Is there a Groundspeak set of rules for rating D/T for events?

[cezanne]

In this thread http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=327926

on the more general topic on reviewers asking for a revision of D/T ratings for cache submissions, the topic of D/T-ratings of events came up too.

I opened up this separate thread to make it easier for those who are able to provide the clarification to reply by freeing them from the necessity to read through a very long and not always well organized thread.

 

Keystone there wrote in the thread linked above in post #6

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.

 

The other thread has meanwhile grown considerably and moreover Keystone stepped out of the discussion at an early point. I'd like to take the opportunity to ask for a clarification as the D and T rating of events is regarded, a question which appears of interest to not just me, but to cachers from different countries and backgrounds.

 

The current event guidelines contain the following statement

Events should take place at the posted coordinates and must include both a start time and end time. Events with several elements, a sequence of events, or events that are near the same time or location and intended for the same audience should be submitted as a single event. Additional waypoints may be added to the event listing for the locations of event activities.

 

In this context I wonder which part of the activities is seen as the event by Groundspeak HQ as this plays an important role in choosing the D/T-rating.

 

Suppose e.g. an ice skating event where the ice rink can be reached by wheelchairs and is within plain sight. Does it mean that this event has to be rated as 1/1 contrary to that the intended

activity is skating (so the socializing takes place while skating instead while eating and drinking)?

 

What about a hiking event? A few years ago it has been possible in my country to get published a hiking event where the event was the hike. Since a while the reviewers ask a different design where either there is a given meeting period before the start of the hike or after the hike at the header coordinates (by the way, why did this change happen?)

Previously it was obvious to choose for the event's T rating the terrain difficulty of the event hike. If the official part of the event as seen by Groundspeak HQ is just the meet and greet part (participation in the hike does not appear to be required for an attended log either), then this raises the question whether the T rating the reviewers might want to see is just the terrain rating for reaching the meeting point (which still can be a higher T rating if the meeting takes place on a summit for example).

 

Of course the more frequent cases will be that an event has a T rating >1 than a D rating >1, but if one does not stick to the concept that the event is just the meet and greet part, also D ratings greater than 1 are conceivable in my opinion.

 

I would strictly prefer if events are rated according to the intended activity (both for D and T) they are organized for and if that's not a meet and greet this should be taken into account.

 

I would be very grateful if reviewers and/or Groundspeak staff could be so generous and jump in and provide some clarification for the borderline for what is regarded as artifical rating for an event. (Of course, everyone has already encountered events with ridiculous ratings - so those exist of course and my question does nor refer to those where there is no connection between the rating and the planned event activities.)

[+NeverSummer]

I think we hashed out the "intent" part in the other thread. I don't think that with ALR rules and how the guidelines are written you can "enforce" the idea that everyone would have to, say, go ice skating to claim they "Attended" the event.

 

This could easily be attached to the other thread, and we'd just need to hear from Groundspeak staff or Reviewers who have information that might help understand any directive they have for rating events consistently.

[cezanne]

This could easily be attached to the other thread, and we'd just need to hear from Groundspeak staff or Reviewers who have information that might help understand any directive they have for rating events consistently.

 

The latter is exactly my hope and I do not have any hope to get it in the other thread which deals with a lot of questions and with cachers' opinions (except for two postings from Keystone who dropped out soon while noone else dropped in in replacement). I'd also hope that if come clarification is provided, one could link to this thread when someone asks a related question. I would not dare to direct anyone in my country to the long other thread just to learn about any event rating directive that might exist.

Edited November 25, 2014 by cezanne

[+NeverSummer]

This could easily be attached to the other thread, and we'd just need to hear from Groundspeak staff or Reviewers who have information that might help understand any directive they have for rating events consistently.

 

The latter is exactly my hope and I do not have any hope to get it in the other thread which deals with a lot of questions and with cachers' opinions (except for two postings from Keystone who dropped out soon while noone else dropped in in replacement). I'd also hope that if come clarification is provided, one could link to this thread when someone asks a related question. I would not dare to direct anyone in my country to the long other thread just to learn about any event rating directive that might exist.

Yeah, why bother with nuance and context where a duplicate thread will do.

 

You can always link directly to the post referencing your preferred answers in the existing thread, or the answer you most prefer to highlight once that post appears in the other thread via Mod/GS/Reviewer.

