Ratings for terrain

[+JL_HSTRE]

7 hours ago, dprovan said:

8 hours ago, IceColdUK said:

It’s a bit like telling someone they’ve got an ugly baby! ;-)

"Ugly" is not input, it's judgement. Do you really think that's the kind of "constructive" criticism we're talking about?

 

Some babies are ugly. If you're aghast at the thought of someone telling you that your baby is ugly then never have children. That said, there's a different between walking up to a stranger to tell them their baby is ugly and answering honestly when someone asks if you think their baby is beautiful. Caches have logs. Every active cache a person owns is a baby and the question "Is my baby beautiful or ugly?"

 

If I say "this cache is the size of a shoebox so it should be size Regular" or "this cache requires climbing a tree so it should have the Tree Climbing attribute and should be T4 instead of T2" those are constructive criticisms. If I say "log was wet" that's a factual statement about the condition of the cache.

 

If I say "I did not enjoy this cache because..." that could be constructive depending on the reasons, although it is mostly a matter of opinion. An opinion that every cache finder is entitled to include in their log every bit as much as "I enjoyed this cache because..." Such opinions should be expressed politely and as factually as possible, and should not be an attack on the CO.

[+Goldenwattle]

1 hour ago, dprovan said:

Just tell him he made a mistake for heaven's sake.

Doesn't always work. Although some beginners take advice, some others don't, insisting they know best (a geocacher with a whole 5 finds comes to mind here as an example, and another with no finds and hiding their first two caches). Gets frustrating. Better if geocachers (say min 500 finds) could just give a rating and this be averaged. This is not to replace the CO score, but to give another alternative rating; from those that don't know where the cache is hidden as the CO does, and think therefore it's easy, like some COs. Intelligence varies, and it appears that some COs lack the ability to be able to realise that a hide can seem easy when you know where it is, but not to others who don't have the CO's insider knowledge.

Edited October 4, 2018 by Goldenwattle

[+MNTA]

3 hours ago, dprovan said:

I don't get it. You present an example that simply calls for a single cacher of moderate knowledge to explain to the inexperienced CO why the difficulty of this cache should be lower. To avoid this terrible burden on you, the seeker, you're supporting a solution that requires a *bunch* of seekers to give opinions based on who knows what conflicting criteria, and the cache gets the average? Just tell him he made a mistake for heaven's sake.

 

I chose to not pile on. That is all. The CO updated the coordinates to those provided by another cacher and at the same time change the rating to a 3.5/3.5. 

 

My point is that this example shows the lack of experience a new cacher has. I wished that before new cachers start hiding caches they get out and do this hobby awhile. Things like honoring private property, not destroying the landscaping the list is very long. Not everything is caught by the reviewers. 

[+dprovan]

 

7 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

14 hours ago, dprovan said:

I wonder how many CO's I've angered without knowing it when I'm away from home and say something like, "I would have rated this a point higher in difficulty because..." or "Back home, this would be called a micro, not a small."

D/T may vary a little by region, but cache size should not. A film can should be a micro in 100% of the world.

Well, that's not true, there are clear differences in local size standards, but my point was about suggestions that agreed with the local standards.

[+Goldenwattle]

27 minutes ago, dprovan said:

Well, that's not true, there are clear differences in local size standards, but my point was about suggestions that agreed with the local standards.

How? A 35mm film canister is the same world wide. I have used several brands and all film canisters were the same size, regardless of brand. So dprovan is correct, " A film can should be a micro in 100% of the world". I would express it as '35mm film canister' though, as a 'film can' can be taken as something else.

[+barefootjeff]

 

9 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

How? A 35mm film canister is the same world wide. I have used several brands and all film canisters were the same size, regardless of brand. So dprovan is correct, " A film can should be a micro in 100% of the world". I would express it as '35mm film canister' though, as a 'film can' can be taken as something else.

 

 

I've never seen one of these used in a cache though. Hmm...

[+Goldenwattle]

2 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

 

 

I've never seen one of these used in a cache though. Hmm...

I have seen very similar used for a cache.

[+dprovan]

12 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

How? A 35mm film canister is the same world wide. I have used several brands and all film canisters were the same size, regardless of brand. So dprovan is correct, " A film can should be a micro in 100% of the world". I would express it as '35mm film canister' though, as a 'film can' can be taken as something else.

Some areas creep. When I've cached back in the eastern U.S., I've noticed that standard magnetic key holders are often called "small", and, to a lesser extent, sometimes a film can is called small, too, since, after all, it's about the same size. I think it's because some local communities start reserving "micro" for things that the rest of us would call nanos. For these variations, I mention the issue in my log, but I leave the debate to the locals and don't file an NM about it.

 

The other end of the spectrum is more striking. Size inflation is common everywhere. Since the larger end is used rarely and almost all caches are in the smaller end,  there's pressure to push "regular" down into the small area, etc. The rate of inflation differs in different areas. I will only comment on odd size variations if I think they're misleading.

 

I don't argue that these variations are good or bad, I just observe the fact.

[+dprovan]

12 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

 

 

I've never seen one of these used in a cache though. Hmm...

