Jump to content

How to decide on D/T ratings


Goannas

Recommended Posts

Hi all.

Looking for some advice on setting terrain/difficulty ratings. Can anyone point me to guidelines for this? We’re about to set 6 caches and while some are obviously 1/1 there are others that I’m not sure about. Based on ones we’ve found they could be 3.5-4 or even higher in both T & D. But I feel sure there are much more difficult ones both in terms of both terrain and difficulty. I’m a notoriously hard marker because I always want to leave myself somewhere to go but I don’t want to make things sound easier than they are.

Suggestions, advice or directions to similar threads would be most appreciated.

Cheers.

Jenny.

Link to comment

If you haven't already, then reading this Help Center article is a good place to start: 5.9. Ratings for difficulty and terrain (D/T)

 

ETA: Keep in mind that a Terrain rating of 1 implies the cache is accessible from a wheelchair and the 'wheelchair accessible' attribute needs to be included on T-1 cache listings.

 

Thanks. I had looked but hadn't found this. Will definitely have a look. And yes, our 1/1 will be wheelchair accessible.

Link to comment

Agree the Help Center is the place to start. I think some of them - especially on the D side - are "outdated". E.g. Difficulty 2: "Relatively easy to find or solve within 30 minutes". Maybe it was true at one time that finding in 30 minutes of searching was considered "easy", but today I don't think that is the case.

Link to comment

Good to know. I'm always open to feedback so after we place and publish if anyone thinks the ratings should be changed I'll be happy to do that. I just don't want to give a false expectation of it being either too hard or too easy. Appreciate any input.

Link to comment

YMMV is also a good thing to keep in mind when rating a cache. Depending upon local expectations D or T may widely vary.

 

I live in a fairly mountainous region, with some ORV parks and more kayaking waters than you can shake a paddle at. What counts for a 3.0 T hike here may be considered 4.5 or 5.0 T in the flat lands.

 

D is always a trick. Rule of thumb on Evil should begin at 2.5 and go up, subject to modification if the CO gets a lot of DNFs for a cache still in place.

 

Grading puzzles is probably the greatest art of all - some people will recognize the puzzle right off and Bob's their uncle, off the go to find it. While others may wrack their brains because some necessary little thing eludes them. Also, a higher D rating my convince some the puzzle is too hard and they give up without much of an effort.

 

I'd suggest finding a good array of caches and using personal experience to guide oneself in their hides.

 

Best of luck!

Link to comment

Also keep in mind that some cachers have mobility issues and rely heavily on accurate terrain ratings.

For example, a T2 should be: no significant elevation change or overgrowth.

That means no significant change or overgrowth all the way to the cache.

 

There were many times, while recovering from a broken leg, that I'd drive 25 miles, to the elusive low terrain cache (T2 and under), hobble a mile along a rail-to-trail to the cache location only to end up staring down a steep slope covered in branches, logs, lose rock and a 3 foot wide stream at the bottom of the ditch that needed hopping over, to get to a cache that I could see hanging in a tree. Mission aborted. :( If they had upped the T to at least 2.5--may have small elevation changes or moderate overgrowth--it would have saved me the frustration.

  • Helpful 2
Link to comment

My rule of thumb is to consider Difficulty the use of Brain, and Terrain the use of Braun. Some consider it a distance thing, since they may think of say the difficulty of getting to gz by vehicle part of the Difficulty, then the hike from parking part of the Terrain (but I'd personally throw that all into Terrain).

 

Keep in mind that while 1.0 Terrain denotes Wheelchair Accessible, a 5.0 Terrain typically means special equipment is required (rather, if you require special equipment than it should be rated T5). Likewise, I consider 5 Difficulty the rating for requiring special knowledge; heavy research, skills, understanding. The equivalent of special equipment but for the brain :) Like knowledge of electronics, trade specialties, programming, professional training, etc.

 

Another more widely understood 'feature' of the ratings is that quite often a 4.5 rating (D or T) is tougher for more people than a 5. For terrain the difference may be whether you came with a ladder or not, whereas a T4.5 may require multiple days' hike and kayak through rough wilderness. An electrician may rate their wiring puzzle a D5 which may be second nature to another electrician who solves it in seconds but complete gibberish to a lifeguard.

