starting from D=3*, people would start to complain very heavily.

In a country where multi caches play an important role, no one would accept to only use 3*-5* for multi caches and even less if 3* is explained as being a challenge for the experienced cacher. My cache is definitely not a challenge for the experienced cacher and

I made any effort to make it as unchallenging and easy as possible while making sure that it is about the hike, but at the same time minimizing the number of those who take the car and just walk to the stages (which gets tiresome for 10 stages but is straightforward for only 2 or 3). The stages are just to enforce that as many as possible go for the walk - there is no challenge at all involved and that's on purpose.

 

The numbers we have provided you with show you that D=2 is the most common difficulty rating for a multi cache and most multi caches contain more calculations than mine and more challenging questions as I chose my questions intentionally to be easy.

As long I'm spending on average less than 30 minutes on the not terrain aspect of a multi cache and most other cachers in my area have a similar experience, the D=2 rating is perfectly ok in my opinion. There is a good reason why the discussed cache is my only one with D=2* even if I was already told by some cachers that they were disappointed by a D=3* multi cache of mine because they expected a challenge which was not present (only a fields puzzle question).

 

Maybe you should have a look at the list of multi caches I have found (>900 so you have a large sample) before you start to attacking me. I'm glad that I selected one of my own caches and not someone else's.

 

There is no rule saying that one has to use the Clayjar tool and even less that one is forced to rate according to the suggested result.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

I know there's a lot going on, but keeping track seems to be my job..

 

Nothing what you wrote provides an argument for why it should be a good idea to use T=1* as default value for an event.

The discussion whether events could have a value D>1* is another one and not related to default values which can be

changed anyway.

While I don't agree that any event is automatically D=1*, I think that it makes sense to set the default to D=1*.

I do not think however that T=1* is the best choice as default value for terrain.

 

You can repeat my posts as many times you wish and it will not change anything and you will still not have commented on my question.

Link to comment

I still think that if each stage is straightforward, increasing the D beyond the toughest stage gives the impression that it is too hard to complete. Where I disagree w/ the Clayjar approach is it ups the D for time. That can be handled w/ an attribute.

 

I think there needs to a compromise. If you e.g. need to do 20 very simple routine calculations, it still adds to the effort and increases the chances that someone makes a mistake.

 

I neither would rate such a multi cache with 3* nor with 1* (even not if the hideout is in plain sight).

Twenty stages is pretty extensive, but your example further convinces me that increasing D for quantity of stages is illogical. If a simple traditional is a D1 and a simple 2 stage should be D 1.5 just because it is a multi, then a 3 stage would be D2 and a 20 stage would be D 19.5. I would prefer to know that at each stage, I will be encountering something very simple (D1) and a comment regarding the number of stages.

 

Edit to acknowledge my math error above, but the premise is the same with a 20 stage = D 10.5

Edited by Sharks-N-Beans
Link to comment
With your added clarifications (you may want to be more precise here from the go, as well as in your listing FYI, IMHO), I got 3/3 from the rating tool. Since the distance is very, very close to 16km total distance, I would say it should then be a 3/3.5. A 2.5/2 it is not--you still have to take a long time (5+ hours) and travel nearly 16km, all while solving 10 different yet simple field puzzles.
In this example, I don't think the long time (3-5 hours) affects the difficulty rating at all, because that refers to hiking time. If the searching time for all 10 stages adds up to a total of "less than 30 minutes of hunting", then a D2 sounds perfectly reasonable to me. After all, that's the definition of a D2 rating.

 

As far as the terrain rating goes, I see the point that a multi-cache that requires 10 hikes of 2km each is much easier and much more accessible than a cache (of any type) that requires a single 20km hike, and therefore should be rated lower than the cache that requires a single 20km hike. But I've lost track of whether that is the situation in this example.

Link to comment

Twenty stages is pretty extensive, but your example further convinces me that increasing D for quantity of stages is illogical. If a simple traditional is a D1 and a simple 2 stage should be D 1.5 just because it is a multi, then a 3 stage would be D2 and a 20 stage would be D 19.5. I would prefer to know that at each stage, I will be encountering something very simple (D1) and a comment regarding the number of stages.