Reel Easy. It's in front of a movie theater. Size is listed as "other". You can see the container from the street view if you know where to look.

[+frostengel]

10 minutes ago, dprovan said:

standard magnetic key holders are often called "small", and, to a lesser extent, sometimes a film can is called small, too, since, after all, it's about the same size. I think it's because some local communities start reserving "micro" [.....]

 

It doesn't matter what some local communities do: https://www.geocaching.com/help/index.php?pg=kb.chapter&id=97&pgid=815

E. g. "Micro containers are less than 100 milliliters." so the normal film canister is a micro. By the way, the normal "nano cache" is micro, too.

 

That's quite simple and I do not see any disadvantage following the rules. The micro cache does not get any better if it is listed as small or regular...

[+dprovan]

17 hours ago, MNTA said:

I chose to not pile on. That is all. The CO updated the coordinates to those provided by another cacher and at the same time change the rating to a 3.5/3.5. 

 

My point is that this example shows the lack of experience a new cacher has. I wished that before new cachers start hiding caches they get out and do this hobby awhile. Things like honoring private property, not destroying the landscaping the list is very long. Not everything is caught by the reviewers. 

True, but the beauty of this example is the problem was easily resolved with input by other seekers. Finding caches is just one source of input for learning this stuff; input from peers is also very important. And  peers are a much better way to police it than making the authorities responsible for catching every problem. Consider this: some of the things you mention can never be caught by a reviewer, so seekers should always be aware that they're responsible for looking for problems.

[+dprovan]

Just now, frostengel said:

It doesn't matter what some local communities do: https://www.geocaching.com/help/index.php?pg=kb.chapter&id=97&pgid=815

I think you've lost the context. I was talking about how to best approach a CO in another area with suggestions. Local standards matter because the size rating is correct based on those standards, so it would be rude and, in a sense, wrong for me to declare a size rating bad. You're arguing whether local communities should have divergent standards, but that's an entirely different conversation.

 

But thanks for the great example of another reason COs start to get annoyed by suggested corrections: because the suggestions are sometimes cast in a heavy dose of righteousness.

[+dprovan]

19 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

Doesn't always work. Although some beginners take advice, some others don't, insisting they know best (a geocacher with a whole 5 finds comes to mind here as an example, and another with no finds and hiding their first two caches). Gets frustrating. Better if geocachers (say min 500 finds) could just give a rating and this be averaged. This is not to replace the CO score, but to give another alternative rating; from those that don't know where the cache is hidden as the CO does, and think therefore it's easy, like some COs. Intelligence varies, and it appears that some COs lack the ability to be able to realise that a hide can seem easy when you know where it is, but not to others who don't have the CO's insider knowledge.

It doesn't always work, but it usually works, so I don't think the few problem cases justify an entirely different mechanism that takes the entire decision away from all COs.

 

And, more to the point, whether the beginner listens or not, the advantage of establishing that there are real people finding caches and having opinions about them is way more important than avoiding the occasional errant rating. From what I've seen, the most common mistake beginners make can be traced back to spending all their efforts thinking about the cache without thinking at all about what someone would experience when actually looking for their cache. So I would be against a mechanism that makes people think they should rate caches anonymously instead of talking to the COs about the issue.

[+frostengel]

48 minutes ago, dprovan said:

I think you've lost the context. I was talking about how to best approach a CO in another area with suggestions. Local standards matter because the size rating is correct based on those standards, so it would be rude and, in a sense, wrong for me to declare a size rating bad. You're arguing whether local communities should have divergent standards, but that's an entirely different conversation.

 

But thanks for the great example of another reason COs start to get annoyed by suggested corrections: because the suggestions are sometimes cast in a heavy dose of righteousness.

 

It's not only the content but the words how you make a proposal. Take the regular listed film canister (which I had some times):

 

"logtext ...... thank you for the cache .......

 

PS: And there is one thing to add. You listed the cache as "regular" but it's surely only a micro cache. You can find the definition here: link. The film canister even is listed there as example for a micro cache so please correct the size."

 

Ratings might be subjective (especially the diffiulty rating with mysteries) but the cache size is quite objective. If each member of the local community lists the film canister as a regular cache it is still wrong and if I have to point it out (as nicely as I can using words like "please" and "thanks in advance") in any log perhaps I will do (or I get tired of doing so). Sending the link to the guidelines is a help for the owners not to offend them.

 

I do not see any reason to be offended here. What is important, of course, is that the proposal is not the whole log.

 

By the way it may be true that I lost the context - it is not my main language and I might not get any detail of your posts. Sorry for that.

 

Jochen

[+dprovan]

45 minutes ago, frostengel said:

I do not see any reason to be offended here. What is important, of course, is that the proposal is not the whole log.

Right, absolutely. I suppose I should know better than to make such a subtle point, but when someone says, "CO's shouldn't be offended when someone calls their babies ugly," my main concern is precisely that they won't be wording their suggestions with any tact. And, in fact, they'll think they're expressing themselves nicely when they aren't.

