Jump to content

Up a tree - what terrain rating?


Followers 3

Recommended Posts

Per the original Clayjar D/T rating system

4 = climb requiring use of hands ...

+1

15 feet isn't high but it still depends on other factors.

 

There are a couple of 15 footers near me that are very tough to get to because there are no branches low enough to reach from the ground. On both, i was able wrap my arms around the trunk and shimmy up. However, most people who have found them weren't able to do that. They used a ladder or some other device to get them. Even though most of the finders used "special equipment" to access, not everyone needed to. In these cases, a 4.5 seemed the better rating.

Link to comment

Could be a T5 if climbing gear is required. So depends on how you climb to the cache, some trees have branches that allow you to climb like it was climbing stairs others have no branches at all.

 

When using a ladder it could just be a T2-T2.5.

 

Per the original Clayjar D/T rating system

4 = climb requiring use of hands ...

+1

15 feet isn't high but it still depends on other factors.

 

There are a couple of 15 footers near me that are very tough to get to because there are no branches low enough to reach from the ground. On both, i was able wrap my arms around the trunk and shimmy up. However, most people who have found them weren't able to do that. They used a ladder or some other device to get them. Even though most of the finders used "special equipment" to access, not everyone needed to. In these cases, a 4.5 seemed the better rating.

If you happen to fall from 15 foot you have strong chance of being hurt bad ( pushing up daisies ). So I would say D-5 Even if you use a ladder, thats considered special equipment as is any safty gear, so it would make it a D-5

Edited by Clarkbowman
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Per the original Clayjar D/T rating system

4 = climb requiring use of hands ...

+1

15 feet isn't high but it still depends on other factors.

 

There are a couple of 15 footers near me that are very tough to get to because there are no branches low enough to reach from the ground. On both, i was able wrap my arms around the trunk and shimmy up. However, most people who have found them weren't able to do that. They used a ladder or some other device to get them. Even though most of the finders used "special equipment" to access, not everyone needed to. In these cases, a 4.5 seemed the better rating.

If you happen to fall from 15 foot you have strong chance of being hurt bad ( pushing up daisies ). So I would say D-5 Even if you use a ladder, thats considered special equipment as is any safty gear, so it would make it a D-5

Difficulty has to do with finding the cache, not accessing it.

 

For example, we have a huge rural mailbox around 35' in a tree, needing rope to access.

It's a D1.5/T5 only because of leaves in the Summer (and it's camo'd in a leaf pattern).

Some branches above broke off and now it sorta could be a D1, but we realize that many accessed for it's D/T combo (that challenge thing). :)

Link to comment

It depends very much on the tree. When growing up we had a silky oak (grevillea robusta) in the back yard and climbing it was literally child's play, although it probably helped being the size and weight of a child. Other types with thin, widely spaced or no branches would be much more difficult and may require special tools (T5).

Link to comment
Per the original Clayjar D/T rating system

4 = climb requiring use of hands ...

+1

15 feet isn't high but it still depends on other factors.

 

There are a couple of 15 footers near me that are very tough to get to because there are no branches low enough to reach from the ground. On both, i was able wrap my arms around the trunk and shimmy up. However, most people who have found them weren't able to do that. They used a ladder or some other device to get them. Even though most of the finders used "special equipment" to access, not everyone needed to. In these cases, a 4.5 seemed the better rating.

If you happen to fall from 15 foot you have strong chance of being hurt bad ( pushing up daisies ). So I would say D-5 Even if you use a ladder, thats considered special equipment as is any safty gear, so it would make it a D-5

Difficulty has to do with finding the cache, not accessing it.

 

For example, we have a huge rural mailbox around 35' in a tree, needing rope to access.

It's a D1.5/T5 only because of leaves in the Summer (and it's camo'd in a leaf pattern).

Some branches above broke off and now it sorta could be a D1, but we realize that many accessed for it's D/T combo (that challenge thing). :)

Your correct, my brain was some where else. :)

Link to comment

Could be a T5 if climbing gear is required. So depends on how you climb to the cache, some trees have branches that allow you to climb like it was climbing stairs others have no branches at all.

 

When using a ladder it could just be a T2-T2.5.

 

Per the original Clayjar D/T rating system

4 = climb requiring use of hands ...

+1

15 feet isn't high but it still depends on other factors.