 

Personally, I try to go with a compromise.

 

That's why I rated my cache with ten very simple stages where one quickly writes down a number and with an easy hideout in the end

with D=2*. The cache fits the description of D=2* overall.

 

There are however multi caches where at each stage you have to do calculations that take 5 minutes and then their number has a greater influence and I would up the D-rating, but of course mention it in the description.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

When rating the difficulty of a multi, I think the number of stages is a factor to take into account as well as the difficulty of each stage.

 

If you take the example of a multi with physical stages - say 10 of them. Even if the owner thinks each one is D=1, it is harder to find all 10. I've DNF'd lots of D1 caches that were there (I'm not a very good finder). With 10 stages there is a higher chance I'll fail and it will take "multiple days to complete". Or to put it another way - finding 10 stages in a row without an DNF is more difficult than finding just one stage.

Link to comment

 

If you take the example of a multi with physical stages - say 10 of them. Even if the owner thinks each one is D=1, it is harder to find all 10. I've DNF'd lots of D1 caches that were there (I'm not a very good finder). With 10 stages there is a higher chance I'll fail and it will take "multiple days to complete".

 

I also have DNF'd D=1 caches however most of them were no real D=1 caches. I would not rate a cache with ten D=1 physical stages as D=1. In my case all my stages are virtual stages and I selected very simple tasks (so not counting 45 windows or something the like). Each individual stage is a real D=1. Then D=2 seemed plausible for me for taking all together.

I know many urban D=1* caches where you end up with a higher risk for a DNF than for my hiking cache.

Link to comment

When rating the difficulty of a multi, I think the number of stages is a factor to take into account as well as the difficulty of each stage.

 

If you take the example of a multi with physical stages - say 10 of them. Even if the owner thinks each one is D=1, it is harder to find all 10. I've DNF'd lots of D1 caches that were there (I'm not a very good finder). With 10 stages there is a higher chance I'll fail and it will take "multiple days to complete". Or to put it another way - finding 10 stages in a row without an DNF is more difficult than finding just one stage.

Of course the common wisdom is that a cache has certain probability that is is missing (or even that that a cacher simple doesn't find it no matter the difficultly) so that if you have multiple physical stages and you have to find all the stages to complete the multi - that the probability of not finding any one stage and thus not finding the multi is higher goes up incrementally as there are more stages.

 

I'm not sure that I agree with common belief - since there are rarely multi that can't be figured out with only finding some of the stages and when maintaining multi owners will often check all the stages, so the odds of any particular stage being missing is not independent of other stages being missing.

 

However what is more debatable is whether the odds that the cacher fails to find a cache or one stage of a cache should be part of the difficulty rating or not. Perhaps it should be. A traditional cache in a high muggle area might be considered more difficult because 1) stealth is required and 2) the cache has a higher probability being missing. Either way it increases the chance certain people won't find it - even if it would otherwise be D1.

 

However Clayjar doesn't ask if the cache is in a high muggle area or even if the cache is likely to be missing. So if you are in the camp that you must rate according to Clayjar then you can't use that argument. But if Clayjar truly means that any multi-leg cache must be D3 then the reason can't possibly be based on the the odds that a stage is missing.

Link to comment

[

 

However what is more debatable is whether the odds that the cacher fails to find a cache or one stage of a cache should be part of the difficulty rating or not. Perhaps it should be. A traditional cache in a high muggle area might be considered more difficult because 1) stealth is required and 2) the cache has a higher probability being missing. Either way it increases the chance certain people won't find it - even if it would otherwise be D1.

 

You brought up a good point. There are several aspects where it is unclear whether or not they contribute to the D-rating.

 

I have come across debates in German speaking forums on whether it is ok if the owner of a cache that is easy to spot but very hard to retrieve unnoticed at most/all times is chosen to take account of this increased effort. If one takes "finding the cache" literally, then the answer is obviously no. But if the goal is to sign the logbook, then spotting the cache is not enough.