 

I encourage people to bring up problems or confusion with a cache. Everyone should be able to express opinions, and COs should listen to input. All I'm saying is that sometimes a CO is offended by input because the input is, in fact, offensive. There seems a common idea in the forums that offended COs are always just too sensitive.

 

I would have considered the point made, but then in the middle of the conversation came this post:

22 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

Some babies are ugly. If you're aghast at the thought of someone telling you that your baby is ugly then never have children.

which made it apparent some people weren't getting the message.

[+frostengel]

32 minutes ago, dprovan said:

I would have considered the point made, but then in the middle of the conversation came this post:

23 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

Some babies are ugly. If you're aghast at the thought of someone telling you that your baby is ugly then never have children.

 

Come on.... I don't know if this one was meant to be funny but what I know for sure is that calling anyone's baby ugly has nothing - absolutely nothing - to do with a bad listed cache. In fact it hasn't anything to do with geocaching or with anything else but bad jokes or trolling. So forget about that comment. :-)

[+barefootjeff]

One of my more recent hides, GC78F4Z, I originally made T2.5. When sussing out the site, I'd bush-bashed my way to the top of the hill before finding the trail bike track that leads all the way from the road to GZ. Coming down, it didn't seem too steep, not steep enough I thought to meet the Help Centre description of a T3:

• The hike may be more than 2 miles (3 km) on varied terrain - too difficult to ride a bike due to elevation changes or significant overgrowth.

The hike is only 300 metres, there's no overgrowth (it's a cleared track) and the local kids were riding bikes up and down there, so I didn't think it warranted a T3 rating. The group of three experienced cachers who got the joint FTF disagreed, though, thinking the steepness of the track was more than a 2.5 (terrain may have small elevation changes or moderate overgrowth) and, in hindsight, I had to agree with them; walking up that track is considerably tougher than walking down it. So I immediately bumped it up to a T3. No angst, no drama, no hurt feelings, no skin off my nose, no ugly babies, and now everyone's happy.

[+Mausebiber]

9 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

I originally made T2.5 ...... So I immediately bumped it up to a T3

 

Is it really important if a cache is rated T2.5 or T3?

My own rating system as a cache searcher:

T1, T1.5, T2 = easy

T2.5, T3, T3.5 = normal

T4, T4.5, T5 = difficult

For me, everything from T1 to T3.5 can be accessed the normal way without any additional/special equipment.  For T4 and above

I will give the cache description a closer look, maybe read some logs and/ or review some pictures to determine what I have to expect and what Equipment I might need. T2.5 or T3 does not make any difference to me.

 

[+barefootjeff]

2 minutes ago, Mausebiber said:

 

Is it really important if a cache is rated T2.5 or T3?

My own rating system as a cache searcher:

T1, T1.5, T2 = easy

 

T2.5, T3, T3.5 = normal

 

T4, T4.5, T5 = difficult

 

For me, everything from T1 to T3.5 can be accessed the normal way without any additional/special equipment.  For T4 and above

I will give the cache description a closer look, maybe read some logs and/ or review some pictures to determine what I have to expect and what Equipment I might need. T2.5 or T3 does not make any difference to me.

 

 

I think perceptually there's a significant difference between 2 point something and 3, more than say between 2.0 and 2.5, even though in both cases the arithmetic difference is 0.5. I'd rank them a bit differently to you:

T1-1.5 = easy

T2-2.5 = medium

T3-3.5 = strenuous

T4-4.5 = tough

T5 = special equipment needed

[+colleda]

5 hours ago, dprovan said:

I think you've lost the context. I was talking about how to best approach a CO in another area with suggestions. Local standards matter because the size rating is correct based on those standards, so it would be rude and, in a sense, wrong for me to declare a size rating bad. You're arguing whether local communities should have divergent standards, but that's an entirely different conversation.

 

But thanks for the great example of another reason COs start to get annoyed by suggested corrections: because the suggestions are sometimes cast in a heavy dose of righteousness.

How would any visiting finder know what is or is not a local standard?

[+JL_HSTRE]

4 hours ago, frostengel said:

I don't know if this one was meant to be funny but what I know for sure is that calling anyone's baby ugly has nothing - absolutely nothing - to do with a bad listed cache. In fact it hasn't anything to do with geocaching or with anything else but bad jokes or trolling.

 

It's a metaphor. Babies are a creation, as much as a cache or a painting or baking a cake (albeit a more complicated one). Any act of creation opens the creator to criticism. If you don't want your creation criticized then never create anything - make no babies, place no caches, bake no cakes. But in that case you open yourself up to criticism for not creating anything. Thus the lesson is that in life one must recognize at least some criticism is inevitable.

 

[+JL_HSTRE]

5 hours ago, dprovan said:

I encourage people to bring up problems or confusion with a cache. Everyone should be able to express opinions, and COs should listen to input. All I'm saying is that sometimes a CO is offended by input because the input is, in fact, offensive. There seems a common idea in the forums that offended COs are always just too sensitive

 

COs are not always too sensitive, but some of them certainly are, and the examples highlighted in the forum are usually examples of this.