 

And what if the Mod/Reviewer is from the US? Doesn't that mean they have the "incorrect perspective" because they're not from the EU? What about GS staff? Their opinion is less valid because it is rooted in United States foundational concepts? The context for overall rating systems in the other thread is really, really important stuff to consider if you want to look for a "blanket" statement about event ratings.

 

What we really need is to track down the thread with the original conversations about creating ratings back in 2001 or so.

Edited November 25, 2014 by NeverSummer

[Andronicus]

I would like an example of how the D rating could be something other than 1. Are the attendants hiding in the trees so as people are arriving, they have to search for those already there? I don't get it.

 

As for T rating, the easy solution for the hiking example is to have the event at the far side of the hike. We have had several around here that are at the top of a mountain, with an option to do the hikeing portion with the organizer. I supose you could hike up earlyer and wait, or camp out at GZ and wait, but I think almost everyone hikes in togeather. (I have not attended one of these events yet)

[+Touchstone]

I think it's important to separate the activity associated with the Event from the actual attendance of the Event.

 

In your ice skating Event, I would interpret that as an optional activity of the Event. To exclude people because they do not choose to ice skate, would seem to be in conflict with the historic, "open to all" nature of Events.

 

Likewise, a hiking Event should be open to all that are capable of attending, whether it is to meet at the trailhead before the hike, or at the conclusion of the hike. The hiking portion of the Event seems to be the activity related to the Event, but shouldn't be a means to exclude people, just because the choose not to hike.

 

I think it's important to focus on the first sentence relating to Events in the Guidelines:

 

Event Caches facilitate the social aspect of geocaching.

 

Anything that appears to exclude people from the social aspects of the Event should be discouraged IMO.

[cezanne]

Yeah, why bother with nuance and context where a duplicate thread will do.

 

I kindly ask you not to carry over discussions from the other thread to here. There is no guarantee that the answer I asked for will come at all, but I'm still hoping that the chances are better with this thread. If we two continue to exchange messages in this thread, my hopes go down to zero.

 

And what if the Mod/Reviewer is from the US? Doesn't that mean they have the "incorrect perspective" because they're not from the EU? What about GS staff? Their opinion is less valid because it is rooted in United States foundational concepts?

 

I tried my best to formulate the question in this thread in a way to make it clear that I'm asking for Groundspeak's stance (we can continue to discuss the opinions of cachers in the other thread). I was not expecting any answers from Europe, Asia or Africa though of course they would be welcome as well if they came from reviewers who can tell us something about Groundspeak's stance on rating events. I do not favour any region of the world over another.

 

Believe me that my interest in the answer to the question I raised is sincere independently from the fact that I have personal preferences about how I would like events to be rated.

[+Team Microdot]

Anything that appears to exclude people from the social aspects of the Event should be discouraged IMO.

 

I fail to see how an event centred around a hike excludes anyone from the social aspects of that event.

 

Socialise as you hike - what could be simpler?

 

Anything that appears to insist events revolve around socialising at the expense of other enjoyable and creative activities should be discouraged IMO.

 

Of course in reality - I don't actually believe that - what I actually believe is that event organisers should be allowed to exercise creativity to come up with all sorts of different types of events that people might enjoy - and just let prospective attendees choose for themselves which events they want to attend based on their own personal preferences.

 

Why make things more complicated than they need to be?

 

Geocaching is an outdoor event that incorporates movement and, for those that want them, social interactions. Why Event caches should be any different is quite beyond me.

[+cerberus1]

what I actually believe is that event organisers should be allowed to exercise creativity to come up with all sorts of different types of events that people might enjoy - and just let prospective attendees choose for themselves which events they want to attend based on their own personal preferences.

 

Why make things more complicated than they need to be?

 

Geocaching is an outdoor event that incorporates movement and, for those that want them, social interactions. Why Event caches should be any different is quite beyond me.

+1

New events (found after clicking five times insteada one...) in my State total almost two pages.

That's a lot.

If a hiking/bowling/pie eating event was offered, there's many others for those who don't like pie to choose from.

The few hiking events (disguised as something else I guess) we attended, you couldn't keep 'em from yapping all the time out.

- I'd say they were socializing.

[cezanne]

Anything that appears to exclude people from the social aspects of the Event should be discouraged IMO.

 

Apart from the fact that I do not think that this is a rating issue,

that's not as easy as it might seem. There are cachers who are ending up being excluded

from what you call the social aspects of geocaching by

having predominantly events in restaurants (there might be issues with the offered food, with smoking,

not being able to move around etc).

