Confusing terrain level

[+EggsTheBest]

Today I was trying to find a multicache with D2 T2 rating. I knew it's going to be about a mile long walk to reach all the waypoints, so that seemed easy to do.

 

However, when I reached the GZ, I found out that the cache is hidden in a fake bird house, about 10 feet (about 3m) high on a tree. Being a 5'3'' (160cm) tall there was no chance for me to reach it. There were no branches I could climb, using a stick was useless because you need to use hands to open the doors and take out the container. I felt a little bummed out because I wouldn't have gone on my way to a cache I'm not physically able to grab.

 

So my question is - should the terrain be higher than 2 for a cache like that? The description didn't indicate any information whether it's hard to reach. According to the official rating system, T2 cache is suitable for small children, is it right in this case?

[+narcissa]

It should probably be rated a little higher, but terrain rating isn't something that's enforced too much.

[+L0ne.R]

Today I was trying to find a multicache with D2 T2 rating. I knew it's going to be about a mile long walk to reach all the waypoints, so that seemed easy to do.

 

However, when I reached the GZ, I found out that the cache is hidden in a fake bird house, about 10 feet (about 3m) high on a tree. Being a 5'3'' (160cm) tall there was no chance for me to reach it. There were no branches I could climb, using a stick was useless because you need to use hands to open the doors and take out the container. I felt a little bummed out because I wouldn't have gone on my way to a cache I'm not physically able to grab.

 

So my question is - should the terrain be higher than 2 for a cache like that? The description didn't indicate any information whether it's hard to reach. According to the official rating system, T2 cache is suitable for small children, is it right in this case?

 

Is the birdhouse attached to the tree?

I've been to several caches way up in trees with no limbs to climb on. The way to get them down is to find a long branch on the ground that will reach. The cache is normally just hooked on to a branch and you can lift it off with the long branch. Once I had to drag over a dead sapling that was about 10 feet tall, to reach the cache.

If it's attached and the cache owner expects people to bring a ladder then the cache should be listed as a T4 minimum.

Edited April 26, 2016 by L0ne.R

[+EggsTheBest]

 

Is the birdhouse attached to the tree?

 

Yes, it's attached to the tree. I tried using different branches - seemed impossible to open the bird house, because you need to unhook the doors, open them and then somehow take out the container.

I believe really tall people can reach it without a ladder but for the rest it's close to impossible.

[+Mudfrog]

Today I was trying to find a multicache with D2 T2 rating. I knew it's going to be about a mile long walk to reach all the waypoints, so that seemed easy to do.

 

However, when I reached the GZ, I found out that the cache is hidden in a fake bird house, about 10 feet (about 3m) high on a tree. Being a 5'3'' (160cm) tall there was no chance for me to reach it. There were no branches I could climb, using a stick was useless because you need to use hands to open the doors and take out the container. I felt a little bummed out because I wouldn't have gone on my way to a cache I'm not physically able to grab.

 

So my question is - should the terrain be higher than 2 for a cache like that? The description didn't indicate any information whether it's hard to reach. According to the official rating system, T2 cache is suitable for small children, is it right in this case?

 

Is the birdhouse attached to the tree?

I've been to several caches way up in trees with no limbs to climb on. The way to get them down is to find a long branch on the ground that will reach. The cache is normally just hooked on to a branch and you can lift it off with the long branch you picked up on the ground. Once I had to find a dead sapling that was about 10 feet tall to reach the cache.

If it's attached and the cache owner expects people to bring a ladder then the cache should be listed as a T4 minimum.

I know this is subjective but a T4? Going with what the Op has stated, especially this part, "I believe really tall people can reach it without a ladder but for the rest it's close to impossible", T4 would be too high.

 

Imo, the terrain rating is not the problem here. A T2 may be a tad low but even with a higher rating, there is still the surprise at the end. It's up to the CO as to how much information he wants to give out so yes, it can be frustrating for finders if very little or none is given on a cache like this. I'd be sure to include at least a hint (tree climbing attribute for one) if i had a cache placed similarly.

 

To the OP, this should be a lot easier since you now know where the final is. I'd bet you'd find preparing for, heading back out to, and righting that DNF to be a rewarding experience.

[+Dame Deco]

Just curious--what do old logs say? Do they mention this as a problem, or is it all TFTC?

[+L0ne.R]

Is the birdhouse attached to the tree?

 

Yes, it's attached to the tree. I tried using different branches - seemed impossible to open the bird house, because you need to unhook the doors, open them and then somehow take out the container.

I believe really tall people can reach it without a ladder but for the rest it's close to impossible.

 

Personally, if the average woman (5'5") needs a ladder to get the cache, it should be rated at least a T4.5. But many people feel that it should apply to the average height of a man (5'10"). And some people feel it should apply to the height of the cache owner.

 

Ratings for Difficulty and Terrain -- T5

In this case, special equipment at least for the average woman and the average man. This cache is reachable by tall men -- I take that to mean at least 6 feet tall.

 

The Clayjar system rates it a T5,

 

The description should warn people of the height challenge. It's not just tall men who participate in this hobby. It's rude to waste the time and frustrate women who cache solo.

The tree attribute should also be used.

It's especially frustrating when you do the work required for a multi, only to end up with the cache out of reach. It's disrespectful, especially if it's fluffed off as unimportant that the average woman can't reach it and is expected to cache with someone taller, or suffer the consequences.

 

Personally I'd be writing a DNF explaining that had I known the cache was going to be out of reach, I would have used the hour I spent on the multi to do something else.