 

Consider the following hypothetical log (not an actual log, but I could imagine writing this log verbatim on an appropriate cache):

Found on a 3 hour hike today with a cool breeze. Saw no wildlife. Trail was muddy and I had to cross a creek via a fallen tree. Doesn't seem like T1.5 to me. Watch out for thorns at GZ. Cache was upside down in a puddle and log is ruined.

 

So what's wrong with this log which shows effort (much more than TFTC and not canned), consists only of factual statements, and isn't hostile, crude, or nasty (the obvious ways to offend anyone)? Real offense I have seen people take on such things:

 

1. I told the CO they were wrong. Lots of people are offended to be told they're wrong, no matter the delivery. 

 

2. I didn't thank the CO or praise the cache.

 

3. I didn't replace the log for the CO.

 

4. The tone is negative.

 

A English major might also be offended by my non-use of pronouns. 

[+Mausebiber]

4 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

Found on a 3 hour hike today with a cool breeze. Saw no wildlife. Trail was muddy and I had to cross a creek via a fallen tree. Doesn't seem like T1.5 to me. Watch out for thorns at GZ. Cache was upside down in a puddle and log is ruined.

 

So what's wrong with this log

 

Absolutely nothing.  I think this is an excellent log because it shows the CO and your fellow cacher what's going on and what they have to expect.

Much more than a T-rating a informative log shows the situation.  It would be just perfect, if the cache listing would reflect those things like "distance" or "time" required, track conditions like "single trail" "wet underground" "creek crossing" and" elevation changes".  This way, I could find my personal rating not depending on a "mountain man" from Colorado who rates steep climbs as 2.5, while someone from Nebraska would rate the same track as 4.0.

 

[+justintim1999]

On ‎9‎/‎12‎/‎2018 at 9:48 AM, redsox_mark said:

I agree the definitions are confusing:

 

Difficulty:   Effort needed to solve and find the cache and logbook at GZ.    

Terrain:  Physical effort needed to arrive at coordinates.

 

In the case of a tree climb, where the tree is easy to walk to (say 1.5 to walk to the tree), but the tree is 50 feet up.   I think most people rate the tree climb as part of the Terrain, but you can read these definitions to say the effort needed to "arrive at coordinates" is T1.5.   But once you get to the coordinates, some difficult effort is needed to access the cache and logbook (which is part of the "find").    So you can read this as the tree climb should be reflected in Difficulty, not Terrain.  

 

 

That's how I see it.

[+justintim1999]

On ‎9‎/‎12‎/‎2018 at 10:35 AM, Goldenwattle said:

I wish finders, with a minimum of finds to eliminate beginners who don't yet have the experience, could rate difficulty and terrain and the scores be averaged out and displayed.

We all make mistakes.    I guess it depends on how many people have commented that the T/D is off.   One or two I'd ignore.  Five or six I would definitely take another look.   I've heard that the only problem with changing the D/T after the cache has been out for some time is some may be using that cache for a challenge and changing it would mess that up for them.  Is that true?   Even it that true having an accurate D/T is more important and should be changed if incorrect.  If the difference was negligible or the cache' as only been out for a short time I'd lean toward just keeping it as it is.   

[+Mausebiber]

4 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

Terrain:  Physical effort needed to arrive at coordinates.  Difficulty:   Effort needed to solve and find the cache and logbook at GZ.

So you can read this as the tree climb should be reflected in Difficulty, not Terrain

This is very confusing and in my opinion not correct.  T-rating was (and perhaps still is) the effort it takes to get to the cache (not to the coordinates), this includes tree climbing or scuba diving. The way to the beach is T1.5, scuba diving is T5.0, so I feel the overall T-rating should be T5.

 

And for me, only this makes sense.  If I query for cache and don't want to climb, my query would be T4 or less. How would I exclude tree climbing cache if they would be D-rated?

Query D4 or less would exclude quite a lot of interesting cache I would like to visit and now miss.

 

Definition should be:  Terrain:  Physical effort needed to arrive at the cache.

[+Mausebiber]

12 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

I've heard that the only problem with changing the D/T after the cache has been out for some time is some may be using that cache for a challenge and changing it would mess that up for them.  Is that true?

 

Yes, D/T change is global and applies for everyone regardless when logged.

Here in my area this is causing problems since many using the D/T rating for there statistics.  If you want to change D/T this after some time, it's better to archive the cache and create a new one, same listing, same location, different D/T.

Edited October 5, 2018 by Mausebiber

[+redsox_mark]

17 minutes ago, Mausebiber said:

This is very confusing and in my opinion not correct.  T-rating was (and perhaps still is) the effort it takes to get to the cache (not to the coordinates), this includes tree climbing or scuba diving. The way to the beach is T1.5, scuba diving is T5.0, so I feel the overall T-rating should be T5.

 

And for me, only this makes sense.  If I query for cache and don't want to climb, my query would be T4 or less. How would I exclude tree climbing cache if they would be D-rated?

Query D4 or less would exclude quite a lot of interesting cache I would like to visit and now miss.

 

Definition should be:  Terrain:  Physical effort needed to arrive at the cache.