 

I find it so much more comfortable to socialice while hiking with others who came for hiking and I try to avoid

indoor restaurant events wherever possible.

 

Moreover, note that my question does not focus on who is allowed to log an attended log, but is rather about on what the rating

of an event should be based. Someone who feels happy with taking part in a skating event without skating still could log an attended log, but I personally

would prefer if the rating applies to the planned key activities.

 

I would appreciate it enormously if some reviewers or lackeys could shed light into the matter and tell us if there are event rating guidelines

from Groundspeak HQ that go beyond what is available to the public on Groundspeak's site.

 

 

Cezanne

Edited November 25, 2014 by cezanne

[+NeverSummer]

I do not favour any region of the world over another.

 

My memory isn't that short, unfortunately.

 

I think that Groundspeak is unlikely to weigh in officially, as they often let the guidelines do the talking for them. The interpretation of the guidelines is largely left up to the author and host of the events, and the Reviewer of the event(s). That interpretation will, as history has shown, vary from region to region.

 

I think what you may see is the discussion of the other topic easily flow to this one (and why they could be combined...I digress...). Events are really a D1 when you look at the basis for hosting and listing a "geocaching event". The events by definition here for geocaching purposes is to bring people together and socialize. At its root is the idea that events will not exclude based on skill or ability, and will welcome the social aspect of the game.

 

This can mean a hike, a raft trip, or ice skating, but the point is that people are there to gather and socialize relating to geocaching. If I go to that skating event, and let my kid skate, but I sit out and chat up the other folks there, am I really not supposed to say I "attended"? Whereas socialization occurs while the "intended" event activities are underway, the activities are not supposed to exclude the socialization which is foundational to the "Geocaching Event" (big "E").

[4wheelin_fool]

It's completely whimsical to have difficulty ratings for events. If the key activity is ice skating, that's a terrain issue, not a difficulty one. I'd prefer if difficulty ratings be completely removed, as this conversation only illustrates how many D/T ratings are fantastically imaginative. At one time events had 'found' logs rather than 'attended', and they should have removed the difficulty rating as well.

[cezanne]

I do not favour any region of the world over another.

 

My memory isn't that short, unfortunately.

 

I guess you misunderstood what I tried to say over there.

 

I think that Groundspeak is unlikely to weigh in officially, as they often let the guidelines do the talking for them. The interpretation of the guidelines is largely left up to the author and host of the events, and the Reviewer of the event(s).

 

I would perfectly happy if at least one reviewer provided us with a clarification whether the rating should be done with having all activities in mind or just with with respect to reaching the posted coordinates. Before Keystone's post in the other thread I somehow never have thought about that someone might base the rating on the latter.

 

 

This can mean a hike, a raft trip, or ice skating, but the point is that people are there to gather and socialize relating to geocaching. If I go to that skating event, and let my kid skate, but I sit out and chat up the other folks there, am I really not supposed to say I "attended"?

 

Did I say that?

 

I (that's me!) would not want to attend such an event without skating (the same holds for any other type of activity) and I prefer if the rating takes into account the activities both in the case where an event appeals to me and when it does not appeal to me. I typically do not have a closer look at 1/1 events. There are too many and most are not at all attractive to me.

 

Actually, I'm more happy with not ending up with a 1/1 rating for a cache/event into which I spent a huge amount of energy, but that's just my personal preference and not the answer to the question I raised. In any case a higher rating would not take anything away from those who choose not to take part in the activities.

Edited November 25, 2014 by cezanne

[cezanne]

It's completely whimsical to have difficulty ratings for events. If the key activity is ice skating, that's a terrain issue, not a difficulty one.

 

I do not fully agree, but in any case that still leaves the question how to choose the T-rating and you will note that I posed my question carefully to ask about both ratings.

 

So would you base the terrain rating on the ice skating or on reaching the skating area?

[+NeverSummer]

 

This can mean a hike, a raft trip, or ice skating, but the point is that people are there to gather and socialize relating to geocaching. If I go to that skating event, and let my kid skate, but I sit out and chat up the other folks there, am I really not supposed to say I "attended"?

 

Did I say that?

 

I (that's me!) would not want to attend such an event without skating (the same holds for any other type of activity) and I prefer if the rating takes into account the activities both in the case where an event appeals to me and when it does not appeal to me. I typically do not have a closer look at 1/1 events. There are too many and most are not at all attractive to me.

