Under-rated cache

[+bayoumiss]

Not trying to raise a stink but here's the situation. Recently I found a cache that is seriously under-rated (1.5/1.5). GZ is a 45 deg mountainside consisting of shifting surfaces, including rocks of all sizes. Two catchers have logged request to upgrade ratings.

 

Would Groundspeak address this with the CO?

[+hzoi]

Difficulty and terrain rating is normally up to the cache owner, not Groundspeak. Recommend you contact griz__513 to try to work this out with them one on one.

[+niraD]

The only situations I've heard of Groundspeak or the volunteer reviewers getting involved in the terrain rating is to make sure that T1 caches use the Wheelchair Accessible attribute, and that caches with the Wheelchair Accessible attribute are also rated T1. Other than that, it's up to the CO, so work with the CO.

[+Manville Possum]

Not trying to raise a stink but here's the situation. Recently I found a cache that is seriously under-rated (1.5/1.5). GZ is a 45 deg mountainside consisting of shifting surfaces, including rocks of all sizes. Two catchers have logged request to upgrade ratings.

 

Would Groundspeak address this with the CO?

 

Something that you may consider, maybe the CO wants this listing available to all members including basic members that use the app. Hence the 1.5 D/T rating.

 

Just a thought.

[+cerberus1]

Not trying to raise a stink but here's the situation. Recently I found a cache that is seriously under-rated (1.5/1.5). GZ is a 45 deg mountainside consisting of shifting surfaces, including rocks of all sizes. Two catchers have logged request to upgrade ratings.

 

Would Groundspeak address this with the CO?

 

Something that you may consider, maybe the CO wants this listing available to all members including basic members that use the app. Hence the 1.5 D/T rating.

 

Just a thought.

+1

A friend of mine places caches that are easy for him to get to.

Most would consider even the trails to them a 2.

He'd like all players to be able to play.

He's one of the few who still place in awesome, unique, in the woods locations, so I'm not telling him...

[+bflentje]

Not trying to raise a stink but here's the situation. Recently I found a cache that is seriously under-rated (1.5/1.5). GZ is a 45 deg mountainside consisting of shifting surfaces, including rocks of all sizes. Two catchers have logged request to upgrade ratings.

 

Would Groundspeak address this with the CO?

 

Something that you may consider, maybe the CO wants this listing available to all members including basic members that use the app. Hence the 1.5 D/T rating.

 

Just a thought.

+1

A friend of mine places caches that are easy for him to get to.

Most would consider even the trails to them a 2.

He'd like all players to be able to play.

He's one of the few who still place in awesome, unique, in the woods locations, so I'm not telling him...

 

For me, lying about ratings does more harm than the possibility of unintentionally excluding a small handful of non-paying geocachers.

[+WearyTraveler]

Not trying to raise a stink but here's the situation. Recently I found a cache that is seriously under-rated (1.5/1.5). GZ is a 45 deg mountainside consisting of shifting surfaces, including rocks of all sizes. Two catchers have logged request to upgrade ratings.

 

Would Groundspeak address this with the CO?

 

Something that you may consider, maybe the CO wants this listing available to all members including basic members that use the app. Hence the 1.5 D/T rating.

 

Just a thought.

+1

A friend of mine places caches that are easy for him to get to.

Most would consider even the trails to them a 2.

He'd like all players to be able to play.

He's one of the few who still place in awesome, unique, in the woods locations, so I'm not telling him...

 

For me, lying about ratings does more harm than the possibility of unintentionally excluding a small handful of non-paying geocachers.

 

I don't the no that rating a d4 as a d1 is a good thing, regardless of allowing non pm mambers the ability to see it. With all the discussion on the other threads about "what constitutes a search" and "the search contains the journey" that would be inconsiderate to the cachers that may drive a couple of hours with the intent of a short trek. They get to the parking lot and look up the mountain and throw curses at the CO.

 

Rate it what it deserves.

 

True - we should all read prior logs before setting out (a whole other set of forum threads!) but not everyone does. I know that I try to read the description and previous logs while sitting at home, but I'm not everybody...

[+TriciaG]

Not trying to raise a stink but here's the situation. Recently I found a cache that is seriously under-rated (1.5/1.5). GZ is a 45 deg mountainside consisting of shifting surfaces, including rocks of all sizes. Two catchers have logged request to upgrade ratings.

 

Would Groundspeak address this with the CO?