 

I agree.

[+justintim1999]

13 minutes ago, Mausebiber said:

This is very confusing and in my opinion not correct.  T-rating was (and perhaps still is) the effort it takes to get to the cache (not to the coordinates), this includes tree climbing or scuba diving. The way to the beach is T1.5, scuba diving is T5.0, so I feel the overall T-rating should be T5.

 

And for me, only this makes sense.  If I query for cache and don't want to climb, my query would be T4 or less. How would I exclude tree climbing cache if they would be D-rated?

Query D4 or less would exclude quite a lot of interesting cache I would like to visit and now miss.

 

Definition should be:  Terrain:  Physical effort needed to arrive at the cache.

If a cache was an easy walk to the cache hidden up in a tree to me that would be something like D3.5/T1.5.   

 

16 minutes ago, Mausebiber said:

Terrain:  Physical effort needed to arrive at coordinates.  Difficulty:   Effort needed to solve and find the cache and logbook at GZ.

I don't see how this is confusing.    It separates the difficulty levels in getting to the cache and signing the logbook which are two different things.   Changing the word cache to coordinates eliminates the need for both distinctions.      

[+justintim1999]

3 minutes ago, redsox_mark said:

 

I agree.

I think I see what your saying now.  Even if the cache was 20 feet from the parking lot but hidden in a tree your saying the terrain should be something like a 4.  If so where dose the difficulty come in?    How would you rate my example?

[+Mausebiber]

5 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

If a cache was an easy walk to the cache hidden up in a tree to me that would be something like D3.5/T1.5.  

 

To get to the cache (climb up the tree) = T5

If you can see it from below, a bird house, and no additional search is required, maybe D1 or D1.5

If you climb up that tree and find a bird house with a padlock which has to be opened by lock-picking, I would rate this D4.5 or D5

 

So for me, the D-rating depends on the difficulty to find the hidden cache container, to open it and to sign the logbook.

[+Goldenwattle]

18 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

If a cache was an easy walk to the cache hidden up in a tree to me that would be something like D3.5/T1.5. 

People need to know the physical ability needed to get to a cache. Putting the tree climb under the difficulty is wrong, because that does not indicate that agility and strength to climb the tree is necessary. A hard difficulty indicates a hard puzzle and/or the cache is hidden very well. It would be annoying and disappointing for someone with limited physical ability to arrive at a cache marked D3.5/T1.5, thinking only 1.5T, so not a problem, but prepared to search, as it's marked D3.5, but then to spot the cache up a tree quickly and realise that it was not the 1.5T expected, but the difficulty is the tree climb, which they can't do and weren't prepared for for with the T1.5. Actually, if it were me, I might not get that at all, just think it's cruel to mark a tree climb as 1.5T and wonder why a cache up a tree in easy view is thought difficult to spot.

Edited October 5, 2018 by Goldenwattle

[+redsox_mark]

7 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

I think I see what your saying now.  Even if the cache was 20 feet from the parking lot but hidden in a tree your saying the terrain should be something like a 4.  If so where dose the difficulty come in?    How would you rate my example?

 

Yes.. if finding the cache requires a difficult tree climb, then I think the Terrain rating should reflect that, not the D.   

The difficulty would be how easy it was to find the cache in that tree.    If it is a tiny nano and you can't see it from the ground, it is also very difficult.   If it is a ammo can with flashing lights, the difficulty would be low.   If you had to solve a puzzle to get the combination to open the box, that would also increase the difficulty.

 

I think this is the most useful way to do it.    I'm not the youngest or most agile, so I'm looking for high Terrain ratings to flag up a possible warning to me.    I don't mind the cache being difficult to find, or a difficult puzzle.   Of course some T5 caches I can do, e.g. I have no problems paddling a kayak (on calm water).    

[+justintim1999]

6 minutes ago, redsox_mark said:

 

Yes.. if finding the cache requires a difficult tree climb, then I think the Terrain rating should reflect that, not the D.   

The difficulty would be how easy it was to find the cache in that tree.    If it is a tiny nano and you can't see it from the ground, it is also very difficult.   If it is a ammo can with flashing lights, the difficulty would be low.   If you had to solve a puzzle to get the combination to open the box, that would also increase the difficulty.

 

I think this is the most useful way to do it.    I'm not the youngest or most agile, so I'm looking for high Terrain ratings to flag up a possible warning to me.    I don't mind the cache being difficult to find, or a difficult puzzle.   Of course some T5 caches I can do, e.g. I have no problems paddling a kayak (on calm water).    

Sounds logical to me.  Thanks for the explanation.   

[+L0ne.R]

2 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

People need to know the physical ability needed to get to a cache.

 

This ^^

 

Please everyone. Consider the less abled geocacher. We absolutely rely on T-ratings that match the guidelines. Especially anything 3 and under.  

 

Quote

 

T1 The hike is less than 0.5 mile (0.8 km) and wheelchair accessible (attribute required). Most likely paved and flat.

T2 The hike is less than 2 miles (3 km) along well-defined paths with no significant elevation change or overgrowth.