Link to comment

However what is more debatable is whether the odds that the cacher fails to find a cache or one stage of a cache should be part of the difficulty rating or not. Perhaps it should be. A traditional cache in a high muggle area might be considered more difficult because 1) stealth is required and 2) the cache has a higher probability being missing. Either way it increases the chance certain people won't find it - even if it would otherwise be D1.

 

 

I wasn't really thinking of the probability that it is missing. I was thinking that it is more difficult for me to find 10 stages of difficulty X in a row than it is to find one stage of difficulty X - assuming the stages are there.

 

Assume for each stage there is a 95% chance I can find it. For the single stage cache, there is a 95% chance I'll find it. For the 10 stage cache, there is only a 60% chance (that I find all stages).

 

So it is logical to me that the number of stages is taken into account when setting "D". Finding 10 things of equal difficulty is harder than finding just one.

Link to comment

However what is more debatable is whether the odds that the cacher fails to find a cache or one stage of a cache should be part of the difficulty rating or not. Perhaps it should be. A traditional cache in a high muggle area might be considered more difficult because 1) stealth is required and 2) the cache has a higher probability being missing. Either way it increases the chance certain people won't find it - even if it would otherwise be D1.

 

 

I wasn't really thinking of the probability that it is missing. I was thinking that it is more difficult for me to find 10 stages of difficulty X in a row than it is to find one stage of difficulty X - assuming the stages are there.

 

Assume for each stage there is a 95% chance I can find it. For the single stage cache, there is a 95% chance I'll find it. For the 10 stage cache, there is only a 60% chance (that I find all stages).

 

So it is logical to me that the number of stages is taken into account when setting "D". Finding 10 things of equal difficulty is harder than finding just one.

 

Allowing one M&M to melt in your mouth is not as hard as allowing 10 of them to melt in your mouth?

Link to comment

@Cezanne, NeverSummer: You really should agree to disagree. Both of you can't get any more verbose than you already have been.

 

I realized early on that NeverSummer and I will never agree on this topic and that's not what discomforts me. There are issues on which I disagree with my best friends.

 

I do not think that there is a such a clear cut between right and wrong as NeverSummer in my opinion tries to make it seem.

In any case I do not like at all that with parts of what he writes he in a way discredits the whole group of cachers from certain countries where caching is not taking place according to NeverSummer's idea.

It's own thing to have a different opinion on D/T-ratings and another to link this to issues like improper log ethics.

Link to comment

Id rate this thread a 3/2.5 based on the difficulty and slippery slope.

 

You doofus, you are not taking into account cultural differences.

How can you possibly come up with a 3 difficulty? Clayjar clearly says... oh, never mind..

Sure you can use Clayjar, there are multiple legs so the difficulty has to be a least 3 stars. Except one could argue that the multiple legs didn't add anything that wasn't stated in the initial legs so the difficulty isn't increased no matter how often the same material is repeated. :anitongue:

Link to comment
@Cezanne, NeverSummer: You really should agree to disagree. Both of you can't get any more verbose than you already have been.
I'm guessing you haven't spent much time reading these forums.
Yeah, my first thought when I read Rebore's comment was...

 

Challenge accepted!

Link to comment

@Cezanne, NeverSummer: You really should agree to disagree. Both of you can't get any more verbose than you already have been.

 

I realized early on that NeverSummer and I will never agree on this topic and that's not what discomforts me. There are issues on which I disagree with my best friends.

 

I do not think that there is a such a clear cut between right and wrong as NeverSummer in my opinion tries to make it seem.

In any case I do not like at all that with parts of what he writes he in a way discredits the whole group of cachers from certain countries where caching is not taking place according to NeverSummer's idea.

It's own thing to have a different opinion on D/T-ratings and another to link this to issues like improper log ethics.

Easy there, bud. I know you disagree with me, but you're starting to cut a little too much here.

 

I've admitted I'm fine with disagreement. I've also pointed out areas where some compromise could be taken. But alas, just as in politics in America right now, compromise is viewed as one being weak, and digging in of heels is more important than seeing the validity of the other point of view and adjusting to meet the common goal. 3

 

The last thing I'll say to the point is that I'd rather encounter a cache that was overrated than a cache that is underrated.

