Rate the Terrain Game

[+L0ne.R]

The arrows point to several hiding spots.

 

What terrain rating would you give for each of the 8 spots.

 

 

 

 

For reference:

 

Slope

From: Slope (cornell.edu)

 

 

Help Center: Ratings for difficulty and terrain:

 

 

https://support.Grou...g=kb.page&id=82

 

Editted to include: https://www.geocaching.com/hide/rate.aspx

Edited May 12, 2016 by L0ne.R

[+cerberus1]

What distance getting to 'em?

 

Not far...

1..3.5

2..3

3..2

4..2.5

5..1.5

6..1.5

7..1.5

8..5

[+The A-Team]

I've intentionally avoided looking at cerberus1's post to prevent any skewing of my answers. Here's the way I'd rate them, based on local customs and my personal gut feelings:

1. 3.5 assuming the undergrowth isn't very tall. If it's actually head-high like that on the other side of the trail, then 4.

2. 2

3. 1.5

4. 2.5

5. 1.5

6. 1.5

7. 1.5

8. 5 because there are no climbable branches, so special equipment like a ladder, climbing gear, or grabber are required.

 

Edit after posting: Now comparing my answers to cerberus1's, we're pretty close.

Edited May 12, 2016 by The A-Team

[+DanOCan]

I didn't look at any of the previous posts but my answers were all pretty close.

 

1. 3.5
   
2. 2.5
   
3. 2
   
4. 2
   
5. 1.5
   
6. 1.5
   
7. 1.5
   
8. 3
   

 

After further review (and peeking at the other posts) I'd be willing to revise my answer for Location 8 to a 5 because of the lack of branches to climb.

[+CanadianRockies]

Assuming that it's not a long walk to get to this location...

 

1. 3.0 to 3.5, depending on whether ground is grassy or scree

2. 2.0 - most geocachers can jump this creek (or get one foot wet)

3. 2.0 - assuming 20% slope

4. 2.0

5. 1.5

6. 1.5

7. 1.5

8. 2.5 - if cache can be retrieved with a hiking pole/dead branch, otherwise...

8. 3.0 - since #7 offers good toe hole and/or #5 can be moved and provide good place for foot while climbing

[cezanne]

After further review (and peeking at the other posts) I'd be willing to revise my answer for Location 8 to a 5 because of the lack of branches to climb.

 

It's difficult for me to judge how high the lowest branch is.

The person in the picture could be small, e.g. 1.6m, then it could be feasible for taller persons to reach the lowest branch by jumping like here e.g.

(the cache is rated as 4.5* and indeed some cachers manage to get it without tools and without team work).

[+The A-Team]

Actually, when I look at it more, I think this is actually a trick question. In reality, there wouldn't be caches at each of those spots. They're far too close together, so only one of them would get published.

[+hzoi]

1. T3, since it requires both crossing a creek and the slope, but since the hill is only 12' high or so, I'd live with a T2.5.

2. T2.5, since it just involves crossing the creek, but I'd live with a T2.

3. T1.5. Maybe even a T1 if it is reachable from the path.

4. T2. Unless that undergrowth is especially gnarly, then maybe a T2.5.

5. T1.5

6. T1.5, or T1 if it is reachable from the path.

7. T1.5, or T1 if it is reachable from the path.

8. Hard to judge whether the tree is climbable without using a throw rope or other climbing gear. If not, T4. If so, T5.

 

I started this when the thread was devoid of replies but let it sir over lunch, so I'm curious as to what the other replies are.

[+noncentric]

I wrote my answers before looking at the other posts:

1 - 3.5

2 - 2.5

3 - 2.0 (Assuming the hiding spot is on the slope and more than a couple feet from the path. If within a couple feet of the path, then 1.5)

4 - 2.5

5 - 2.0 (Assuming the cacher needs to reach amongst the growth to reach the cache. If the log is in a clearing area, then 1.5)

6 - 1.5

7 - 1.5 (Assuming the hole is below 5 feet)

8 - 4.0

 

For all of these, the child and stroller makes me think that the path isn't very far from a parking area. I hope this isn't a building block for a puzzle cache.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

 

Slope

From: Slope (cornell.edu)

 

Coincidentally, yesterday was Slope Day at Cornell.