T2.5 Terrain may have small elevation changes or moderate overgrowth.

T3 The hike may be more than 2 miles (3 km) on varied terrain - too difficult to ride a bike due to elevation changes or significant overgrowth.

 

 

If your cache is hidden in something like below, (too difficult (for the average person-not the skilled off-trail bmx rider) to ride a bike due to overgrowth) be kind and give it a T3 rating. Most of us with mobility issues will filter out T3 or higher. We will be much happier if we spend our geocaching time and our gas money on geocaches we can get to. 

 

[+coachstahly]

3 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

 

This ^^

 

Please everyone. Consider the less abled geocacher. We absolutely rely on T-ratings that match the guidelines. Especially anything 3 and under.  

 

 

If your cache is hidden in something like below, (too difficult (for the average person-not the skilled off-trail bmx rider) to ride a bike due to overgrowth) be kind and give it a T3 rating. Most of us with mobility issues will filter out T3 or higher. We will be much happier if we spend our geocaching time and our gas money on geocaches we can get to. 

 

 

That's not a 3 T rating in my neck of the woods.  Knee high grass/plant growth, very little sapling growth that makes you bend over to avoid the low branches, space between older growth to  move easily, and it's mostly flat terrain.  That's anywhere from a 1.5 to 2.5, depending on the length of the hike from a trail.  The only way I see a 3 T here is if it's all bushwhacking with no trail for more than maybe 3/4 of a mile.

[+dprovan]

17 hours ago, frostengel said:

 

Come on.... I don't know if this one was meant to be funny but what I know for sure is that calling anyone's baby ugly has nothing - absolutely nothing - to do with a bad listed cache. In fact it hasn't anything to do with geocaching or with anything else but bad jokes or trolling. So forget about that comment. :-)

When we talk about ugly babies, I'm thinking of logs that talk about what a stupid place this is for a cache or imply that the CO is incompetent in some way. So "the container leaks and the log was a mess" is fine, but "only an idiot would use a container like this" is more of an ugly baby comment. I think a lot of people don't recognize the difference. If you do, then you can carry on without worrying about me.

14 hours ago, colleda said:

How would any visiting finder know what is or is not a local standard?

The point is that there are many factors a finder might not understand, so suggestions should be neutral and explanatory, not dictating and self righteous. Local standards are just a good example of one such unknown standard, but a particularly good one because people that believe they know the one true standard are often snotty about telling other people what to do.

12 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

COs are not always too sensitive, but some of them certainly are, and the examples highlighted in the forum are usually examples of this.

I admit, I don't really have any idea which is true, but my impression from posts in the forum is that more often than not, the person complaining wrote a log that wouldn't be easy to view as helpful.

12 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

Consider the following hypothetical log (not an actual log, but I could imagine writing this log verbatim on an appropriate cache):

Found on a 3 hour hike today with a cool breeze. Saw no wildlife. Trail was muddy and I had to cross a creek via a fallen tree. Doesn't seem like T1.5 to me. Watch out for thorns at GZ. Cache was upside down in a puddle and log is ruined.

 

So what's wrong with this log which shows effort (much more than TFTC and not canned), consists only of factual statements, and isn't hostile, crude, or nasty (the obvious ways to offend anyone)?

I'm glad you presented this hypothetical example because it allows me to ask you what I've said to make you think I'd object to this log. It looks perfectly good to me. Sounds like a lot of logs I've written, actually. The ugly baby version would be, "Hike was too long. Nothing interesting in this area. Terrible trail, and it's outrageous that I had to cross a creek on a fallen tree. Obviously should have been rated T4. The CO tried to kill me by planting thorns around the cache. Stinky container, obviously being ignored." My suspicion is that some people will actually write something more like this, yet believe their log is as polite as your is. And then come here and saying that COs shouldn't out caches (babies) if they can't take feedback ("your baby is ugly").

[+L0ne.R]

2 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

 

That's not a 3 T rating in my neck of the woods.  Knee high grass/plant growth, very little sapling growth that makes you bend over to avoid the low branches, space between older growth to  move easily, and it's mostly flat terrain.  That's anywhere from a 1.5 to 2.5, depending on the length of the hike from a trail.  The only way I see a 3 T here is if it's all bushwhacking with no trail for more than maybe 3/4 of a mile.

 

2 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

Please everyone. Consider the less abled geocacher.

 

That's a no then. Shame that less-able bodied geocachers are told to 'lump it'.   Having a level playing field (so to speak) is too much to ask. 

 

Quote

T3 ... too difficult to ride a bike due to ... significant overgrowth.

 

[+coachstahly]

3 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

 

 

That's a no then. Shame that less-able bodied geocachers are told to 'lump it'.   Having a level playing field (so to speak) is too much to ask. 

 

 

 

You're taking one thing among many and applying that to the overall experience.  Please keep in mind that this particular rating is subjective and NOT a hard and fast rule.

 

Here's the whole part from the guidelines.