 

Actually, I'm more happy with not ending up with a 1/1 rating for a cache/event into which I spent a huge amount of energy, but that's just my personal preference and not the answer to the question I raised and also a higher rating would not take anything away from those who choose not to take part in the activities.

Excellent! Your personal preference to be "puritanical" in your event attendance is just fine! (Uh-oh...can of worms alert!) But we're not talking about "cezanne's Guidelines for Event Attendance", we're talking about the big umbrella of game play we have here--and which is guided by the guidelines you've listed, created by humans, and Reviewed by a diverse group of regionally-specific volunteers. With this many layers of "preference" or "bias", we're remiss to not address it by going back to the generalities of the guidelines, and should instead consider the event listing from the general umbrella of the existing Guidelines.

 

To that end, we're therefore here to discuss the philosophical reasons for why any event reviewed under the guidelines would ever be rated over a D1. That philosophical discussion is unlikely to see Lackey input, and similarly less interaction from Reviewers because of the nature of the question. All we can do here is discuss why the community on the whole might need to adopt the same general understanding that events really are, according the the guidelines, only really D1.

 

Is that a philosophical issue for some? Sure. Does it make your head spin within its cognitive dissonance? Of course. But that's when we need to remember that this game is best played with guidelines and a level of consistency across borders. To that end, I'd imagine the easiest conclusion for a Reviewer or Lackey to draw is that events really are D1, but terrain may change based on those conditions.

[cezanne]

Your personal preference to be "puritanical" in your event attendance is just fine! (Uh-oh...can of worms alert!) But we're not talking about "cezanne's Guidelines for Event Attendance", we're talking about the big umbrella of game play we have here--

 

Actually, my intent for this thread (has failed already unfortunately) was neither to focus on my event attendance nor on talking about the big umbrella to use your words.

 

I asked a quite specific question. I wanted to know whether Groundspeak has a stance on which parts of an event to base the D/T-rating on or whether this is up to the judgement of cachers and of course reviewers.

 

To that end, we're therefore here to discuss the philosophical reasons for why any event reviewed under the guidelines would ever be rated over a D1.

 

I took part into that debate in the other thread, but this was not in the slightest my intent here. I'm disappointed that I did my job so badly.

 

I enjoy philosophical debates, but I asked something different in this thread and nothing what has been written in this thread so far comes close to an answer to my question.

 

But that's when we need to remember that this game is best played with guidelines and a level of consistency across borders. To that end, I'd imagine the easiest conclusion for a Reviewer or Lackey to draw is that events really are D1, but terrain may change based on those conditions.

 

That might be a possible approach taken by Groundspeak. Many others are conceivable as well. I'd like to hear from a reviewer and/or a lackey and would prefer not to be left with speculations.

 

You write about consistency across borders and at the same time refer to questions on how to rate the terrain of a hypothetical ice skating event (of the type of which many have actually taken place) as philosophical. That leaves me puzzled.

Edited November 25, 2014 by cezanne

[+The A-Team]

I asked a quite specific question. I wanted to know whether Groundspeak has a stance on which parts of an event to base the D/T-rating on or whether this is up to the judgement of cachers and of course reviewers.

If all you want is to ask a question of Groundspeak, it would probably be better to just ask them directly. Once you get a response, feel free to let us all know what it is.

 

Since you want a definitive and official answer, you need to go to the source.

[Andronicus]

 

This can mean a hike, a raft trip, or ice skating, but the point is that people are there to gather and socialize relating to geocaching. If I go to that skating event, and let my kid skate, but I sit out and chat up the other folks there, am I really not supposed to say I "attended"?

 

Did I say that?

 

I (that's me!) would not want to attend such an event without skating (the same holds for any other type of activity) and I prefer if the rating takes into account the activities both in the case where an event appeals to me and when it does not appeal to me. I typically do not have a closer look at 1/1 events. There are too many and most are not at all attractive to me.

 

Actually, I'm more happy with not ending up with a 1/1 rating for a cache/event into which I spent a huge amount of energy, but that's just my personal preference and not the answer to the question I raised and also a higher rating would not take anything away from those who choose not to take part in the activities.

Excellent! Your personal preference to be "puritanical" in your event attendance is just fine! (Uh-oh...can of worms alert!) But we're not talking about "cezanne's Guidelines for Event Attendance", we're talking about the big umbrella of game play we have here--and which is guided by the guidelines you've listed, created by humans, and Reviewed by a diverse group of regionally-specific volunteers. With this many layers of "preference" or "bias", we're remiss to not address it by going back to the generalities of the guidelines, and should instead consider the event listing from the general umbrella of the existing Guidelines.