[+Dame Deco]

The CO needs to be honest about what you'll find at the end. This kind of thing is why people avoid multis and field puzzles--spending an hour and getting to end only to find an inaccessible cache is exasperating to say the least. No amount of "but it's the journey" can erase that awful feeling that you've wasted your time. For me at least, it would cancel out the fun I had getting there.

[+wimseyguy]

Yea I agree, a two mile walk in the woods listening to chirping birds, breezes in trees, the crunch of leaves, watching my dog race around with a goofy grin really sucks if I cannot get another smiley. What an awful waste of my time!! <Borat voice> NOT!

 

What I will agree with is that 2*T might be a bit low for this one, and while it would be nice for the CO to mention the height issue s/he's under no obligation to do so. Sometimes caches are supposed to be hard to find or access. And some locations are worth returning to.

Edited April 26, 2016 by wimseyguy

[+igator210]

Does it have the Team Work or Partner attribute set? I've seen a few caches where the CO intended two people working together can get the cache, usually by one person being on another person's shoulders.

[+coachstahly]

I'm 6 ft and have long arms (my reach is over 8 feet) and I still couldn't get to a cache 10 ft. in the air. There are 7 footers who would still have to reach for a cache this high up. The T should definitely be raised but the CO should make mention somewhere that the final stage is out of reach for almost all cachers. Is it on a sapling (a BMO cache- bend me over cache)?

[+dprovan]

That seems so out of line, I'm wondering if the birdhouse was a red herring. As it happens, this leaves a good opening for talking it over with the CO: "Was the birdhouse up in the tree a red herring? I thought the birdhouse at the final location was the cache, but it didn't seem to fit the terrain rating, and I would have expected the cache description to warn in advance about a tree climb at the end. Did I miss the real cache closer to the ground?" That gets across the problems you and others have with this cache, yet in a way that shows you're open to the possibility that you're the one at fault. It's possible the CO doesn't realize how this can affect seekers, or it could be that there used to be an easy way up into the tree that's disappeared, and the CO just didn't realize that. Most people would send such comments privately in e-mail, but I'd be tempted to post it in my DNF log so other seekers hear about my problem.

 

Definitely read other logs to see if anyone reports having this problem. Or if they talk about the birdhouse as if it has nothing to do with signing the log...

[+L0ne.R]

That seems so out of line, I'm wondering if the birdhouse was a red herring. As it happens, this leaves a good opening for talking it over with the CO: "Was the birdhouse up in the tree a red herring? I thought the birdhouse at the final location was the cache, but it didn't seem to fit the terrain rating, and I would have expected the cache description to warn in advance about a tree climb at the end. Did I miss the real cache closer to the ground?" That gets across the problems you and others have with this cache, yet in a way that shows you're open to the possibility that you're the one at fault. It's possible the CO doesn't realize how this can affect seekers, or it could be that there used to be an easy way up into the tree that's disappeared, and the CO just didn't realize that. Most people would send such comments privately in e-mail, but I'd be tempted to post it in my DNF log so other seekers hear about my problem.

 

Definitely read other logs to see if anyone reports having this problem. Or if they talk about the birdhouse as if it has nothing to do with signing the log...

 

Thanks for the example of how to write a polite log that gets the point across. I agree about making it a public DNF to inform others, in case the owner doesn't.

It didn't occur to me that it's possible that the birdhouse is just a birdhouse, and not the cache. It might not even be a red herring. That has happened to me before, the actual cache was about a couple of feet away (and on the ground under a log) from a birdhouse. I had initially thought was the cache and opened the birdhouse to find a nest (no birds or eggs, it was winter).

[BFG99]

Yes, I know terrain is very subjective, so this is just my opinion.

 

Generally, with a T2 I would just expect some small ground obstacles (ravine or culvert, maybe a stream to cross, etc.) 2 is probably too low for this one, but 4 is only merited (again, in my opinion) if EVERYONE would need additional equipment to reach it. If a tall person could reach it without a ladder, or if you can hook it with a branch, then T2.5 or T3 is probably closer to right.

[+niraD]

Yes, it's attached to the tree. I tried using different branches - seemed impossible to open the bird house, because you need to unhook the doors, open them and then somehow take out the container.

There's an elevated cache around here where one is expected to bring an extension ladder. But for most of the elevated caches I've found, I've used a reaching device of some kind (e.g., an apple picker on an extension pole), rather than climbing anything.

 

I believe really tall people can reach it without a ladder but for the rest it's close to impossible.

I'm 6'3" and can touch an 8' ceiling while standing flat-footed. To reach a 10' object flat-footed (so you can open the doors, retrieve the container, etc. in a controlled manner), you'd need to be well over 7'. There aren't many people that tall. So I think it's a stretch to justify a 2/2 rating based on so few people being able to reach the cache without climbing and without a tool.

 

But while I think that a 2/2 rating is too low (based on your description anyway), I'm not sure whether the CO should raise the terrain (if geocachers are expected to climb or otherwise get themselves to the cache location), or raise the difficulty (if geocachers are expected to use tools to retrieve the cache). I've seen elevated caches listed both ways.

[+The Leprechauns]

The last cache I found that was above my head in a tree was hanging on a retractable cable. I grabbed a stick, snagged the top of the container, pulled and the cache came down to meet me. I removed the log, tucked the container under my arm, signed the log, closed the cache and let it go. The container then rose up again out of my reach.

 

The OP clarified that she saw that the cache was attached to the tree, so this design doesn't seem applicable. I mention it only as a reminder to all seekers: don't make assumptions. If you cannot find a cache, or think that a cache is inaccessible, ask yourself what assumptions you are making.