 

The hike may be more than 2 miles (3 km) on varied terrain - too difficult to ride a bike due to elevation changes or significant overgrowth. - 3

 

If the cache is hidden less than 300 feet from the trail in that section of the woods, with a flat terrain, knee high plant growth, and a trail that got you to there most of the way, are you saying you still want it rated at a 3?  

 

Terrain may have small elevation changes or moderate overgrowth. - 2.5  I see almost no elevation change here and this is what I'd call moderate overgrowth.

 

The hike is less than 2 miles (3 km) along well-defined paths with no significant elevation change or overgrowth. - 2  If the cache is hidden behind a tree just off the trail (10-15 feet) described above, and the area around GZ looks like this, I'd have no issue with a 2 here.

[+coachstahly]

3 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

If your cache is hidden in something like below, (too difficult (for the average person-not the skilled off-trail bmx rider) to ride a bike due to overgrowth) be kind and give it a T3 rating.

 

If you were to have to ride a bike through this throughout the duration of the trip to GZ, I'd be right with you, especially considering the distance required to get to GZ.  If you had to walk only a short distance through this stuff and the rest of it was a nice flat wide dirt trail, it doesn't warrant a 3.  What distance would you say a short walk through the picture you posted would warrant a 3T?  10 feet?  100 feet? 1/4 mile?

 

I have a letterbox I hid that has a 3T rating.  Up until the last 50-75 feet, the walk/hike is on paved sidewalks, a few hundred feet on a flat dirt trail, and then the last portion of the cache.  It's through undergrowth similar to this and on top of that, there are large old cement slabs that are unevenly stacked and holes and gaps are covered by growth.  The cement slabs were the main reason I gave it a 3 T rating, not the undergrowth.  Had that letterbox had a final like the image you posted, I would have rated it at a 2/2.5.  50 feet through something you can easily wade through (no bramble patches, no thorns evident, flat terrain, dry land, and some smaller fallen logs to easily step over) seems to be overrated at a 3 T rating.  Are you saying that you would rate the cache a 3T if you couldn't ride your bike through this for 50 feet?  Does that mean you can't walk 50 feet through this?

[+NYPaddleCacher]

4 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

If a cache was an easy walk to the cache hidden up in a tree to me that would be something like D3.5/T1.5.   

 

I don't see how this is confusing.    It separates the difficulty levels in getting to the cache and signing the logbook which are two different things.   Changing the word cache to coordinates eliminates the need for both distinctions.      

 

I agree with Mausebiber and redsox fan (go Yankees!).  

 

In your example of a cache near a parking lot but up in a tree, the physical effort *includes* climbing the  tree (to get to the cache).   Where the confusion comes in is when someone adds to the D rating because the terrain is "difficult".   Whether someone has walked 200 feet or two miles, if you can see the container up in the tree from the ground, the difficulty shouldn't be more than a 1.5, but the terrain rating might be dependent upon the distance one has walked and the physical effort (and if equipment is required) to climb the tree.

 

39 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

  35 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

Please everyone. Consider the less abled geocacher.

 

Both the Difficulty and Terrain ratings are supposed to be based on the "average" geocacher.   An "average" geocacher might be able to free climb a tree, and a T3 rating might be appropriate despite the fact that a less abled geocacher might not physically be able to climb the tree without extra equipment (e.g a ladder to reach lower branches).  

 

[+justintim1999]

10 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

 

I agree with Mausebiber and redsox fan (go Yankees!).  

 

In your example of a cache near a parking lot but up in a tree, the physical effort *includes* climbing the  tree (to get to the cache).   Where the confusion comes in is when someone adds to the D rating because the terrain is "difficult".   Whether someone has walked 200 feet or two miles, if you can see the container up in the tree from the ground, the difficulty shouldn't be more than a 1.5, but the terrain rating might be dependent upon the distance one has walked and the physical effort (and if equipment is required) to climb the tree.

 

 

Both the Difficulty and Terrain ratings are supposed to be based on the "average" geocacher.   An "average" geocacher might be able to free climb a tree, and a T3 rating might be appropriate despite the fact that a less abled geocacher might not physically be able to climb the tree without extra equipment (e.g a ladder to reach lower branches).  

 

Thanks.  Except for the go Yankees

[+JL_HSTRE]

If a cache up a tree were reflected by D not T then logically a cache accessed by repelling up or down a vertical cliff face should also be reflected by D not T.

 

Lets consider it another way for good measure. Two identical trees along a road. One has a camo bison tube 10 ft up. The other has an ammo can 10 ft up. If tree climbing is Difficulty they are both D4/T1.5 but if its Terrain then the ammo can is probably 1/4 while the bison is 3/4.

[+L0ne.R]

1 hour ago, coachstahly said:

 

If you were to have to ride a bike through this throughout the duration of the trip to GZ, I'd be right with you, especially considering the distance required to get to GZ.  If you had to walk only a short distance through this stuff and the rest of it was a nice flat wide dirt trail, it doesn't warrant a 3.  What distance would you say a short walk through the picture you posted would warrant a 3T?  10 feet?  100 feet? 1/4 mile?

 

 

It's not length AND elevation change AND overgrowth, it's either length, OR elevation change, OR overgrowth.