 

There are a couple of 15 footers near me that are very tough to get to because there are no branches low enough to reach from the ground. On both, i was able wrap my arms around the trunk and shimmy up. However, most people who have found them weren't able to do that. They used a ladder or some other device to get them. Even though most of the finders used "special equipment" to access, not everyone needed to. In these cases, a 4.5 seemed the better rating.

If you happen to fall from 15 foot you have strong chance of being hurt bad ( pushing up daisies ). So I would say D-5 Even if you use a ladder, thats considered special equipment as is any safty gear, so it would make it a D-5

 

Special equipment is not mandatory for accessing the cache. Some make the climb using only their bodies. A rating of 5 would be overkill. Also, the rating isn't in place to cover potential danger level.

Edited by Mudfrog
Link to comment

Thanks for all of your feedback.

 

I should probably point out that it's not possible to drive to the cache as it's in a reserve which is a SSSI and requires a hike of about 4km. As it's number 26 in a series which leads you through deep, soft sandy paths, sand dunes and thick bush, it would be possible to carry a ladder, but very very unlikely that anyone would.

 

4 it is then. As for difficulty - that will be a 5 as it requires an extreme mental challenge to extract the logbook from the container.

 

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

 

I bet this doesn't get many favourites!

Edited by TheTravellingWilmys
Link to comment

Could be a T5 if climbing gear is required. So depends on how you climb to the cache, some trees have branches that allow you to climb like it was climbing stairs others have no branches at all.

 

When using a ladder it could just be a T2-T2.5.

If most likely any enhanced tool is required at the cache site, then it should be a T5. Regardless, if it's climbing gear or a ladder. If a reasonable amount of very sportive or very large cachers could make it without a tool but average persons won't, then make it a T4.5, I'd suggest.

Edited by Ben0w
Link to comment

Thanks for all of your feedback.

 

I should probably point out that it's not possible to drive to the cache as it's in a reserve which is a SSSI and requires a hike of about 4km. As it's number 26 in a series which leads you through deep, soft sandy paths, sand dunes and thick bush, it would be possible to carry a ladder, but very very unlikely that anyone would.

 

4 it is then. As for difficulty - that will be a 5 as it requires an extreme mental challenge to extract the logbook from the container.

 

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

 

I bet this doesn't get many favourites!

 

heh, could be a 3.5 or 4 just on the trek there. But yeah, sounds like 4 or 4.5 max for terrain. I'd love a cache like that. It might be on the edge of getting a favourite unless I loved the tree, or the container was cool :)

Evil would be requiring the 4km hike and a ladder.

 

Regarding T5, it's a tough call when it's only a matter of a 'ladder'. A tree may be climbable by quite a number of people (and the CO), but there may also be many people who won't-- can't climb it without a ladder, who feel it should be 5T. Do you cater to the average? Or do you cater to the cream of the crop? If it can't be physically done without a ladder; then again how would you know? There may be someone who could do the shimmy or use their ingenuity to get to it, or maybe they're just tall enough :P

Ultimately, it's the CO's judgement call. IMO, it should be based mostly on the CO's capability, as they can't judge the actual average capability of the community; but they can take that into consideration if they wish. The CO rates it; if in time they feel that after a number of finds the rating might be inaccurate, they can change it if they wish.

 

Rating a treeclimb ain't easy, but it's most easy to decide between T5 or T4.5.

 

T4.5 climbs make me anxious and taunt me. T5 climbs make me excited to just break out the ladder :)

Link to comment

Tree climb caches rank right up there with culvert caches to me...which is to say, they suck.

 

Guess the way I see it, they aren't placed there for any other reason than to make just getting to them a form of torture or, at the very least, a bit of a pain in the neck. Those kinds of caches, for me, are not enjoyable. I'd take a ten mile hike on hard terrain before crawling 100 feet through a 3-foot diameter pipe to get to a cache.

Link to comment

Tree climb caches rank right up there with culvert caches to me...which is to say, they suck.

 

Guess the way I see it, they aren't placed there for any other reason than to make just getting to them a form of torture or, at the very least, a bit of a pain in the neck. Those kinds of caches, for me, are not enjoyable. I'd take a ten mile hike on hard terrain before crawling 100 feet through a 3-foot diameter pipe to get to a cache.