 

I am still curious how others are retrieving and logging this cache.

[cezanne]

The OP clarified that she saw that the cache was attached to the tree, so this design doesn't seem applicable.

 

We still do not know whether she saw the cache or just a bird house attached to a tree. I wonder what cache the post is about as there are not many 2/2 multi caches in the area where the OP lives.

If it's the cache with size other, I do not think that it would be in a bird house.

[+ChileHead]

It's a judgement call on the part of the cache owner. I'm not going to quibble about whether it should be a T2 or T3. While I'll often think a T5 in this sort of situation requires a high tree climb, I'll still go "waste" my time looking for the cache and doing the hike, even though I usually won't climb higher than 20-30 feet, tops. In these cases I usually still had fun walking to the cache, getting exercise, and if caching with friends, watching them dare death.

 

As a cache owner, I like to rate my caches how I want them rated, not how others think they should be rated. Most of my paddle caches are not rated a T5 even though people have complained to me about it. Some are accessible during the winter when water is frozen, or when the Erie canal is drained.

 

In the birdhouse/tree case, perhaps the cache owner expects people top prop up an old stump from nearby making access easy. No tree climbing or ladder necessary.

[+L0ne.R]

It's a judgement call on the part of the cache owner. I'm not going to quibble about whether it should be a T2 or T3. While I'll often think a T5 in this sort of situation requires a high tree climb, I'll still go "waste" my time looking for the cache and doing the hike, even though I usually won't climb higher than 20-30 feet, tops. In these cases I usually still had fun walking to the cache, getting exercise, and if caching with friends, watching them dare death.

 

As a cache owner, I like to rate my caches how I want them rated, not how others think they should be rated. Most of my paddle caches are not rated a T5 even though people have complained to me about it. Some are accessible during the winter when water is frozen, or when the Erie canal is drained.

 

In the birdhouse/tree case, perhaps the cache owner expects people top prop up an old stump from nearby making access easy. No tree climbing or ladder necessary.

 

The terrain ratings matter to people with mobility issues. The difference between a T2 and a T3 could mean a lot.

 

I liked the old clayjar terrain rating. It was much clearer and I liked how they used a bike to determine the difference between the first 3 levels of terrain...

 

What is the terrain elevation like?

*Basically flat

Only slight elevation changes. Easy to do in a wheelchair, stroller, bike, etc.

*Some elevation changes

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

*Steep elevation changes

Change is steep. Probably could not ride a bike up this slope, but could push it up.

*Severe elevation changes

The only way up the slope is to use your hands. Going down may require the use of your backside.How hard is the steepest part of the cache?

 

T2 - Some elevation changes Changes are slight enough that someone could ride a bike up such a slope.

T3 - Steep elevation changes Change is steep. Probably could not ride a bike up this slope, but could push it up.

When I broke my leg and had to be careful - turning my foot in even a 1/4 was very painful - I didn't do steep slopes and jumping over creeks. I relied on accurate terrain ratings. There were many T1.5 and T2's that were really between T3 and T4. People weren't taking in to account "How hard is the steepest part of the cache?".

 

If the rail to trail was flat they'd post it as a T1.5, failing to inform the finder that when you get within 20 feet of the cache you have to go down a steep rocky slope, then jump a ditch full of water, then walk through 10 feet of branches and logs. I would hobble a kilometre then stare over at the cache hanging in the tree knowing there was no way I could go get it. Very frustrating. I wasted a lot of time and gas money trying to find the few less than T3 caches. Drove for hours and was able to get to less then half of them.

Edited April 27, 2016 by L0ne.R

[+CanadianRockies]

The CO needs to be honest about what you'll find at the end. This kind of thing is why people avoid multis and field puzzles--spending an hour and getting to end only to find an inaccessible cache is exasperating to say the least. No amount of "but it's the journey" can erase that awful feeling that you've wasted your time. For me at least, it would cancel out the fun I had getting there.

You need to go on some better journeys.

[+CanadianRockies]

The last cache I found that was above my head in a tree was hanging on a retractable cable. I grabbed a stick, snagged the top of the container, pulled and the cache came down to meet me. I removed the log, tucked the container under my arm, signed the log, closed the cache and let it go. The container then rose up again out of my reach.

 

The OP clarified that she saw that the cache was attached to the tree, so this design doesn't seem applicable. I mention it only as a reminder to all seekers: don't make assumptions. If you cannot find a cache, or think that a cache is inaccessible, ask yourself what assumptions you are making.

Actually, that design might be applicable. I once found a cache where the birdhouse was high in a tree. There was a hook on the bottom of the birdhouse. You needed to find something that could reach the hook and pull the floor of the birdhouse down to you. The cache container was attached to this retractable floor.

 

That cache page kindly hinted at what needed to be done to access the cache. Other cache owners might opt to leave out that information.

[+Dame Deco]

The CO needs to be honest about what you'll find at the end. This kind of thing is why people avoid multis and field puzzles--spending an hour and getting to end only to find an inaccessible cache is exasperating to say the least. No amount of "but it's the journey" can erase that awful feeling that you've wasted your time. For me at least, it would cancel out the fun I had getting there.

You need to go on some better journeys.