Can the average person get to ground zero riding a bicycle?

Can the average geocacher, average age--midlife, with average health, riding an average bike, with average bicycling skills, ride that bike to ground zero. No? Then that cache rates at least a T3. Why is it so important to rate the T-rating below 3?

Would you rather dupe the woman with a newly healed broken ankle? She's wearing a brace, driving through a state and town she's never cached in before. She drives 20 minutes out of her way to get to a T2 cache,  walks a quarter mile, only to have to turn back, or risk further injury. To her you would say tough. Should she only search for T1 caches? Despite the GCHQ definitions for terrain (since it's OK for owners to ignore any other rating definition except T1)? 

[+dprovan]

2 hours ago, coachstahly said:

 

That's not a 3 T rating in my neck of the woods.  Knee high grass/plant growth, very little sapling growth that makes you bend over to avoid the low branches, space between older growth to  move easily, and it's mostly flat terrain.  That's anywhere from a 1.5 to 2.5, depending on the length of the hike from a trail.  The only way I see a 3 T here is if it's all bushwhacking with no trail for more than maybe 3/4 of a mile.

Speaking of local standards...I can understand a local area where lots of caches are like this, and maybe it's considered easy comparatively. To me, that looks like T3, too, assuming it's more than a hundred yards or two of that stuff.

[+coachstahly]

1 hour ago, L0ne.R said:

 

It's not length AND elevation change AND overgrowth, it's either length, OR elevation change, OR overgrowth.

Can the average person get to ground zero riding a bicycle?

Can the average geocacher, average age--midlife, with average health, riding an average bike, with average bicycling skills, ride that bike to ground zero. No? Then that cache rates at least a T3. Why is it so important to rate the T-rating below 3?

Would you rather dupe the woman with a newly healed broken ankle? She's wearing a brace, driving through a state and town she's never cached in before. She drives 20 minutes out of her way to get to a T2 cache,  walks a quarter mile, only to have to turn back, or risk further injury. To her you would say tough. Should she only search for T1 caches? Despite the GCHQ definitions for terrain (since it's OK for owners to ignore any other rating definition except T1)? 

 

That means there should be so many more 3T caches out there than there currently are.  In our country, with our levels of obesity and out of shape people, the average health person will struggle to ride a bike on a relatively easy dirt walking trail with some small elevation changes, much less a dirt bike trail designed specifically for bikes that has become grooved over time and isn't an easy ride anymore, but might be an easier trail to walk now.

 

It's not important to me to rate it below a 3T but it is important to rate the cache terrain based on what most of my fellow cachers in my area rate them.  Using your rating, you couldn't bike to GZ on a cache that's hidden 25 feet into a tree line with branches that are waist high or higher but you could get off the bike and walk to it, so that means it's a 3.  Really?  That's a hard and fast rule?

Edited October 5, 2018 by coachstahly

[+dprovan]

1 minute ago, L0ne.R said:

Would you rather dupe the woman with a newly healed broken ankle? She's wearing a brace, driving through a state and town she's never cached in before. She drives 20 minutes out of her way to get to a T2 cache,  walks a quarter mile, only to have to turn back, or risk further injury. To her you would say tough. Should she only search for T1 caches? Despite the GCHQ definitions for terrain (since it's OK for owners to ignore any other rating definition except T1)?

I'm not exactly clear what terrain point you're making here, but even if I assume the terrain rating is just flat out and undeniably too low, I'd say, "Oh, well. You can't find them all." I mean, really, an attractive cache, worth going out of your way for, only 20 miles extra driving, only a quarter mile of walking, surely her reaction should be more like "rats! oh, well, what's next?" than "That was a hideous experience. I'm never caching again!"

[+coachstahly]

9 minutes ago, dprovan said:

Speaking of local standards...I can understand a local area where lots of caches are like this, and maybe it's considered easy comparatively. To me, that looks like T3, too, assuming it's more than a hundred yards or two of that stuff.

 

And I'm fine with that, if that's the case, as I've stated above.  50 feet of walking through that though?  100 feet?  What's the cut off?  I'm under the assumption that LOne.R believes that any distance in that stuff is automatically a 3T.  I disagree with that.

[+dprovan]

3 hours ago, coachstahly said:

3 hours ago, dprovan said:

Speaking of local standards...I can understand a local area where lots of caches are like this, and maybe it's considered easy comparatively. To me, that looks like T3, too, assuming it's more than a hundred yards or two of that stuff.

 

And I'm fine with that, if that's the case, as I've stated above.  50 feet of walking through that though?  100 feet?  What's the cut off?  I'm under the assumption that LOne.R believes that any distance in that stuff is automatically a 3T.  I disagree with that.

OK, I'll agree. I was looking at the picture and assuming I was walking to "the back", which looks about 100 yards away to me. At some point close in, it's not T3, but I'm not going to be party to setting a specific distance as a hard line.

[+frostengel]

4 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

Then that cache rates at least a T3. Why is it so important to rate the T-rating below 3?

 

That's not important and if you ever hide a cache you may list it as T3, okay?