 

 

 

[+MartyBartfast]

1 2.5

2 2

3 1.5

4 2

5 1.5

6 2.5

7 1.5

8 3

 

the tree climb may seem low to some, but it doesn't look like a high climb to me, hence I rated it a 3.

[+L0ne.R]

1. T4

Cache in a hollow trunk of a tree up a slope of about steep 40 degrees, approximately 80%. Assuming no obvious trail and bushwacking through bushes, weeds, branches.

GC rating chart: T4: Very strenuous movement that may include significant distance, overgrowth, swimming and/or elevation changes.

GC rating system: T4: Yeah, it's pretty overgrown It's waist-high or so, or it may be thorny or have poison plants; Steep elevation changes Change is steep. Probably could not ride a bike up this slope, but could push it up.

 

2. T3.5

Cache requires a slope descent over rocks and then a wade or jump over water.

GC rating chart: T3.5 Quite strenuous, extended hike on widely variable terrain.

GC rating system: T4 Trail? What trail? There is no real trail. Wheels are out. May be following a stream bed or be very rocky.

 

Could be potentially hazardous terrain depending on how difficult the rocks are and if the creek becomes a raging river in the Spring or after a storm. If so it might not hurt to list it as a T4.

 

3. T3.5

Assuming the cache is covered by rocks in the rocky slope

GC rating chart: T3.5 Quite strenuous, extended hike on widely variable terrain.

GC rating system: T4 Trail? What trail? There is no real trail. Wheels are out. May be following a stream bed or be very rocky.

4. T3 or 3.5

Assuming a base of tree hide, no obvious trail, 20 degree slope, lots of scrub/brush/downed material.

 

GC rating chart: T3....significant overgrowth.

GC rating system: T3 ...some elevation change, pretty overgrown

5. and 6. T1.5

Assuming mowed grass, a slight slope, a short distance from the crushed stone path, in a hollow log at upper edge of slight slope (hollow base of tree in the middle of slight mowed grass slope), container easily reached from one end of the log, it might be wheelchair friendly. Definitely stroller friendly. But because it's on the ground, reaching it from a wheelchair might not be possible, so T1.5.

GC rating chart: T1.5 Most likely a flat, less than .5 mile hike, but may not be wheelchair accessible.

 

GC rating system: T2 Suitable for small children. (Terrain is generally along marked trails, there are no steep elevation changes or heavy overgrowth. Less than a 2 mile hike required.)

 

7. T1.5, almost a T1

Mowed grass, slight slope, waist high hollow trunk hide, easy retrieval. I'd like to give it a 1 for wheelchair accessible. But because it's on grass and a paved area, I'd go with 1.5

 

GC rating chart: Most likely flat, less than .5 mile hike, but may not be wheelchair accessible.

GC rating system: T2 Suitable for small children. (Terrain is generally along marked trails, there are no steep elevation changes or heavy overgrowth. Less than a 2 mile hike required.)

8. T4.5

Assuming the cache is tied to the upper branch and the owner intends for the average height adult to climb (i.e. not hooked on so that it can be retrieved and replaced with a long stick), using a ladder, a car, a picnic table, standing on a friend's shoulders, etc.

 

GC rating chart: T4.5 or T5 ...potentially hazardous terrain or Requires specialized equipment

GC rating system: T4 ...very steep elevation (requiring use of hands) or Requires specialized equipment.

[+CanadianRockies]

Something to keep in mind. From GS's rating chart: "Geocache ratings vary from one community to the next. A 3-star terrain in British Columbia, Canada is most likely going to be a very different experience from a 3-star terrain in Amsterdam, Holland."

 

1. T4

Cache in a hollow trunk of a tree up a slope of about steep 40 degrees, approximately 80%. Assuming no obvious trail and bushwacking through bushes, weeds, branches.

GC rating chart: T4: Very strenuous movement that may include significant distance, overgrowth, swimming and/or elevation changes.