 

I'm pretty happy with my journeys, but thanks. I love hiking, and I do plenty of it, but when I'm going for a cache, that is in fact the goal of that particular journey. A DNF is one thing, that doesn't bother me overly much, but if I can see the cache, and I can't get it, and the terrain rating isn't right...well, that's going to bug me. If there are other caches along the way, even just one more traditional, it probably wouldn't bug me. But if I spent that much time and failed just short of my goal, it would bug me. But that's just me--and my main point is perfectly valid: it may not be how you feel, but it's the way plenty of people feel, hence the fact that they skip puzzles and multis. That's not a problem really--it's just one aspect of the hobby.

Edited April 27, 2016 by Dame Deco

[+L0ne.R]

The CO needs to be honest about what you'll find at the end. This kind of thing is why people avoid multis and field puzzles--spending an hour and getting to end only to find an inaccessible cache is exasperating to say the least. No amount of "but it's the journey" can erase that awful feeling that you've wasted your time. For me at least, it would cancel out the fun I had getting there.

You need to go on some better journeys.

 

I'm pretty happy with my journeys, but thanks. I love hiking, and I do plenty of it, but when I'm going for a cache, that is in fact the goal of that particular journey. A DNF is one thing, that doesn't bother me overly much, but if I can see the cache, and I can't get it, and the terrain rating isn't right...well, that's going to bug me. If there are other caches along the way, even just one more traditional, it probably wouldn't bug me. But if I spent that much time and failed just short of my goal, it would bug me. But that's just me--and my main point is perfectly valid: it may not be how you feel, but it's the way plenty of people feel, hence the fact that they skip puzzles and multis. That's not a problem really--it's just one aspect of the hobby.

 

+1

[+coachstahly]

 

As a cache owner, I like to rate my caches how I want them rated, not how others think they should be rated. Most of my paddle caches are not rated a T5 even though people have complained to me about it. Some are accessible during the winter when water is frozen, or when the Erie canal is drained.

 

 

The only problem I have with these caches not being rated a T5 is that there are many times when a boat (which I consider special equipment) is required, not optional. The frozen water and the drained canal are the exceptions and perhaps happen far less than when a boat is required to access the cache. If you can walk along the waterway (without trespassing) and still access/find them without needing a boat (wading/swimming less than knee/thigh deep would qualify for me), then I would have no problem with a 4 or 4.5 rating. However, if the ONLY way to find the cache is with a boat during a large chunk of the year, I'd rate it a 5. That's my personal interpretation. They would certainly fill up my 4/4.5 T caches on my grid!

 

I remember being told, when I first started considering placing my first hide, is that you base the T rating on what could possibly be the worst case scenario under normal situations (blizzard, flood, tornado are NOT normal situations and are therefore removed from consideration). We have quite a few rails to trails here in Indiana. Winter time is great because there's no foliage or undergrowth to contend with. It's probably a 2-2.5 T cache most times, if hidden off trail. However, come summer time and fall, it's more like a 2.5-3 T, depending on the maintenance along the outer edges of the trail. I wouldn't rate it on the best time to find it (winter) but instead on the worst time.

[cezanne]

But if I spent that much time and failed just short of my goal, it would bug me. But that's just me--and my main point is perfectly valid: it may not be how you feel, but it's the way plenty of people feel, hence the fact that they skip puzzles and multis.

 

I do not mind at all if many cachers skip multi caches and mystery caches.

I just wonder how you cannot have the same issue for a traditional. The effort for a traditional with a 5km walk is not lower than for multi cache with virtual caches and a 5km walk.

Regardless of the T-ratings it happens to me very often that I have to realize at the cache location that I cannot reach it. Sometimes I'm frustrated but about myself.

[+J Grouchy]

The CO needs to be honest about what you'll find at the end. This kind of thing is why people avoid multis and field puzzles--spending an hour and getting to end only to find an inaccessible cache is exasperating to say the least. No amount of "but it's the journey" can erase that awful feeling that you've wasted your time. For me at least, it would cancel out the fun I had getting there.

You need to go on some better journeys.

 

I'm pretty happy with my journeys, but thanks. I love hiking, and I do plenty of it, but when I'm going for a cache, that is in fact the goal of that particular journey. A DNF is one thing, that doesn't bother me overly much, but if I can see the cache, and I can't get it, and the terrain rating isn't right...well, that's going to bug me. If there are other caches along the way, even just one more traditional, it probably wouldn't bug me. But if I spent that much time and failed just short of my goal, it would bug me. But that's just me--and my main point is perfectly valid: it may not be how you feel, but it's the way plenty of people feel, hence the fact that they skip puzzles and multis....

 

...particularly the ones without checker tools.

 

Personally, while a hike is always nice, if the motivation for going to a particular area is first to grab a geocache and the hike is a nice perk...then not being able to get the cache is going to be a bit frustrating...especially if some simple wording or extra attention to the cache page could have warned me in advance.

 

It's kind of silly to think that everyone else should just be happy to get a good hike in. We play this game for a reason and pretending it doesn't matter isn't going to work. No, in the grand scheme of things, it really DOESN'T matter...but from the perspective of a daily activity/pastime to enjoy casually, it does.

[+Dame Deco]

But if I spent that much time and failed just short of my goal, it would bug me. But that's just me--and my main point is perfectly valid: it may not be how you feel, but it's the way plenty of people feel, hence the fact that they skip puzzles and multis.

 

I do not mind at all if many cachers skip multi caches and mystery caches.

I just wonder how you cannot have the same issue for a traditional. The effort for a traditional with a 5km walk is not lower than for multi cache with virtual caches and a 5km walk.

Regardless of the T-ratings it happens to me very often that I have to realize at the cache location that I cannot reach it. Sometimes I'm frustrated but about myself.