 

heh, likewise, the way I see it, 10 mile hikes on hard terrain aren't placed there for any other reason than to make just getting to them a form of torture or, at the very least, a bit of a pain in the neck. Those kinds of caches, for me, are not enjoyable. I'd crawl 100 feet through a 3-foot diameter pipe before taking a 10 mile hike on hard terrain to get to a cache.

 

And I love hiking :)

It's all subjective.

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment

Tree climb caches rank right up there with culvert caches to me...which is to say, they suck.

 

Guess the way I see it, they aren't placed there for any other reason than to make just getting to them a form of torture or, at the very least, a bit of a pain in the neck. Those kinds of caches, for me, are not enjoyable. I'd take a ten mile hike on hard terrain before crawling 100 feet through a 3-foot diameter pipe to get to a cache.

 

heh, likewise, the way I see it, 10 mile hikes on hard terrain aren't placed there for any other reason than to make just getting to them a form of torture or, at the very least, a bit of a pain in the neck. Those kinds of caches, for me, are not enjoyable. I'd crawl 100 feet through a 3-foot diameter pipe before taking a 10 mile hike on hard terrain to get to a cache.

 

And I love hiking :)

It's all subjective.

 

Not sure why you felt the need to respond that way. I was only speaking for myself and I though I made that pretty clear. I'm well aware that there are plenty of demented people that enjoy crawling into sewer pipes...I just felt I'd offer my take on tree-climbing/culvert-crawling caches for anyone thinking of placing one. The point being: don't place one high in a tree just to make people climb a tree. At least make the view from the top worth the trouble (and worth the risk). Also, don't hide a cache in a sewer pipe...that's just dumb.

Link to comment
Not sure why you felt the need to respond that way. I was only speaking for myself and I though I made that pretty clear. I'm well aware that there are plenty of demented people that enjoy crawling into sewer pipes...I just felt I'd offer my take on tree-climbing/culvert-crawling caches for anyone thinking of placing one. The point being: don't place one high in a tree just to make people climb a tree. At least make the view from the top worth the trouble (and worth the risk). Also, don't hide a cache in a sewer pipe...that's just dumb.

Well, I was being light-hearted and agreeing with your general sentiment, except that you keep throwing words like "demented" and "dumb" in there. Are we demented? Or do we just enjoy something you don't? If people who enjoy culvert caches and tree caches are demented, then people hwo enjoy 10 mile hikes on hard terrain are demented. Everything's demented if someone doesn't like it.

Rather, I'm emphasizing that you don't have to be insulting while liking and disliking different things.

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment
If most likely any enhanced tool is required at the cache site, then it should be a T5. Regardless, if it's climbing gear or a ladder.
Assuming that the tool is required for something terrain-related, of course, as is the case with climbing gear or a ladder.

 

I've found tree-climbing caches, but most of the elevated caches I've found have required tools for reaching, not for climbing. I don't consider reaching tools to be terrain-related.

Edited by niraD
Link to comment

Tree climb caches rank right up there with culvert caches to me...which is to say, they suck.

 

Guess the way I see it, they aren't placed there for any other reason than to make just getting to them a form of torture or, at the very least, a bit of a pain in the neck. Those kinds of caches, for me, are not enjoyable. I'd take a ten mile hike on hard terrain before crawling 100 feet through a 3-foot diameter pipe to get to a cache.

 

heh, likewise, the way I see it, 10 mile hikes on hard terrain aren't placed there for any other reason than to make just getting to them a form of torture or, at the very least, a bit of a pain in the neck. Those kinds of caches, for me, are not enjoyable. I'd crawl 100 feet through a 3-foot diameter pipe before taking a 10 mile hike on hard terrain to get to a cache.

 

And I love hiking :)

It's all subjective.

 

Not sure why you felt the need to respond that way. I was only speaking for myself and I though I made that pretty clear. I'm well aware that there are plenty of demented people that enjoy crawling into sewer pipes...I just felt I'd offer my take on tree-climbing/culvert-crawling caches for anyone thinking of placing one. The point being: don't place one high in a tree just to make people climb a tree. At least make the view from the top worth the trouble (and worth the risk). Also, don't hide a cache in a sewer pipe...that's just dumb.