GC rating system: T4: Yeah, it's pretty overgrown It's waist-high or so, or it may be thorny or have poison plants; Steep elevation changes Change is steep. Probably could not ride a bike up this slope, but could push it up.

The climb is relatively short, and I think "bushwhacking" might be a bit misleading for this off-trail hike, since the bushes seem to be scattered about and easily avoided. (But, if you're the artist, then maybe you're right.) If the ground is grassy, then it might require a bit of somewhat strenuous movement to climb the hill, but only for a very short while. I'm not sure I'd call the vegetation "overgrowth"...at least not the troublesome type that might justify T4. And not all "elevation changes" are created equal. One person estimated that this is about a 12-foot elevation change, but if we're generous and call it a 50-foot climb, that's still nowhere near a T4 in our region.

 

To my eyes, the picture looks more like a T2.5: "Terrain may have small elevation changes or moderate overgrowth." If it was a scree slope that needed climbing, that could be a tougher T3.0.

 

2. T3.5

Cache requires a slope descent over rocks and then a wade or jump over water.

GC rating chart: T3.5 Quite strenuous, extended hike on widely variable terrain.

GC rating system: T4 Trail? What trail? There is no real trail. Wheels are out. May be following a stream bed or be very rocky.

 

Could be potentially hazardous terrain depending on how difficult the rocks are and if the creek becomes a raging river in the Spring or after a storm. If so it might not hurt to list it as a T4.

This very short walk down a moderate slope of rocks and a simple hop across a creek (or take your shoes off and wade through the creek) might seem "quite strenuous" if you live in a very flat location and don't get much exercise. Around these parts, it's literally a walk in the park. Once again, not all "widely variable terrain" is equal. A walk across concrete, asphalt, mowed grass, and packed dirt is along "widely variable terrain" but it's all relatively easy T1.0 and T1.5 terrain. The rocks, moderate slope, and creek make it a little tougher, but not T3.5...at least in our region.

 

Yes, the small creek could become a raging river. Lots of walks could be across "potentially hazardous terrain" in extreme situations. I use the ratings to guide geocachers on what they typically should expect. If I want to warn about the dangers of flash flooding, falling rocks, or other possibly dangerous conditions, then I'll mention those hazards in the cache description.

 

3. T3.5

Assuming the cache is covered by rocks in the rocky slope

GC rating chart: T3.5 Quite strenuous, extended hike on widely variable terrain.

GC rating system: T4 Trail? What trail? There is no real trail. Wheels are out. May be following a stream bed or be very rocky.

You should apply some common sense when you rate terrains. Ground Zero might be very rocky, but if you only must walk one or two steps into the rocky area, then it's not a big deal. Even somewhat longer walks across very rocky terrain won't justify a T3.5 in my book if the rocks aren't particularly treacherous. "Quite strenuous?" Really? Around here, it might not even reach the level of "barely strenuous."

 

4. T3 or 3.5

Assuming a base of tree hide, no obvious trail, 20 degree slope, lots of scrub/brush/downed material.

 

GC rating chart: T3....significant overgrowth.

GC rating system: T3 ...some elevation change, pretty overgrown

If I had to walk a mile through significant overgrowth, then I'd be more likely to rate this a T3 or T3.5. But a few yards...no. Technically, five or six feet of elevation change is "some elevation change," but so is five or six inches. Again, you should apply common sense when you interpret these suggestions.

 

8. T4.5

Assuming the cache is tied to the upper branch and the owner intends for the average height adult to climb (i.e. not hooked on so that it can be retrieved and replaced with a long stick), using a ladder, a car, a picnic table, standing on a friend's shoulders, etc.

 

GC rating chart: T4.5 or T5 ...potentially hazardous terrain or Requires specialized equipment

GC rating system: T4 ...very steep elevation (requiring use of hands) or Requires specialized equipment.