 

Ladder use for T5 is a tough one. It's 'special equipment' in that if you don't have one you may not be able to reach the 15' cache in the tall bare tree. Some may consider that a D1/T5, others may consider that terrain far less merely because all you need is a ladder. So it depends on whether you think the rating should be based on general first visit experience, or complete experience (possible multiple visits) in order to sign the logsheet. And heck, some people have a hard time even climbing a ladder so it may itself be a 3 or 4 terrain :)

 

Ultimately, as the cache owner, it's your own discretion, not everyone else's (and that can be a tough pill to swallow as logs from finders may imply their opinion of what your cache should be rated is superior).

So you can base your decision on your own abilities and experiences, or try to make it best rated for the people in the community you know and love. Either is fine. After caching a while, you come to understand how different CO's rate their own caches - the very same experience may be a 2/4 for one owner and a 3/1.5 for another. And that's fine too. Part of the adventure and getting to know people :)

 

You just want to provide the best experience you can for people who want to find your cache based on your listing on gc.com. How that plays out in your mind, only you can know!

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment

It does help though, when everyone has the same understanding and applies the guidelines as outlined.

As the years go on the D/T ratings are more and more uncertain.

I visited a T2 where a ladder was required. But the owner figured that because a small ladder (4-6 feet, or tall step stool depending on your height) was needed--no footholds, the cache was deep in a nook about 12 feet up--that a T4 should not be "rewarded" to finders.

The T rating unfortunately has become a reward system and can not be relied upon for accuracy based on the current guideline standards.

If you have a slight mobility issue you take your chances.

OP, hopefully you will take disabled as well as able-bodied cachers into consideration.

Link to comment

Indeed.

 

It's more of a legitimate grey area on issues like difficulty of a hike. A 2 hour hike over rough terrain for some people might be 2.5T, whereas for others might be something they rarely ever do, or someone in a lesser shape, and more like a 4 or 4.5. As a CO, you choose your rating, but either base it on your own experience and opinion, or consider others' as well. Either way, not everyone's final "opinion" of a DT will be the same. That's why it's best to not be legalistic on the ratings, but just do your best; and as a finder take mental notes about CO habits and rating styles so you have a better idea of what the rating can really mean in context of the CO.

 

The more you own and find the more honed your sense should become of what generally constitutes acceptable D's and T's for your region(s).

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment

Also, don't be afraid to change the D/T later. Some will say you shouldn't because of the many matrix ("fizzy") challenges. Your description of your cache should be kept accurate and up to date. If that messes up someone's record for a challenge, that's their problem -- they need to keep track of what the rating was when they found it. (Personally I think challenges should never depend on changeable attributes of caches, including the name, D/T, last two digits of coordinates, etc. But that's another 150 threads ...)

 

Edward

Link to comment

Also, don't be afraid to change the D/T later. Some will say you shouldn't because of the many matrix ("fizzy") challenges. Your description of your cache should be kept accurate and up to date. If that messes up someone's record for a challenge, that's their problem -- they need to keep track of what the rating was when they found it. (Personally I think challenges should never depend on changeable attributes of caches, including the name, D/T, last two digits of coordinates, etc. But that's another 150 threads ...)

 

Edward

 

+1

Link to comment
Another more widely understood 'feature' of the ratings is that quite often a 4.5 rating (D or T) is tougher for more people than a 5. For terrain the difference may be whether you came with a ladder or not, whereas a T4.5 may require multiple days' hike and kayak through rough wilderness.
I've seen T4.5 ratings go both ways.

 

For some, it is a "T5 lite" rating. Yes, it needs equipment, but the CO doesn't think the equipment needed is particularly "special" or hard to acquire. So instead of a full T5 rating, the cache gets a T4.5 rating. If you have the necessary equipment (which isn't particularly "special" or hard to acquire), then the terrain is usually relatively easy.

 

For others, it is the highest terrain rating that doesn't require special equipment of any sort. And in cases where there really isn't any special equipment that would make the trip easier, this ends up being the most difficult kind of terrain.