 

I only meant that if I was finding another cache or two along the way, not being able to finish the multi wouldn't bother me. But if I spent an hour or more on just that, and it excluded all other possible caching, I'd be unhappy.

 

Also--there's a big difference to me when it comes to local vs. vacation caches. If I can go back to the high cache with a tall friend, I might not mind so much, but if I'm on a long trip to somewhere I might never visit again, I will be unhappy.

 

If I'm out of town, I try to limit my multis and field puzzles to fairly easy ones, or ones that have been found very recently.

[+Dame Deco]

 

Personally, while a hike is always nice, if the motivation for going to a particular area is first to grab a geocache and the hike is a nice perk...then not being able to get the cache is going to be a bit frustrating...especially if some simple wording or extra attention to the cache page could have warned me in advance.

 

It's kind of silly to think that everyone else should just be happy to get a good hike in. We play this game for a reason and pretending it doesn't matter isn't going to work. No, in the grand scheme of things, it really DOESN'T matter...but from the perspective of a daily activity/pastime to enjoy casually, it does.

 

Very well put!

[+L0ne.R]

Personally, while a hike is always nice, if the motivation for going to a particular area is first to grab a geocache and the hike is a nice perk...then not being able to get the cache is going to be a bit frustrating...especially if some simple wording or extra attention to the cache page could have warned me in advance.

 

It's kind of silly to think that everyone else should just be happy to get a good hike in. We play this game for a reason and pretending it doesn't matter isn't going to work. No, in the grand scheme of things, it really DOESN'T matter...but from the perspective of a daily activity/pastime to enjoy casually, it does.

 

Very well put!

 

I agree.

[+thebruce0]

Also also agreed.

[cezanne]

I only meant that if I was finding another cache or two along the way, not being able to finish the multi wouldn't bother me. But if I spent an hour or more on just that, and it excluded all other possible caching, I'd be unhappy.

 

I did not have an issue with what you wrote and it can also happen that I return unhappy (actually it happened).

I just meant that I do not mind if someone decided to skip multi caches and mystery caches.

 

Also--there's a big difference to me when it comes to local vs. vacation caches. If I can go back to the high cache with a tall friend, I might not mind so much, but if I'm on a long trip to somewhere I might never visit again, I will be unhappy.

 

I guess many of us who cannot reach each cache have their own moments of unhappiness. I want to reach all caches out of my own capabilities and I sometimes returned quite depressed not so much because I could not reach a cache, but because everyone else managed it and I felt so incompetent. This did not happen after 1.5* traffic sign caches which were simply too high (actually a 2* urban cache already alerts me that I will probably not be able to reach it and already 1.5* can be borderline and in particular in Vienna) but mostly when I was told that getting to the cache is like stepping up stairs or it's like a highway. If someone else reaches the cache and hands the container to me, that's no comfort at all for me.

 

As caching far away is regarded, most cachers will of course use different criteria. Some caches are targeted to locals only and if people from abroad skip them, that's no big deal.

There are other situations as well (for example when caching with people who are not interested into caches) when simple traditionals will be the best choice, no doubt.

However being disappointed about not being able to reach a cache can happen for every cache type.

 

In the case of the OP I still would like to know if the cache really is hidden in the bird house. Sometimes I was quite convinced that a cache would be hidden at a place I cannot reach and it turned out to be somewhere else.

[cezanne]

 

It's kind of silly to think that everyone else should just be happy to get a good hike in. We play this game for a reason and pretending it doesn't matter isn't going to work. No, in the grand scheme of things, it really DOESN'T matter...but from the perspective of a daily activity/pastime to enjoy casually, it does.

 

I agree that you have the right to have this opinion. However please do not write "we". It's equally silly (if you want to use this term) to assume that everyone is caching for the same reason. I do not play a game and having a reason to get on a nice walk/hike and a target are the most important aspects of geocaching for me. I enjoy it once I'm out but I often find it hard to head off and to decide where to go. For me caching serves the purpose of making these decisions easier for me.

[+J Grouchy]

 

It's kind of silly to think that everyone else should just be happy to get a good hike in. We play this game for a reason and pretending it doesn't matter isn't going to work. No, in the grand scheme of things, it really DOESN'T matter...but from the perspective of a daily activity/pastime to enjoy casually, it does.

 

I agree that you have the right to have this opinion. However please do not write "we". It's equally silly (if you want to use this term) to assume that everyone is caching for the same reason. I do not play a game and having a reason to get on a nice walk/hike and a target are the most important aspects of geocaching for me. I enjoy it once I'm out but I often find it hard to head off and to decide where to go. For me caching serves the purpose of making these decisions easier for me.

 

Don't read more into my statement than I wrote. The "we" is the "everyone else" that I speak of...namely, those who actually enjoy caching for caching's sake and not as a secondary activity to hiking.

[cezanne]

Don't read more into my statement than I wrote. The "we" is the "everyone else" that I speak of...namely, those who actually enjoy caching for caching's sake and not as a secondary activity to hiking.

 

But what you wrote has the very same relevance level as if someone else writes we about enjoying caching for other reasons than grabbing containers. If a multi cache led you to a number of interesting locations, than it offered you more than "only" a hike. So the difference in philosophy is more than how relevant hiking is to someone and for caching's sake can mean a lot different things to different people. I enjoy multi caches that serve as guided city tours and I regard the whole tour as caching and the container in the end is the least important part to me while there are cachers out there for whom signing a log book is the most important part.