Walking on a paved path is "potentially hazardous," since you could trip and skin your knee or a dog could bite you. Two words: common sense. Most of us aren't going to have a significant risk of injury if we climb seven feet up a tree. Although the owner might intend for us to use a ladder, etc. to get up there, the average adult probably can climb this tree without any assistance. A 5'7" person probably could reach the lower limb. Some shorter people might need a short hop to grab the limb. After grabbing the limb, many folks could pull themselves up. For others, there's a convenient hole in the side of the tree to place your foot and lift yourself up. If that hole isn't deep enough for a foot, then there's a small log nearby that one could lean against the tree and use as a step. No specialized equipment necessary.

Edited May 14, 2016 by CanadianRockies

[+The A-Team]

3. T3.5

Assuming the cache is covered by rocks in the rocky slope

GC rating chart: T3.5 Quite strenuous, extended hike on widely variable terrain.

GC rating system: T4 Trail? What trail? There is no real trail. Wheels are out. May be following a stream bed or be very rocky.

Based on your answer for this one, I'm thinking you had a totally different type of experience/terrain in mind that didn't translate through the drawing to the rest of us. This may have occurred with some of the other locations too. Location 3 is only barely tougher to get to than a T1 on the path, so I'd be hard-pressed to give it any more than 1.5 at the very most. A full two points higher tells me the slope is far rougher, steeper, and/or wider than we thought.

 

Also, your original challenge was "What terrain rating would you give for each of the 8 spots." Based on the fairly similar answers by most respondents and your wildly different answers on some of them, it tells me the ClayJar system and Help Center articles are flawed and don't reflect reality.

[+zookeepertx]

What a neat exercise! This should be available for anyone listing a cache! (I do love visual aids )

 

It's hard to say, since the scale of the drawing isn't given, but just using the literal appearance of distances/heights:

 

1 - Fairly steep slope; looks like maybe 8-10 ft high? The growth LOOKS more "compact" and easier to deal with than that on the other side of the trail, so that would lessen the toughness of the climb. (IMHO) BUT, it appears that the tree is part way up instead of at the top of the slope; to me, that makes it harder to retrieve/sign/replace the cache, while trying not to slip. I'd give it a 3.5.

 

2 - Looks maybe 5 ft from the trail and not a REAL bad slope, but there's a creek to jump. I'd give it a 2.

 

3 - Looks like it's almost right ON the trail and has a pretty low slope. I'd give it a 1.

 

4 - Medium slope but appears only about 5 high. But the brush here looks a lot "looser" and more tangled. I'd give it a 2.5.

 

5 - Looks about 5 ft off the trail with a pretty minor slope. Being in the log means bending over on that bit of slope, so that makes me think 1.5.

 

6 - Seems about the same as #5, but closer to the trail. I'd go with a 1.

 

7 - About 3-4 ft up a tree that's only about 2 ft from the trail. Probably a 1, maybe 1.5.

 

8 - Pretty high up the tree; no lower limbs to start the climb; branches look fairly sparse up higher. Considering that other people are a lot more agile than I am, I'm thinking about a 4 for that one. (Although, in regards to ME, it'd be about an 8, but then, I do NOT climb trees! EVER! LOL!)

Edited May 14, 2016 by zookeepertx

[+hal-an-tow]

An interesting exercise, thanks for setting it .

 

My guesses for some heights/distances/surface types from the image may be not what the O.P. intended, but assuming a short walk from parking, these would be my ratings, based on experience in the UK Midlands:

1. Looks like a little bit of a scramble after a long stride or short jump (or possibly a wet boot): 3.5

2. Only a very short way off the path, and just the water to deal with: 2

3. Can it be reached from the path by a person in a wheelchair ?If so, 1. If not, 1.5

4,5,6, and 7 all 1.5 (6 & 7 may be T1 if they can be reached from the path and 7 happens to be around 3' up )

8. Hard to say, as I'm not sure about the container (or lowest branch for foothold) height, besides, I generally give tree climb caches a light ironic laugh and walk by ... I'd imagine this could be anywhere between 3.5 and 4.5, but probably not a 5 if, as it appears, the tree not very tall.

 

It's all so subjective though, and depends on local customs and conditions, C.O. attitude and experience: I could name six cache setters in my local area whose T3.5 caches can scare me witless (and whose T5s are genuinely very tough) whilst I have ( as a trepidaceous solo caching wimp girly cacher) managed other setters T4.5 caches with no qualms.