Link to comment
OP, hopefully you will take disabled as well as able-bodied cachers into consideration.

 

Yes we will. All the locations except one are also part of a local history walking trail project and the intention is mainly to get people to the spots and give them a bit of information about the history of the area. But I don't want to do a whole lot of magnetic Eclipse containers under the plaques we'll be erecting. That's easy no fun.

3 of the locations will be very accessible. 2 of these will be fairly easy finds and the 3rd will be a puzzle cache - easy to find but a little challenge to solve and open. The other 3 will be tougher terrain and trickier hiding spots.

Thanks again everyone. I've found all your comments really useful and am confident that our caches will be fair. But I won't be afraid to change them if I think the feedback warrants it.

Cheers.

Jenny.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
OP, hopefully you will take disabled as well as able-bodied cachers into consideration.

 

Yes we will. All the locations except one are also part of a local history walking trail project and the intention is mainly to get people to the spots and give them a bit of information about the history of the area. But I don't want to do a whole lot of magnetic Eclipse containers under the plaques we'll be erecting. That's easy no fun.

3 of the locations will be very accessible. 2 of these will be fairly easy finds and the 3rd will be a puzzle cache - easy to find but a little challenge to solve and open. The other 3 will be tougher terrain and trickier hiding spots.

Thanks again everyone. I've found all your comments really useful and am confident that our caches will be fair. But I won't be afraid to change them if I think the feedback warrants it.

Cheers.

Jenny.

 

Just to clarify. I don't mean hide caches for disabled cachers. Although that's a great thing.

I mean, (and this is meant for anyone reading this) give less able bodied caches an accurate rating, using the definitions available in the Help Center so they can adequately and quickly--using the filtering options--remove those caches which they can not or should not attempt.

Link to comment
On 3/23/2017 at 9:18 AM, L0ne.R said:

Also keep in mind that some cachers have mobility issues and rely heavily on accurate terrain ratings.

For example, a T2 should be: no significant elevation change or overgrowth.

That means no significant change or overgrowth all the way to the cache.

 

There were many times, while recovering from a broken leg, that I'd drive 25 miles, to the elusive low terrain cache (T2 and under), hobble a mile along a rail-to-trail to the cache location only to end up staring down a steep slope covered in branches, logs, lose rock and a 3 foot wide stream at the bottom of the ditch that needed hopping over, to get to a cache that I could see hanging in a tree. Mission aborted. :( If they had upped the T to at least 2.5--may have small elevation changes or moderate overgrowth--it would have saved me the frustration.

I agree on this one. We have a local cacher who likes to hide micros 10 to 14 feet up in a tree...with a 2.5 star rating. Someone once told me that they were originally rated higher in terrain, and then they dropped them down. It's sad reading DNF's of "I could only look at it." It's discouraged some geocachers in my region.

  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 1
Link to comment

Don't have to find them all ;) 

Imagine all the people who see the ones sitting on the water, and feel it's unfair to them because they don't have a boat.

Not every cache has to be findable by everyone. I look at it as a challenge - expand my horizons, find a tool to help, connect with someone who has the skill or tool to do it, learn a new skill or pick up some new knowledge, .... or else just let it be.  Oh it'll eat at me if I can't get it.  But I'm not going to complain to the CO that I can't get it.  Just need to make sure you check everything about the cache before you go looking for it (presuming the details are reasonably accurate and informative).

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

It's great you asked. That shows you care.

 

My opinion of a few ratings. The ones, when wrong, I find most annoying.

 

1T: Having wheeled someone around in a wheelchair, 1T should be reachable for a person sitting in the wheelchair. So, not beyond arm reach either up or down. Don't put it up high or down low. Some people can't reach down from the wheelchair. The person I knew in a wheelchair couldn't, without the danger of toppling out of it. The ground must be flat where the cache is and and no steep path to it. The access route should be sealed and smooth. Absolutely NO stones/gravel/woodchips/etc to wheel the chair through.

I have seen too many caches marked 1T just because there is a sealed flat path to GZ. This is not enough. The wheelchair person must have the dignity of being able to get the caches themselves. Don't say they will have a companion to help, as they mightn't, and even if they do, give the wheelchair person the joy of being able to retrieve and return it themselves.