 

I would not have responded at all if you had written "Many cachers including myself ...." instead of "We

Edited April 27, 2016 by cezanne

[+thebruce0]

Ah nuances of languages.

I for one understood exactly what J Grouchy was saying. I understand how cezanne may not have understood. J Grouchy was fine in saying "we" in that context; he was not implying "everyone plays the game for this same reason".

 

However, one could interpret him to have meant "we [all] play the game for the same reason [- to find geocaches, but we value various aspects of the game differently]", and I think that is something we all agree on.

Edited April 27, 2016 by thebruce0

[cezanne]

However, one could interpret him to have meant "we [all] play the game for the same reason [- to find geocaches, but we value various aspects of the game differently]", and I think that is something we all agree on.

 

Yes, that's exactly how I understood what J. grouchy was saying that we all play this game for the reason to find containers and that's what I disagree with. That's not an issue for me whether hiking is primary or secondary but much more fundamental. The whole journey including e.g. the tasks in a multi cache are what constitutes a cache to me and I'm definitely not going out for a cache with the aim to sign a log book at the end.

[+J Grouchy]

However, one could interpret him to have meant "we [all] play the game for the same reason [- to find geocaches, but we value various aspects of the game differently]", and I think that is something we all agree on.

 

Yes, that's exactly how I understood what J. grouchy was saying that we all play this game for the reason to find containers and that's what I disagree with. That's not an issue for me whether hiking is primary or secondary but much more fundamental. The whole journey including e.g. the tasks in a multi cache are what constitutes a cache to me and I'm definitely not going out for a cache with the aim to sign a log book at the end.

 

AT the risk of derailing the topic...I disagree. Geocaching IS finding hidden containers. Whether you drive up to it on your way to work or walk to it over the course of a long day of hiking matters not. You may be spending 99% of your time that day walking in the woods and enjoying the scenery and wildlife, but that 1% of your remaining time is spent actually geocaching...finding the hidden container. When I drive to work, I'm not geocaching. When I arrive at the posted coordinates...THEN I'm geocaching. When you are geocaching, your goal is not to hike. When you are geocaching, your aim is not to wander and enjoy a scenic overlook or learn about the history of the area. Those are side aspects to the core activity. Those "side" aspects may be more important to you or me or anyone...but the activity of geocaching is very specific and pretty clearly defined. Even with virtuals or earthcaches, you are specifically tasked with finding a certain object/feature/source of information. Logging those finds involve a very focused attention to specific information on-site. They do not ask you to learn about the area and write a dissertation.

 

So geocaching can be a PART of your overall experience...be it of lesser or greater importance than other PARTS of the overall experience. But don't make it out to be more than it is...finding a hidden container and signing a log sheet.

Edited April 27, 2016 by J Grouchy

[cezanne]

Geocaching IS finding hidden containers.

 

Not only.

 

When I arrive at the posted coordinates...THEN I'm geocaching.

 

For a traditional, yes if you apply a definition of geocaching that does not include the journey.

 

When you go for a multi cache with 20 virtual stages and collect info at all stages, then the geocaching does not start when you sign the log book (note that in cases when a cache container is up on a tree and you see it you also have found the container, only the log is missing). If you happened to just wander around you will not arrive at the final and will not know where to search for a container. So saying that your geocaching only consists of finding containers, is not taking into account the full wealth of geocaching.

 

But don't make it out to be more than it is...finding a hidden container and signing a log sheet.

 

For many cachers it is more than that ............

If for you it's just the above, fine.

Edited April 27, 2016 by cezanne

[+thebruce0]

*headdeskemoticon* we need one.

[+cheech gang]

 

Nevermind, gif no workee.

Edited April 27, 2016 by cheech gang

[+CanadianRockies]

The CO needs to be honest about what you'll find at the end. This kind of thing is why people avoid multis and field puzzles--spending an hour and getting to end only to find an inaccessible cache is exasperating to say the least. No amount of "but it's the journey" can erase that awful feeling that you've wasted your time. For me at least, it would cancel out the fun I had getting there.

You need to go on some better journeys.

I'm pretty happy with my journeys, but thanks. I love hiking, and I do plenty of it, but when I'm going for a cache, that is in fact the goal of that particular journey. A DNF is one thing, that doesn't bother me overly much, but if I can see the cache, and I can't get it, and the terrain rating isn't right...well, that's going to bug me. If there are other caches along the way, even just one more traditional, it probably wouldn't bug me. But if I spent that much time and failed just short of my goal, it would bug me. But that's just me--and my main point is perfectly valid: it may not be how you feel, but it's the way plenty of people feel, hence the fact that they skip puzzles and multis. That's not a problem really--it's just one aspect of the hobby.

Yes, it can be a bit frustrating when I don't find a cache for any number of reasons: bad D/T ratings, cache has been muggled, can't find the clever hiding spot today, etc. But I'm always aware that there's no guarantee that I'm going to find a particular geocache, and a bit of frustration won't ruin an otherwise enjoyable outing. But maybe that's just me. I don't take geocaching too seriously, and I'm pretty good at multi-tasking. It would take an awful lot of frustration to ruin many of the wonderful journeys I've taken to GZs.

[+J Grouchy]

Geocaching IS finding hidden containers.

 

Not only.

 

When I arrive at the posted coordinates...THEN I'm geocaching.

 

For a traditional, yes if you apply a definition of geocaching that does not include the journey.

 

When you go for a multi cache with 20 virtual stages and collect info at all stages, then the geocaching does not start when you sign the log book (note that in cases when a cache container is up on a tree and you see it you also have found the container, only the log is missing). If you happened to just wander around you will not arrive at the final and will not know where to search for a container. So saying that your geocaching only consists of finding containers, is not taking into account the full wealth of geocaching.