[+L0ne.R]

Adding a photo to the game.

Rate the 2 locations in this photo (red arrow, blue arrow).

Would there be a difference in the rating if the location were in Washington/British Columbia vs. The Netherlands?

 

 

 

[+zookeepertx]

Adding a photo to the game.

Rate the 2 locations in this photo (red arrow, blue arrow).

Would there be a difference in the rating if the location were in Washington/British Columbia vs. The Netherlands?

 

 

Assuming you're starting out from where the photographer is standing, I'd probably give them both a 1.5. Maybe a 2 for the red, because of the creek and it looking like you'd have to be IN the creek and looking up in the tunnel from a low point of view.

[+barefootjeff]

1. T4

Cache in a hollow trunk of a tree up a slope of about steep 40 degrees, approximately 80%. Assuming no obvious trail and bushwacking through bushes, weeds, branches.

GC rating chart: T4: Very strenuous movement that may include significant distance, overgrowth, swimming and/or elevation changes.

GC rating system: T4: Yeah, it's pretty overgrown It's waist-high or so, or it may be thorny or have poison plants; Steep elevation changes Change is steep. Probably could not ride a bike up this slope, but could push it up.

The problem I have with this is it makes it very difficult to rate real-world bush caches that involve anything more than scrambling up or down a bit of a slope a few metres off the side of a well-made track. There are caches I've done requiring an hour or more of trackless hiking through head-high prickly scrub, with a hundred or more metres of elevation change along the way, that are T3.5 at worst. I'm a reasonably fit 61 year old and consider a properly rated T4 as about my limit; the T4.5s around here are generally much tougher than that or require climbing in places where a slip or stumble could have dire consequences.

 

If a benchmark T4 is going just a few metres into the bush like in the illustration, how do you informatively rate the much tougher ones? Making everything T4.5 (given T5 is reserved for "special equipment required") serves no useful purpose.

 

Jeff

[+narcissa]

1. T4

Cache in a hollow trunk of a tree up a slope of about steep 40 degrees, approximately 80%. Assuming no obvious trail and bushwacking through bushes, weeds, branches.

GC rating chart: T4: Very strenuous movement that may include significant distance, overgrowth, swimming and/or elevation changes.

GC rating system: T4: Yeah, it's pretty overgrown It's waist-high or so, or it may be thorny or have poison plants; Steep elevation changes Change is steep. Probably could not ride a bike up this slope, but could push it up.

The problem I have with this is it makes it very difficult to rate real-world bush caches that involve anything more than scrambling up or down a bit of a slope a few metres off the side of a well-made track. There are caches I've done requiring an hour or more of trackless hiking through head-high prickly scrub, with a hundred or more metres of elevation change along the way, that are T3.5 at worst. I'm a reasonably fit 61 year old and consider a properly rated T4 as about my limit; the T4.5s around here are generally much tougher than that or require climbing in places where a slip or stumble could have dire consequences.

 

If a benchmark T4 is going just a few metres into the bush like in the illustration, how do you informatively rate the much tougher ones? Making everything T4.5 (given T5 is reserved for "special equipment required") serves no useful purpose.

 

Jeff

 

+1

[+Team Taran]

The fact is I want the terrain rating to be based on the most difficult portion of the journey not just the cache location. If the logical route to the cache involves a steep scramble or crossing a stream via a fallen log, I want the ratings to indicate that even if all the rest of the journey can be made via a flat well marked trail. This especially important when caching in unfamiliar territory.

[+The A-Team]

Adding a photo to the game.

Rate the 2 locations in this photo (red arrow, blue arrow).

Would there be a difference in the rating if the location were in Washington/British Columbia vs. The Netherlands?

 

Assuming you're starting out from where the photographer is standing, I'd probably give them both a 1.5. Maybe a 2 for the red, because of the creek and it looking like you'd have to be IN the creek and looking up in the tunnel from a low point of view.