 

I'm assuming that last line is in reference to the fact that there have been many "couch logs" coming out of Germany ("Greetings from Germany..."), and that there seems to be--according to you--a desire to rate caches for approachability by the German/Austrian masses and not for what would otherwise be called a more consistent approach to rating, specifically, Multicaches in those areas. That kind of addition to the conversation only serves to point out a significant level of discussion related to this original topic. I'll summarize and guess that we can just lay this thread to rest until the next time it comes up:

 

Reviewers are allowed to contact cache owners to have them adjust the ratings to a geocache. That adjustment request is rooted in common practice including the Guidelines, recommended rating tool, real-world visit to the geocache, and contact with a Reviewer by visitors to that cache who may view the rating as inaccurate.

 

Those adjustments are also rooted in the region where the geocaching occurs. Whereas in one area the definitions and descriptions for the geocache ratings are interpreted one way, in another area a geocacher cannot count on the fact that a rating would mean the same thing there as it does in their "home" region. Liberties are taken with the guidelines, and all users should be more aware that the rating differences just plain may not make sense.

 

Cezanne, here's a virtual handshake, and I think we can leave it at that. I'll still shake my head and facepalm over here, and you can shake your fist and do the same over there. :anibad:

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?????

 

Over here in Germany we see that a bit different. For us an event can be way more than just MEETING people. An event can have a special reason why it takes place. And guess what, there were some where it's really hard to attend! We had some events where the intent was to eat some crazy stuff like this:

 

Surstömming

 

Believe me, EATING this is really close to D5! And we usually only accept(ed) ATTENDED logs from people who ATTENDED EATING what was served.

 

As the rules for events have been changed quite some people don't really like these changes as they allow logs from people just hanging around. I don't really get the need to disallow logging requirements for events! If I decide to attend such an event I usually know what to expect. So why should the owner accept logs from watchers!? They could also attend real D1/T1 events instead of these special ones!

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?????

 

Over here in Germany we see that a bit different. For us an event can be way more than just MEETING people. An event can have a special reason why it takes place. And guess what, there were some where it's really hard to attend! We had some events where the intent was to eat some crazy stuff like this:

 

Surstömming

 

Believe me, EATING this is really close to D5! And we usually only accept(ed) ATTENDED logs from people who ATTENDED EATING what was served.

 

Can events have an ALR? I'd be curious to see what would happen someone went to the published location of the event but didn't jump through the hoops that the event organizer created, had their attended log deleted, and appealed to Groundspeak.

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?????

 

Over here in Germany we see that a bit different. For us an event can be way more than just MEETING people. An event can have a special reason why it takes place. And guess what, there were some where it's really hard to attend! We had some events where the intent was to eat some crazy stuff like this:

 

Surstömming

 

Believe me, EATING this is really close to D5! And we usually only accept(ed) ATTENDED logs from people who ATTENDED EATING what was served.

 

Can events have an ALR? I'd be curious to see what would happen someone went to the published location of the event but didn't jump through the hoops that the event organizer created, had their attended log deleted, and appealed to Groundspeak.

Another odd example of "It's how we do it over here" demonstrating the inconsistency of the game. Just because something is common practice regionally does it mean that it is correct. See the "you don't need a logbook at an event" example where some mandate it, and others do not. And yet, Groundspeak has spoken, and the logbook doesn't really matter anymore.

 

Adding an ALR for an event...that's funny.

 

But then again, it seems that logging an Earthcache 10 years before it was Published is an acceptable practice in regions as well... <_<

 

Greetings from Germany!

Link to comment

Believe me, EATING this is really close to D5! And we usually only accept(ed) ATTENDED logs from people who ATTENDED EATING what was served.

 

To log an event you don't have to do anything else than to be on the coordinates in given hours.

 

So every log from someone who get there is valid, and deleting it is not.

Edited by GeoLog81
Link to comment

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
Followers 0
×
×
  • Create New...