 

Geeeez, you're no fun. :P

 

For me, tree climbs, culverts (not sewer), long hikes, swims, balancing acts, caves, bushwhacking through briars, etc,, all make it more memorable. I know i'm in the minority, maybe i'm a dummy too, but the challenge of reaching the cache is extra fun to me. :D Here again, this is why geocaching is a good hobby to partake in. The types of caches i like are few and far between but even so, there is still something for everyone. All we have to do is ignore the caches we don't like and have fun with the rest.

Edited by Mudfrog
Link to comment
Not sure why you felt the need to respond that way. I was only speaking for myself and I though I made that pretty clear. I'm well aware that there are plenty of demented people that enjoy crawling into sewer pipes...I just felt I'd offer my take on tree-climbing/culvert-crawling caches for anyone thinking of placing one. The point being: don't place one high in a tree just to make people climb a tree. At least make the view from the top worth the trouble (and worth the risk). Also, don't hide a cache in a sewer pipe...that's just dumb.

Well, I was being light-hearted and agreeing with your general sentiment, except that you keep throwing words like "demented" and "dumb" in there. Are we demented? Or do we just enjoy something you don't? If people who enjoy culvert caches and tree caches are demented, then people hwo enjoy 10 mile hikes on hard terrain are demented. Everything's demented if someone doesn't like it.

Rather, I'm emphasizing that you don't have to be insulting while liking and disliking different things.

 

Demented: yes, people who enjoy climbing into sewer pipes are demented. There's no getting around that. And it isn't necessarily a negative trait in my mind. I'm demented in my own special ways.

 

Dumb: culvert caches, yes they are dumb. It's a sewer pipe. What possible value does such a location have unless we're talking about some ancient catacomb in Paris or something with some actual historical value that may also be visually or aesthetically unique. THOSE, however, are few and far between. Just sending someone under a suburban roadway has no value other than the fact that, congratulations, you got someone to risk either their clothing or their life (or both) by climbing under a roadway to sign a log sheet. Thank you, but no...that's dumb and I don't apologize for feeling that way.

Link to comment
If most likely any enhanced tool is required at the cache site, then it should be a T5. Regardless, if it's climbing gear or a ladder.
Assuming that the tool is required for something terrain-related, of course, as is the case with climbing gear or a ladder.

Yes, I agree, thank you for clarifying this.

 

I don't consider reaching tools to be terrain-related.

Yes. For such cases, there is a "tools required" attribute, if I remember correctly. And if it's really needed on site to get the cache to the cacher (and back), then it should be provided on-site OR beeing described in the cache description.

 

Someone relatively small may bring a grabbing tool with him/her all the time anyway (or coping with the fact they can't reach average heights). Sure, there there is a grey zone. However, I'd love to see cache owners stating very clear on listings, what to expect on-site if doubtfully reachable by people of different sizes.

 

Cache owners who don't respect this tend to loose their boxes: even if a cacher somehow can get the box out of the hide, often it is a task more difficult to get ot back. Not that I want to encourage this kind of serial thinking...

 

(This said, I'm 1.80m and reach most caches here, plus still can take my son on the shoulders to reach things further up - but surely I like the caches more that clearly tell me to bring my 5m foldable ladder or a 2m stick with a hook attached before I just can watch the box from below and planning my next trip to this location...BTDT)

Link to comment

And then there's this cache, the rating for which has been debated since publication.

 

IIRC, it started as 1.5/5, then was changed to 5/1.5, and is now back to 1.5/5.

 

Literally at the top of a pole. Would you rate the gear required to reach the easily visible container as D or T? I think most would qualify that as Terrain. The other argument goes that the difficulty is in determining how best to get the cache, since you're physical already at gz (at least no including altitude), and it doesn't necessarily require physical exersion.

One might say that it's like a boat cache, but then with a boat you most likely can't see the cache, let alone be literally standing next to it :P It's more like, does requiring long pole, or a very thin grabber, constitute terrain or difficulty? Does it have to do with whether your body is within reach? Or whether your hand is within reach? Is it Brain/Braun? Or is it more convoluted?

 

I don't think there'd be much objection generally about the above cache needing a 1.5/5 rating, but it did re-raise the question, a bit.

Link to comment

And then there's this cache, the rating for which has been debated since publication.

 

IIRC, it started as 1.5/5, then was changed to 5/1.5, and is now back to 1.5/5.