 

To that end, we're therefore here to discuss the philosophical reasons for why any event reviewed under the guidelines would ever be rated over a D1. That philosophical discussion is unlikely to see Lackey input, and similarly less interaction from Reviewers because of the nature of the question. All we can do here is discuss why the community on the whole might need to adopt the same general understanding that events really are, according the the guidelines, only really D1.

 

Is that a philosophical issue for some? Sure. Does it make your head spin within its cognitive dissonance? Of course. But that's when we need to remember that this game is best played with guidelines and a level of consistency across borders. To that end, I'd imagine the easiest conclusion for a Reviewer or Lackey to draw is that events really are D1, but terrain may change based on those conditions.

It is Puritan Month!

 

I agree with the D1 question. How could it be possible to justify rating an event anything other than D1.

 

T rating, sure. Maybe it requires lots of stair climbing, or is in the back country. Not typical, but could happen.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

It's completely whimsical to have difficulty ratings for events. If the key activity is ice skating, that's a terrain issue, not a difficulty one. I'd prefer if difficulty ratings be completely removed, as this conversation only illustrates how many D/T ratings are fantastically imaginative.

 

I'd go a step further. I'd stop including attended logs in ones find count. Then maybe events could go back to an opportunity to socialize with other geocachers rather than excuse to pad ones numbers with temporary caches, create unique D/T combinations for challenge, or result in pages of forum discussions about how to rate an event.

 

 

[cezanne]

I asked a quite specific question. I wanted to know whether Groundspeak has a stance on which parts of an event to base the D/T-rating on or whether this is up to the judgement of cachers and of course reviewers.

If all you want is to ask a question of Groundspeak, it would probably be better to just ask them directly. Once you get a response, feel free to let us all know what it is.

 

Since you want a definitive and official answer, you need to go to the source.

 

I might try, but my experience (my own and of others) with asking such type of questions directly is bad.

 

 

Cezanne

[+NeverSummer]

Your personal preference to be "puritanical" in your event attendance is just fine! (Uh-oh...can of worms alert!) But we're not talking about "cezanne's Guidelines for Event Attendance", we're talking about the big umbrella of game play we have here--

 

Actually, my intent for this thread (has failed already unfortunately) was neither to focus on my event attendance nor on talking about the big umbrella to use your words.

 

I asked a quite specific question. I wanted to know whether Groundspeak has a stance on which parts of an event to base the D/T-rating on or whether this is up to the judgement of cachers and of course reviewers.

 

It's hard to bring up a topic in the forums and have a preconception of the responses, isn't it? You asked an open-ended question, yet have a preferred stance on the outcome. So, hence the discussion flowing over from the other thread to this one.

 

I'll assume from what you wrote that you either skimmed what I said, or just ignored it all.

 

To that end, we're therefore here to discuss the philosophical reasons for why any event reviewed under the guidelines would ever be rated over a D1.

I enjoy philosophical debates, but I asked something different in this thread and nothing what has been written in this thread so far comes close to an answer to my question.

How could it not? You posted the guidelines, Groundspeak is generally mum in the forums when discussing or recommending specifics about the general (umbrella) guidelines, and individuals and the volunteers who review caches are all human with preferences and their own philosophical paradigm.

 

So, I think that, if you really want an answer, it is found in what we already know: The guidelines don't define much, but what they do say is that all you need to do is have a time (start and finish), a place, and that the gathering stand on its own merit to bring together cachers to socialize. As that's the requirement (and nothing limiting it to specific, more difficult "ALR"-like "intentions" of the event owner), it's really hard to see that any event should really be more than D1.

 

Oftentimes the case is here the guidelines adapt to fit the communal response to a topic. In this case, it would appear that the answer lies in the adoption of a more consistent rating of events. And, unfortunately for your paradigm, that means all events as D1, thereby adhereing to the guidelines and also thereby accurately rating the difficulty of logging the "Attended" log on Geocaching.com.

 

But that's when we need to remember that this game is best played with guidelines and a level of consistency across borders. To that end, I'd imagine the easiest conclusion for a Reviewer or Lackey to draw is that events really are D1, but terrain may change based on those conditions.