I'd say, log a Needs Maintenance log. COs are responsible for accurate listings, and a NM log can bring it to their attention. (I don't know if the difficulty rating needs changing; that's for how hard it is to find once you get to Ground Zero, not for how hard it is to get to GZ. You didn't say anything about how hard it was to find.)

[+MartyBartfast]

inconsiderate to the cachers that may drive a couple of hours with the intent of a short trek. They get to the parking lot and look up the mountain and throw curses at the CO.

 

To be fair, the cache is only about 50m from the road (assuming that is publicly accessible), and there's a pull off area where you could park and probably get a bit closer, and it's hardly a mountain, just a few metres up a scree slope.

 

Of course I haven't been there and so not as well placed as the OP to grade it, but just looking at the maps and satellite images it might be a T2-3 but doesn't look any harder than that. And the slope/rocks/etc have no bearing on the D rating.

[+wimseyguy]

<snip>

 

Would Groundspeak address this with the CO?

 

No they will not. But feel free to share your opinions in your log. Perhaps they will influence the CO to reconsider his ratings. Or perhaps your log will alert other future seekers to this situation.

 

Keep in mind that CO's rate their caches based on their abilities and experiences. Perhaps this CO is a serious rock climber and he feels it is really just a 1.5T cache?

[+cerberus1]

<snip>

 

Would Groundspeak address this with the CO?

 

No they will not. But feel free to share your opinions in your log. Perhaps they will influence the CO to reconsider his ratings. Or perhaps your log will alert other future seekers to this situation.

 

Keep in mind that CO's rate their caches based on their abilities and experiences. Perhaps this CO is a serious rock climber and he feels it is really just a 1.5T cache?

I sorta agree, and also some finders think a rating's not high enough simply because of their abilities.

One we have, a pleasant stroll where you only need to leave the trail for 35' or so on the same level ground (while you're filling a bucket with blueberries), we get a lot of "terrain too low" emails (it's already a 2...).

- My (now) 85 YO Mother stops there for blueberries every year. What condition are they in?

[+WearyTraveler]

inconsiderate to the cachers that may drive a couple of hours with the intent of a short trek. They get to the parking lot and look up the mountain and throw curses at the CO.

 

To be fair, the cache is only about 50m from the road (assuming that is publicly accessible), and there's a pull off area where you could park and probably get a bit closer, and it's hardly a mountain, just a few metres up a scree slope.

 

Of course I haven't been there and so not as well placed as the OP to grade it, but just looking at the maps and satellite images it might be a T2-3 but doesn't look any harder than that. And the slope/rocks/etc have no bearing on the D rating.

True - but I was speaking in generalities- d/t should reflect reality. I look at d/t as well as reading description and logs (so I'm not usually fooled). Others may not - and head out in business attire and loafers only to be rudely surprised.

[+bayoumiss]

As a senior geocacher, i found myself halfway to GZ b4 i scoped out the area ahead. I totally believed the terrain rating. By then i was as they say, too far gone to turn back. Was there an "easier" way to GZ? ... yes but i didnt see it until after i found the cache. Definitely a 3 terrain.

Thx all for the feedback.

[+noncentric]

Something that you may consider, maybe the CO wants this listing available to all members including basic members that use the app. Hence the 1.5 D/T rating.

 

Just a thought.

+1

A friend of mine places caches that are easy for him to get to.

Most would consider even the trails to them a 2.

He'd like all players to be able to play.

He's one of the few who still place in awesome, unique, in the woods locations, so I'm not telling him...

For me, lying about ratings does more harm than the possibility of unintentionally excluding a small handful of non-paying geocachers.

The comments that 'faking' ratings so that all cachers have access is not correct. All cachers have access to all non-PMO caches, regardless of the ratings. It's only in the official app where the D/T restriction is applied. Faking ratings seems wrong to me. An app-using BM may set out to attempt a T1.5 cache, only to be disappointed when they get there and realize that it's quite a hike to reach GZ. Not sure that's really helping them.

[+barefootjeff]

As a senior geocacher, i found myself halfway to GZ b4 i scoped out the area ahead. I totally believed the terrain rating. By then i was as they say, too far gone to turn back. Was there an "easier" way to GZ? ... yes but i didnt see it until after i found the cache. Definitely a 3 terrain.

Thx all for the feedback.

If there's an easier way to GZ, that should be the basis for the cache's rating, not the more obtuse path someone might have taken. I've sometimes bush-bashed my way to GZ through thick scrub only to find a nice clear walking track on the other side leading back to the car park. On another I hiked several kilometres up a steep hill only to find a sealed road and car park right next to the cache - not one of my better-planned jaunts!