That's clearly a T5 no matter how D is rated. I think the binary choice between 1.5/5 and 5/1.5 is quite strange, but I guess it's all about the D/T grid.

 

edit: T/D changed to D/T

Edited by Rebore
Link to comment

And then there's this cache, the rating for which has been debated since publication.

 

IIRC, it started as 1.5/5, then was changed to 5/1.5, and is now back to 1.5/5.

 

Literally at the top of a pole. Would you rate the gear required to reach the easily visible container as D or T? I think most would qualify that as Terrain. The other argument goes that the difficulty is in determining how best to get the cache, since you're physical already at gz (at least no including altitude), and it doesn't necessarily require physical exersion.

One might say that it's like a boat cache, but then with a boat you most likely can't see the cache, let alone be literally standing next to it :P It's more like, does requiring long pole, or a very thin grabber, constitute terrain or difficulty? Does it have to do with whether your body is within reach? Or whether your hand is within reach? Is it Brain/Braun? Or is it more convoluted?

 

I don't think there'd be much objection generally about the above cache needing a 1.5/5 rating, but it did re-raise the question, a bit.

It's definitely strange to me that the CO would run with a 5/1.5 on that cache. I didn't read all the logs, maybe it was just a mistake on the owbner's part. Imo, that's a cache worthy of the terrain 5 rating. I'm sure there may be a few people who can climb it using just their bodies but the vast majority are going to need something more to get it.

 

Btw, that looks like one fun cache! B)

Link to comment

I think it depends on the difficulty of the climb. I have a cache about 15 ft up in a pine tree that is as easy as climbing a ladder. I have it rated at 3 stars. A more difficult climb will be rated higher. I've seen a few that are in trees that pretty much require the use of climbing gear. Those are appropriately rated 5 stars.

Link to comment

I think it depends on the difficulty of the climb. I have a cache about 15 ft up in a pine tree that is as easy as climbing a ladder. I have it rated at 3 stars. A more difficult climb will be rated higher. I've seen a few that are in trees that pretty much require the use of climbing gear. Those are appropriately rated 5 stars.

I agree, but the logs indicate that you don't only need special equipment, it has to be the right equipment. So difficulty may be to discuss, but terrain is not, even if the CO could hide it withouut using any special gear.

Link to comment

 

Demented: yes, people who enjoy climbing into sewer pipes are demented. There's no getting around that. And it isn't necessarily a negative trait in my mind. I'm demented in my own special ways.

 

Dumb: culvert caches, yes they are dumb. It's a sewer pipe. What possible value does such a location have unless we're talking about some ancient catacomb in Paris or something with some actual historical value that may also be visually or aesthetically unique. THOSE, however, are few and far between. Just sending someone under a suburban roadway has no value other than the fact that, congratulations, you got someone to risk either their clothing or their life (or both) by climbing under a roadway to sign a log sheet. Thank you, but no...that's dumb and I don't apologize for feeling that way.

 

Uh... Yeah, about that. No. A culvert is part of a storm drain. A sewer is a closed system for human waste. There's a huge difference. The only difference between a storm drain and a creek is the amount of concrete and coverage.

 

Unless it's raining, a storm drain or culvert hide is a lot safer than your typical GRC. Unless of course people like to drive in the storm drains in your parts. (Yes, some are that large)

Link to comment

Uh... Yeah, about that. No. A culvert is part of a storm drain. A sewer is a closed system for human waste. There's a huge difference. The only difference between a storm drain and a creek is the amount of concrete and coverage.

 

Unless it's raining, a storm drain or culvert hide is a lot safer than your typical GRC. Unless of course people like to drive in the storm drains in your parts. (Yes, some are that large)

 

Actually, in this area (Buffalo, NY) we have it both ways - Scajaquada Creek is a natural creek that was paved and roofed-over in the 1920's because people were offended by the pollution (people were using it as a sewer/trash disposal). It is navigable on foot, so long as you watch out for several drains that occur along its length. The main tunnel opens into Forest Lawn Cemetery, where the creek bed is once again rock. (And, yes, there is a cache inside - GC1C79N.)

Link to comment

Uh... Yeah, about that. No. A culvert is part of a storm drain. A sewer is a closed system for human waste. There's a huge difference. The only difference between a storm drain and a creek is the amount of concrete and coverage.