 

That might be a possible approach taken by Groundspeak. Many others are conceivable as well. I'd like to hear from a reviewer and/or a lackey and would prefer not to be left with speculations.

Well, I've said what I think will happen and why. Other ways to handle your frustration and need for clarification is to write directly to Groundspeak and let us know what you hear.

 

You write about consistency across borders and at the same time refer to questions on how to rate the terrain of a hypothetical ice skating event (of the type of which many have actually taken place) as philosophical. That leaves me puzzled.

 

No, the idea you hold that rating events as more difficult than D1 is a personal opinion, and founded based on your local paradigm and personal philosophy. (Much as my practice of rating caches for the overall entry-level, "I haven't encountered this type of thing before" approach of something like a LPC without overt hints and directions for the find as a D2, even if I know that LPCs are commonplace and "easy" for many cachers who would call it a D1)

 

So, again, we come back to the guidelines which aren't philosophical. They are the only "umbrella" we all have, and how we also interpret them becomes clearly philosophical. Discussions like this only serve to help create more clear and consistent execution of the guidelines by trying to get those "house rules" or personal philosophies tempered down to more closely fit the general gameplay across borders.

[+NeverSummer]

I asked a quite specific question. I wanted to know whether Groundspeak has a stance on which parts of an event to base the D/T-rating on or whether this is up to the judgement of cachers and of course reviewers.

If all you want is to ask a question of Groundspeak, it would probably be better to just ask them directly. Once you get a response, feel free to let us all know what it is.

 

Since you want a definitive and official answer, you need to go to the source.

 

I might try, but my experience (my own and of others) with asking such type of questions directly is bad.

 

 

Cezanne

Excellent reason not to try...

[+dprovan]

My suggestion is that event difficulty measure the difficulty of the intended activity without worrying about the fact that participating in that activity cannot be required. I really don't care if a non-participants attends a high difficulty event, and I dislike the idea that the difficulty for all events should be set according to the least effort we can imagine an attendee making.

[cezanne]

I'd go a step further. I'd stop including attended logs in ones find count. Then maybe events could go back to an opportunity to socialize with other geocachers rather than excuse to pad ones numbers with temporary caches, create unique D/T combinations for challenge, or result in pages of forum discussions about how to rate an event.

 

I'm with you as the wish that events do not count as finds is concerned and I have mentioned this personal preference before.

Temporary caches at events and multiple logs for events are something completely unknown in my country.

I'm not at all concerned about unique D/T combinations for challenges. I have done a single challenge cache and I never ever will fill the 81 D/T grid and this does not disturb me at all.

 

My motivation to ask my question and to care for the D/T rating of events has nothing to do at all with the aspects you bring into the play above.

 

An event that attracts my attention is an event where it is conceivable that I will enjoy attending the event. What I learnt in all these years is that an event where the hike is the key focus is much more likely one that I will going to enjoy that a meet and greet in a restaurant where I typically end up with unpleasant debates and a blood pressure much higher than recommendable.

 

If all events are rated 1/1, the ones that could potentially be interesting for me do not stick out any longer. I cannot recall an event where the main activity was sitting around that I really enjoyed. It does not pay off for me to drive longer to an event than the official part of the event lasts and not to know in advance who finally will at all join potential activities after the event. It's wasted time for me to drive one hour to realize that all that I would have enjoyed to talk to leave earlier at the end of what is the official event.

[cezanne]

Excellent reason not to try...

 

I have not yet made a decision whether I will give it a try. Not everyone is an optimist.

[cezanne]

My suggestion is that event difficulty measure the difficulty of the intended activity without worrying about the fact that participating in that activity cannot be required. I really don't care if a non-participants attends a high difficulty event, and I dislike the idea that the difficulty for all events should be set according to the least effort we can imagine an attendee making.

 

What you write fits perfectly with my personal preference.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

An event that attracts my attention is an event where it is conceivable that I will enjoy attending the event. What I learnt in all these years is that an event where the hike is the key focus is much more likely one that I will going to enjoy that a meet and greet in a restaurant where I typically end up with unpleasant debates and a blood pressure much higher than recommendable.

 

Have you considered joining a hiking club? That way you could go on hikes with other people that like hiking and not have to worry about those pesky geocaching D/T ratings. If you like ice skating, go ice skating. If you like kayaking, buy or rent a kayak and go kayaking. You don't need to engage in unpleasant debates with geoachers to do these things.

[4wheelin_fool]

It's completely whimsical to have difficulty ratings for events. If the key activity is ice skating, that's a terrain issue, not a difficulty one.