Based solely on what we can see in the photo and ignoring any other possible terrain on the way to that spot, I'd say that here in BC I'd rate them both T1.5. Maybe T2 for the one in the culvert, but only if the ground is somewhat unstable and/or you need to get into a weird yoga position to see/retrieve the container.

 

I tried using the ClayJar system to see what it would give, but quickly realized it has a significant flaw: any cache that involves going off-trail by more than a few feet is automatically deemed a >=4.0 cache. Answering the third question with "Trail? What trail? There is no real trail. Wheels are out. May be following a stream bed or be very rocky." (which seems to fit the photo) gives the cache a minimum of T4, when in reality very few caches where you need to go off-trail are T4s.

[+edscott]

I'd rate 6 & 7 Terrain 1 : 3 & 5 Terrain 1.5 : 2 terrain 2 : 1 terrain 3 : Without a photo to see the thickness of the brush I'm guessing 2.5 Terrain for 4, but extra thick brush or thorns might make it a 3. 8 is a terrain 5.

[+speedog]

I am currently in the process of placing what I think will be a T4.5 - it will involved going down a steep hill covered in long grass (probably 80 feet descent), then through a 450 foot long tunnel (metal) that is only 4 feet high at one end (7 feet at the other end) and often is west or muddy inside, then over fairly level terrain for another 1000 feet and then you will have to figure out a way to cross over either a short expanse of water and mud (70 feet) or a longer expanse of mud flats (250 feet) to access the actual geocache. Total distance from nearest parking is just over half a mile.

 

One will not be able to simply walk into this cache - the mud flats and mud on the shores of the pond that the island is located (where cache is) will suck any boots off of you and you will be stranded. My son and I will be using 8' by 2' pieces of high density styrofoam to make our way across the mud flats so as to spread our weight out. This geocache will be located well inside a city of 1 million+ people - the only issue I have is do I make it a T4.5 or a T5.0 - swimming to the island is possible but you will still have to deal with thick, deep mud on either shore which could immobilize you.

 

I will be warning people about the risks involved in accessing this geocache - so a T4.5 or a T5.0? I'm not sure which one better applies - you will not get to this geocache without some sort of aid even though you will be able to stand 70 feet away and probably see it.

[+noncentric]

I will be warning people about the risks involved in accessing this geocache - so a T4.5 or a T5.0? I'm not sure which one better applies - you will not get to this geocache without some sort of aid even though you will be able to stand 70 feet away and probably see it.

It sounds like cachers will have to bring/use specialized equipment, even if it's just boards or styrofoam to spread their weight, so I'd go with T-5.0

 

Is the access easier in different seasons?

[+speedog]

During the winter it might be easier but only during a very long cold spell and even then I think the way across the mud may still be iffy. During the late spring, the cache could be under a few inches of water so it will be a weighted and waterproofed cache - there is no current in this little pond so I don't have to worry about it moving at all.

[+cerberus1]

so a T4.5 or a T5.0? I'm not sure which one better applies - you will not get to this geocache without some sort of aid even though you will be able to stand 70 feet away and probably see it.

I'd bet an adventurous sort would probably tackle it (on the right day) with a flashlight and duck hunting waders with little issue, after reading warnings in the cache description.

Sorta a typical bear season around here. Rhododendron and swamps...great...

 

Did a 5/5 series once in another State that had a stage similar (boggy pond), and showed up with an ultralight jon boat, and a raft JIC.

Didn't need either, got it with the fall/winter waders.

Got there just in time to enjoy the pond turning over, the whole area smelling like a treatment plant.

Saw pics of a buncha odd birds who headed out, waist deep in smelly muck, with only shorts and water dogs.

I'd rate it a 4.5 .

[+speedog]

I have reconsidered and will not be placing a geocache at this site. The city of Calgary's guidelines as well as federal laws made it a bit of a struggle for me for this cache - I know that placing this cache will bring unwarranted foot traffic to an otherwise very pristine natural environment and despite being a T4.5 possible cache that would be great fun and challenge for any attempting, I have decided against placing it because I would rather see that little natural area remain undisturbed and the continued home and playground of the American Avocets I've observed there.