 

But don't make it out to be more than it is...finding a hidden container and signing a log sheet.

 

For many cachers it is more than that ............

If for you it's just the above, fine.

 

You've just demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding of everything I wrote.

[+coachstahly]

Geocaching IS finding hidden containers.

 

Not only.

 

When I arrive at the posted coordinates...THEN I'm geocaching.

 

For a traditional, yes if you apply a definition of geocaching that does not include the journey.

 

When you go for a multi cache with 20 virtual stages and collect info at all stages, then the geocaching does not start when you sign the log book (note that in cases when a cache container is up on a tree and you see it you also have found the container, only the log is missing). If you happened to just wander around you will not arrive at the final and will not know where to search for a container. So saying that your geocaching only consists of finding containers, is not taking into account the full wealth of geocaching.

 

But don't make it out to be more than it is...finding a hidden container and signing a log sheet.

 

For many cachers it is more than that ............

If for you it's just the above, fine.

 

ge·o·cach·ing

ˈjēōˌkaSHiNG/

noun

the recreational activity of hunting for and finding a hidden object by means of GPS coordinates posted on a website.

 

Nowhere does the definition of geocaching talk about the journey to get to GZ (or whatever stage of a multi you might be working on, regardless of whether or not it's a physical or virtual stage). Each of the stages in a multi has "something" you are to locate, based on some geographical information provided. A set of GPS coordinates, by its very definition, refers to a single spot on our planet. Therefore, technically, you're only geocaching when you're at/near the designated coordinates to look for whatever it is you're supposed to find, virtual or physical.

 

That being said, I understand the point you're trying to make, that there's more to it than just finding the cache. You are usually required to walk, hike, bike, kayak, boat, swim, drive somewhere to get to GZ. That walk, hike, bike, kayak, boat, swim, drive may be the most amazing thing you've ever done and it will be one of your most treasured memories because it took you somewhere amazing and it was all done to find a geocache. They're certainly linked (I'm not going to argue that point), but the reason you went on the amazing walk, hike, bike, kayak, boat, swim, drive was to find something hidden at the end of your adventure.

 

Geocaching takes us to some amazing places and I've seen things I wouldn't have if it weren't for this fun activity. That's one of the great things about this I enjoy the most. What am I going to see next? All this because someone decided to place something for someone else to find way back in 2000.

[cezanne]

Nowhere does the definition of geocaching talk about the journey to get to GZ (or whatever stage of a multi you might be working on, regardless of whether or not it's a physical or virtual stage). Each of the stages in a multi has "something" you are to locate, based on some geographical information provided. A set of GPS coordinates, by its very definition, refers to a single spot on our planet. Therefore, technically, you're only geocaching when you're at/near the designated coordinates to look for whatever it is you're supposed to find, virtual or physical.

 

First, J. Grouchy only wrote about posted coordinates and about finding a container. Second, there are many caches out there where some stages or even all intermediary stages are to be located in a coordinate-less manner - e.g. by following a way description, interpreting a puzzle, finding objects shown on photos etc. So even those who accept only the time spent for searching something, have to take

into account that there are caches where one is searching for something throughout the whole caches - take e.g. picture hunting caches. You have done a whole lot of geocaching before arriving at the final regardless of whether you find or container there or fail.

 

Take e.g, this cache

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC5E17P_bildersuchratsel?guid=63921934-b441-4e65-ad02-5932a9c4a102

There not even a route along which the photo objects to be found is given. They can by anywhere in the area described in the cache description.

For some of these caches I ended up with walking the same streets 5 times as I could not find some objects. That's a lot of searching involved but not for a container and not a given location as you search for something which is known but at an unknown location. Some people who hate searching for a container that is hidden in a tricky way love such picture hunting tasks and some who like to search for tricky container hideouts do not like picture hunting. Given the variety of available geocache types, what J. Grouchy wrote is too narrow, and the same is true for what you can find in a dictionary (both do not take into account all the varieties of geocaching).

 

And then there are caches where it plays a role how you move from stage to stage: if you are too slow or too fast, you might not be able to proceed.

a lot of tricky set-ups are possible in particular when Wherigos come into play but not only there.

 

 

That being said, I understand the point you're trying to make, that there's more to it than just finding the cache.

 

That's certainly an aspect that plays a big role for me personally. The point I tried to make was however much more general and does not depend on whether or not someone's geocaching definition includes the journey to a given location. J.Grouchy's statement was far too narrow as soon as one allows more than single stage caches.

Edited April 28, 2016 by cezanne

[+thebruce0]

....All of that is done to find a geocache. Physical or otherwise.

If you're not doing it to find that geocache, you're not geocaching.

[+Mudfrog]

 

As a cache owner, I like to rate my caches how I want them rated, not how others think they should be rated. Most of my paddle caches are not rated a T5 even though people have complained to me about it. Some are accessible during the winter when water is frozen, or when the Erie canal is drained.

 

 

The only problem I have with these caches not being rated a T5 is that there are many times when a boat (which I consider special equipment) is required, not optional. The frozen water and the drained canal are the exceptions and perhaps happen far less than when a boat is required to access the cache. If you can walk along the waterway (without trespassing) and still access/find them without needing a boat (wading/swimming less than knee/thigh deep would qualify for me), then I would have no problem with a 4 or 4.5 rating. However, if the ONLY way to find the cache is with a boat during a large chunk of the year, I'd rate it a 5. That's my personal interpretation. They would certainly fill up my 4/4.5 T caches on my grid!