 

1D should be an extremely obvious hide. Nanos by their nature are NOT 1D, not even 1.5, unless very obvious. A nano stuck to a wall with a big arrow*, or similar pointing at it, might be a 1D, but the rest aren't. (* I've often thought this might be fun to do, but generally not a fan of fiddly nanos and don't like to inflict them on others.)

 

1.5T I believe they should be within reach of the average heighted woman in your population, with both feet flat on the ground. In Australia that is about 160cms (5'3"). I think I read somewhere that is similar in the USA. If the average height of the whole population is used, that will mean that almost all men won't have a problem reaching the cache, but many (most?) women will.

 

2T might require a step up, but it needs to be an easy steep. Up onto a park bench or picnic table for instance. Not everyone can manage that, so don't think it's easy for all. Then people shouldn't need to overreach. If this is required up the terrain rating. For instance, the 1.5T I needed to teeter on top of a stool, on top of a picnic table, was NOT 1.5T😡. The next finder found that too hard to even attempt it.

  • Love 1
Link to comment
13 hours ago, Hiking Cockroachess said:

We have a local cacher who likes to hide micros 10 to 14 feet up in a tree...with a 2.5 star rating.

The rating guidelines used to refer to climbs that required "hands and feet", or something like that. Tree climbs generally used that rating or higher. I can't find the old description of terrain ratings though...

Link to comment
15 hours ago, Hiking Cockroachess said:

We have a local cacher who likes to hide micros 10 to 14 feet up in a tree...with a 2.5 star rating. Someone once told me that they were originally rated higher in terrain, and then they dropped them down. It's sad reading DNF's of "I could only look at it." It's discouraged some geocachers in my region.

 

I still refer to the old Clayjar ratings, and if it's a light trail and that tree is the only obstacle, meant to be climbed by hand, it might be as low as 3T.

Folks think climbing 15 feet up a tree deserves a higher rating, but it's not like you used rope equipment, or a ladder....

We still have a 5T that few access.  "I could only look at it" would be a normal log for someone not paying attention to that 5 rating.

I try to only do caches 2T and up anymore.  I'd expect a 2.5 tree climb would be done without extra gear. 4 and up, I'm bringing a rope bag...

  • Helpful 2
Link to comment
On 3/6/2023 at 1:27 PM, barefootjeff said:

I'd hate for someone like Goldenwattle to make the journey out there only to find it was a few centimetres out of reach.

I'm above the average height (160cm) for an Australian woman at 165cm (or was...I'm getting older), but I still struggle reaching some caches. The average male height, which is your height, is 175cm. I wasn't talking for me. I could maybe stand on tiptoes to reach that extra 10cms for that cache. There are many caches I have managed to reach, but I read so many women writing in their logs, that they were pleased to have their taller husband with them to reach it. If anyone is getting logs like that on a 1.5T cache, they need to up the rating.

Edited by Goldenwattle
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
8 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Thanks for that. In this case (now published as GCA5HGT, a fitting GC code for a cache with a potential height issue :)) do you have any suggestions for better handling this or is what I put in the description sufficient? The cache is rated terrain 2.5 but that's all about getting from the car park to GZ, and as I said the logbook is about 30cm lower than the mounting hardware so you probably wouldn't have too much trouble with it, but there are bound to be other cachers who would. This is my first hide that's above shoulder height, most of them are below knee height, so it's new territory for me.

 

I've since bought one of these from Bunnings, which will make maintenance a bit easier if I have to get to the mounting hardware again:

 

35e9aa33acb5466cbf6f16fb034121c0?v=f18e4

I should probably leave it in the car as it might come in handy for other caches.

 

I have a folding stool which I carry in the car, as per this image. They come in different heights. I recently replaced a lower one for a higher one. You have given your height, so only maybe you could add whether you had to stretch for the cache or not. From what you just wrote, it seems stretching might not be necessary.

 

 

71pFrjt7HoL._AC_SL1332_.jpg

  • Surprised 1
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...
×
×
  • Create New...