 

Unless it's raining, a storm drain or culvert hide is a lot safer than your typical GRC. Unless of course people like to drive in the storm drains in your parts. (Yes, some are that large)

 

Actually, in this area (Buffalo, NY) we have it both ways - Scajaquada Creek is a natural creek that was paved and roofed-over in the 1920's because people were offended by the pollution (people were using it as a sewer/trash disposal). It is navigable on foot, so long as you watch out for several drains that occur along its length. The main tunnel opens into Forest Lawn Cemetery, where the creek bed is once again rock. (And, yes, there is a cache inside - GC1C79N.)

 

Any time I require a cacher's feet to leave the ground I up the difficulty. I would consider climbing a tree a 4.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

Any time I require a cacher's feet to leave the ground I up the difficulty. I would consider climbing a tree a 4.

I presume you mean terrain. If so, yes, though it depends on how high. 10 feet off the ground or lower isn't a significant climb, I'd rate that 3 or so. Whereas if you needed ascending gear to get there, clearly a 5.

Link to comment

Any time I require a cacher's feet to leave the ground I up the difficulty. I would consider climbing a tree a 4.

I presume you mean terrain. If so, yes, though it depends on how high. 10 feet off the ground or lower isn't a significant climb, I'd rate that 3 or so. Whereas if you needed ascending gear to get there, clearly a 5.

 

This gets into relativity. To a degree, you need to know the CO and how they might rate hides. For some, a climb of 5 feet of the ground could be 4 terrain, for some a 2.5. Depends on how twisty and mangled the climb, or open and easy the limbs are to navigate too. Many factors. I see a T, I get an idea of what to expect, I see the CO and it hones the expectation a bit, I get to gz and then I guesstimate the height by the style of climb (and then adjust other judgements accordingly :P)

Many factors. Since there's no objective guide to rating tree climbs, it's always better to learn a CO's rating habit :)

Link to comment

This gets into relativity. To a degree, you need to know the CO and how they might rate hides. For some, a climb of 5 feet of the ground could be 4 terrain, for some a 2.5. Depends on how twisty and mangled the climb, or open and easy the limbs are to navigate too. Many factors. I see a T, I get an idea of what to expect, I see the CO and it hones the expectation a bit, I get to gz and then I guesstimate the height by the style of climb (and then adjust other judgements accordingly :P)

Many factors. Since there's no objective guide to rating tree climbs, it's always better to learn a CO's rating habit :)

 

True. Around my way it seems pretty consistent though. Generally T=3 or less means I can do it; greater than 3 means I can't!

Link to comment

Tree climb caches rank right up there with culvert caches to me...which is to say, they suck.

 

Guess the way I see it, they aren't placed there for any other reason than to make just getting to them a form of torture or, at the very least, a bit of a pain in the neck. Those kinds of caches, for me, are not enjoyable. I'd take a ten mile hike on hard terrain before crawling 100 feet through a 3-foot diameter pipe to get to a cache.

 

Did you climb trees when you were a kid? Did you explore storm drains or other mysterious places when you were young?

This game of hide and go seek that we call geocaching is, at its core, an extension of the things we did in our youth. Including elements like tree climbing, hiking and even scaling old bridge abutments in the middle of a river strike me as natural parts of that aspect of the game. I do what interests and/or challenges me (I may be getting older but I yield to age as grudgingly as possible.) I will not denigrate physical or mental challenges that are now beyond me (fortunately, not too many of them in geocaching yet) but within the reach of others.

Link to comment

I find that the area in which you live and the type of cachers that are active in the area can affect how a tree climb or terrain is rated. I used to live in a rural area next to a ski resort and many people in the area were very sporty and would see climbing a mountain as a 2.5 or 3 terrain difficulty whereas near city area a small hill would be a 3 terrain

Link to comment

I find that the area in which you live and the type of cachers that are active in the area can affect how a tree climb or terrain is rated. I used to live in a rural area next to a ski resort and many people in the area were very sporty and would see climbing a mountain as a 2.5 or 3 terrain difficulty whereas near city area a small hill would be a 3 terrain

True this. I was going to say that terrain rating varies regionally. Some caches in Long Island rated at 4 would be 2 or 2.5 in Colorado or Arizona where strenuous hiking is part of many people's daily lifestyle.

3 to 4 sounds about right for yours.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
Followers 3
×
×
  • Create New...