 

I remember being told, when I first started considering placing my first hide, is that you base the T rating on what could possibly be the worst case scenario under normal situations (blizzard, flood, tornado are NOT normal situations and are therefore removed from consideration). We have quite a few rails to trails here in Indiana. Winter time is great because there's no foliage or undergrowth to contend with. It's probably a 2-2.5 T cache most times, if hidden off trail. However, come summer time and fall, it's more like a 2.5-3 T, depending on the maintenance along the outer edges of the trail. I wouldn't rate it on the best time to find it (winter) but instead on the worst time.

I might could explain the situation about the lake icing or drying up at times to my reviewer but i'd bet money he'd still require me to use T5.

[cezanne]

....All of that is done to find a geocache. Physical or otherwise.

If you're not doing it to find that geocache, you're not geocaching.

 

Yes, but if I have spent two nice hours with say hunting for a pictures of a picture hunting multi caches and at the end cannot reach the final container, I still spent the 2 enjoyable hours with geocaching.

If someone only is interested into searching for containers and finding containers they should only visit easy single stage caches which have recently been found.

 

I'm convinced that not everyone will agree that all what geocaching is about is signing log sheets. From that point of view it then would make sense to ask that all more complex caches get turned into traditionals.

[+thebruce0]

....All of that is done to find a geocache. Physical or otherwise.

If you're not doing it to find that geocache, you're not geocaching.

 

Yes, but if I have spent two nice hours with say hunting for a pictures of a picture hunting multi caches and at the end cannot reach the final container, I still spent the 2 enjoyable hours with geocaching.

First, you set out originally to do that because of geocaching. Second, someon who's upset that they didn't find the container can still have enjoyed the process up to that point. And that's the point - that is about what we value while we are geocaching, which is different from person to person. But you're still geocaching, even if you don't find the final container, because geocaching is what put you out there doing the process in the first place.

You can still do all that if you want without the geocache, without the inspiration to find the geocache - but then you're not geocaching. You're going on a photo hike.

[cezanne]

First, you set out originally to do that because of geocaching. Second, someon who's upset that they didn't find the container can still have enjoyed the process up to that point. And that's the point - that is about what we value while we are geocaching, which is different from person to person. But you're still geocaching, even if you don't find the final container, because geocaching is what put you out there doing the process in the first place.

You can still do all that if you want without the geocache, without the inspiration to find the geocache - but then you're not geocaching. You're going on a photo hike.

 

What I tried to stress is that in cases like the one I described also what happened before the failure to find a container was geocaching and you seem to agree. I did not say that it is geocaching without a geocache. Of course someone can have enjoyed a cache up to some point and then get frustrated but the prior enjoyment can well have been a result of the very same geocache (and not necessarily been caused by the hike, the nice scenery etc) which can be more than searching for a container at the posted coordinates.

Edited April 28, 2016 by cezanne

[+coachstahly]

Take e.g, this cache

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC5E17P_bildersuchratsel?guid=63921934-b441-4e65-ad02-5932a9c4a102

There not even a route along which the photo objects to be found is given. They can by anywhere in the area described in the cache description.

For some of these caches I ended up with walking the same streets 5 times as I could not find some objects. That's a lot of searching involved but not for a container and not a given location as you search for something which is known but at an unknown location. Some people who hate searching for a container that is hidden in a tricky way love such picture hunting tasks and some who like to search for tricky container hideouts do not like picture hunting. Given the variety of available geocache types, what J. Grouchy wrote is too narrow, and the same is true for what you can find in a dictionary (both do not take into account all the varieties of geocaching).

 

And then there are caches where it plays a role how you move from stage to stage: if you are too slow or too fast, you might not be able to proceed.

a lot of tricky set-ups are possible in particular when Wherigos come into play but not only there.

 

 

I have a cache set up very similarly and although the hiders don't know the specific coordinates for each picture or location, I could not get it approved without listing each individual waypoint as a virtual stage, thereby cementing the fact that there IS a single, fixed location on our earth for each and every stage of the unknown. The fact that a seeker may not know the actual location does not negate the fact that it is at a specified location. Yes, you have done a lot of geoaching (finding many "somethings" at multiple specified locations even though you might not know where that location is until you find it) in the cache example provided.

 

As to the Wherigos, once again, I was required to list each and every waypoint as a virtual stage in order to get them published, even the long one in a cemetery with around 26 stages. There is a defined SINGLE point for each and every stage, even those stages in a Wherigo that might be timed. You still have to go to a designated single location to be able to move on to the next location. The ONLY cache type I can think of that isn't quite set up the same way, is a letterbox hybrid. Done in the more "traditional" manner, you get a letterboxing experience, with a geocache to log at the end, hence the "hybrid" part of the name. You get two experiences in one cache.

 

Finally, the dictionary definition does take into account ALL varieties of geocaching. With the unknown you provided, did you hunt for and find something at a designated final location? You logged it as found, so the answer is yes. Did you have to hunt for and find something at multiple designated locations (even though you didn't know specifically where they were) beforehand? Seeing as how you found the final, it's my assumption that you did so.

 

What the definition does NOT take into account (and which you believe it should) are the aspects surrounding the actual act of geocaching, like a walk, hike, bike, kayak, boat, swim, or drive. We do all these in order to be able to geocache (hunt for and find something hidden at a specified location). They're intrinsically linked and create an overall experience, but those things aren't what define the act of geocaching.