 

I do not fully agree, but in any case that still leaves the question how to choose the T-rating and you will note that I posed my question carefully to ask about both ratings.

 

So would you base the terrain rating on the ice skating or on reaching the skating area?

 

The terrain should reflect the difficulty of attending the event, so reaching the skating rink should be a 1 if there is a ramp for wheelchairs. However you do have a point if there is a key activity present, so it would be nice to have 2 terrain ratings, and completely eliminate the difficulty. There is no need to perpetually pigeonhole events as geocaches.

[4wheelin_fool]

It's completely whimsical to have difficulty ratings for events. If the key activity is ice skating, that's a terrain issue, not a difficulty one. I'd prefer if difficulty ratings be completely removed, as this conversation only illustrates how many D/T ratings are fantastically imaginative.

 

I'd go a step further. I'd stop including attended logs in ones find count. Then maybe events could go back to an opportunity to socialize with other geocachers rather than excuse to pad ones numbers with temporary caches, create unique D/T combinations for challenge, or result in pages of forum discussions about how to rate an event.

 

Completely agree.

[cezanne]

Have you considered joining a hiking club? That way you could go on hikes with other people that like hiking and not have to worry about those pesky geocaching D/T ratings.

 

Hiking clubs are not a suitable option for my special situation. The D/T ratings and other information from cache listings and fellow cachers are not regarded as pesky by me, but rather as one of the assets that geocaching hikes have for me in comparison to taking hiking suggestions from some guide books or internet sites with route suggestions.

 

If you like ice skating, go ice skating. If you like kayaking, buy or rent a kayak and go kayaking. You don't need to engage in unpleasant debates with geoachers to do these things.

 

I never ever would have found the motivation to go skating again after many years if it were not for an event I wanted to take part in (but in the real sense).

 

While I'm not the type of person for classical greet and meet events, geocaching introduced me to a couple of wonderful people some of which became dear friends. I would not want to miss this experience.

Not everyone enjoys the same type of conversations. Sure there are people who can get along nicely with everyone and enjoy themselves under almost any scenario. That does not hold true for me, but it does not make me number oriented.

Edited November 25, 2014 by cezanne

[+bflentje]

I do not mind if there's a guideline forcing the rule of D=1 for events. What I struggle with is my reviewer refusing to publish my event unless I change it from 3/3 to 1/3, all the while he has a history of hosting events that have a D => 2. Equal application of the guideline is all I ask. But then why should I be surprised when this same reviewer that has published the last 120 or more of his own hides with absolutely no oversight.

[+NeverSummer]

I do not mind if there's a guideline forcing the rule of D=1 for events. What I struggle with is my reviewer refusing to publish my event unless I change it from 3/3 to 1/3, all the while he has a history of hosting events that have a D => 2. Equal application of the guideline is all I ask. But then why should I be surprised when this same reviewer that has published the last 120 or more of his own hides with absolutely no oversight.

 

There are 2 Reviewers in your area, and my understanding when they expanded to 2 Reviewers was that they would review the other's caches, as well as the stated North/South borders for all other reviewal. Did that change? (or am I remembering that incorrectly from the announcement at MNGCA?) Sounds like it... If it smells like fish...

 

It certainly may not be possible in some Reviewer jurisdictions, but it is certainly better to have some level of checks and balances to remove possible conflicts of interest, or appearances of unethical and inconsistent behavior in the minds of the members under their jurisdiction.

 

You're showing an example here of where even Reviewers from the same area have different interpretations of the process. That the OP really gets at for a root is consistency of "enforcement" or adjustment of ratings as needed. When Reviewers a few hundred miles away from each other are this different, it's no wonder cezanne has such a significantly different opinion when many thousands of miles away from that.

 

To squash all personal interpretations and thereby the regional inconsistencies, it would be helpful if a stance was taken by TPTB on how events (and other cache types) are to be rated, and the level to which the Reviewers are expected (or the amount of latitude given) to request the adjustment of a cache's ratings.

Edited November 26, 2014 by NeverSummer

[+Sapience Trek]

Closing duplicate thread, original thread: http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=327926

 

I believe the questions have already been succinctly answered multiple times by Keystone in the original thread. If there are specific questions you have about a possible event, the best thing to do is contact your local reviewer with questions or concerns. When cachers ask me open ended questions I always ask that the cache or event be written up so I can better address their concerns.