Ratings for terrain

[+barefootjeff]

13 hours 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)? 

 

So if the cache were alongside this path, would you rate it a T3 because you can't ride a bike up the steps?

 

 

The problem with making something like this a T3 is it then crams the ratings between that and 4.5, making it difficult to differentiate between much tougher hikes for the great majority that don't have a broken ankle or go caching on a bike.

Edited October 6, 2018 by barefootjeff

[+barefootjeff]

And how would you then rate a cache where you're clambering around amongst this?

 

 

For the record, this cache (GCKX65) is rated T3. It's about 50 metres in from a moderately steep walking track with quite a few steps. Looking through its many finds (168), I can't see any complaining about its terrain rating.

Edited October 6, 2018 by barefootjeff

[+coachstahly]

On 10/5/2018 at 8:07 PM, barefootjeff said:

And how would you then rate a cache where you're clambering around amongst this?

 

 

For the record, this cache (GCKX65) is rated T3. It's about 50 metres in from a moderately steep walking track with quite a few steps. Looking through its many finds (168), I can't see any complaining about its terrain rating.

 

Seeing as how we don't have a whole lot of terrain like this in Indiana, particularly the middle and north part of the state, I would most likely put it in the 3-3.5 T.  There are some areas similar in the southern part of the state and the rating probably holds true there as well.

[+allycatM]

On 10/5/2018 at 7:46 PM, barefootjeff said:

 

So if the cache were alongside this path, would you rate it a T3 because you can't ride a bike up the steps?

 

 

The problem with making something like this a T3 is it then crams the ratings between that and 4.5, making it difficult to differentiate between much tougher hikes for the great majority that don't have a broken ankle or go caching on a bike.

I personally do ride my mountain bike to the majority of my caches, and, personally, if the trail was like this only for a certain amount of the time, I would ride my bike, carry it up the steps, get back on, find some caches, and just ride over them on the way back (which looks fun, by the way). However, I am quite aware that this might be beyond the biking capabilities of the average geocacher, especially if this trail turns into a dirt-stone-root trail (like many do here in Maryland). Either way, I would say that this is a T2.5, because the majority of geocachers don't ride bikes anyways. My rule of thumb for terrain ratings is:

1.) When will people be finding it (Night for a night cache, upped terrain and difficulty. Early in the day, at the start of a long geotrail, less terrain.)

2.) How will the majority of geocachers find it? (I once found a terrain 1.5 cache in the middle of a field of thorn bushes, on a hill, but all of the cachers who found it took the trail to the top, not hacking through the field of thorns)

3.) Park at your recommended parking coordinates, and find the cache using just your GPSr. Approach the cache as one you have not found, rather than one you hid, and consider that in your terrain rating.

4.) If a multi or similar design, what is the average terrain of the combined stages. Run the test above on all stages, and use your best reasoning to combine them into one rating (a T1 stage one and a T4 stage two does not have to be a T2 altogether, for instance if the hike in between is a T3)

 

I hope this helps, allycatM

[+frostengel]

3 hours ago, allycatM said:

4.) If a multi or similar design, what is the average terrain of the combined stages. Run the test above on all stages, and use your best reasoning to combine them into one rating (a T1 stage one and a T4 stage two does not have to be a T2 altogether, for instance if the hike in between is a T3)

 

Pardon? Please explain that! If I have one stage T4 the whole multi cache is at least T4 and not any average....

 

The easiest way to rate a multi cache is to take the highest rating (D and T) of the stages. But if there are many T4 stages I think these add to T4.5 (and similar) - more stages can be rated higher as anyone else.

 

But one stage can not make the other one easier so one T1 and one T5 stage do not give a T3 cache....

 

 

[+barefootjeff]

4 hours ago, allycatM said:

On 06/10/2018 at 9:46 AM, barefootjeff said:

 

So if the cache were alongside this path, would you rate it a T3 because you can't ride a bike up the steps?

 

 

The problem with making something like this a T3 is it then crams the ratings between that and 4.5, making it difficult to differentiate between much tougher hikes for the great majority that don't have a broken ankle or go caching on a bike.

I personally do ride my mountain bike to the majority of my caches, and, personally, if the trail was like this only for a certain amount of the time, I would ride my bike, carry it up the steps, get back on, find some caches, and just ride over them on the way back (which looks fun, by the way). However, I am quite aware that this might be beyond the biking capabilities of the average geocacher, especially if this trail turns into a dirt-stone-root trail (like many do here in Maryland). Either way, I would say that this is a T2.5, because the majority of geocachers don't ride bikes anyways.

 

The phrasing of ratings in terms of whether or not you can ride a bike to it always bothers me. If, in my example, the boardwalk wasn't there and instead it was just a gently sloping gravel path with no steps, a small child could easily ride a bike along it and, if the cache was only a few hundred metres along from the carpark, I'd consider it a T1.5, or a bit further a T2 tops. Is this boardwalk with steps harder for ordinary middle-aged people to walk along than the equivalent non-stepped gently sloping path?

[+coachstahly]

The fact that there's so much debate tells me that the guidelines for ratings aren't meant to be hard and fast rules in most situations.  T 1 MUST be wheelchair accessible and we've been told that it needs to be wheelchair accessible pretty much all the way around GZ (360 degrees), not just a portion of GZ.  T 5 means specialized equipment - boat, climbing gear, etc...  Everything else in between has some grey area that could warrant something just a little bit less or a little bit more than what someone else would rate it.  For me, the biggest thing is to try to get my ratings as close to the majority of ratings I find in my area so that there's some sense of continuity from cache to cache, city to city, county to county, and within the state.

[+niraD]

1 hour ago, coachstahly said:

and we've been told that it needs to be wheelchair accessible pretty much all the way around GZ (360 degrees), not just a portion of GZ

We have? I've read that a person using a wheelchair has to be able to reach the cache location, and retrieve and replace the cache. But all of the terrain ratings apply to the most reasonable approach. There is no expectation that you can approach from any direction (360 degrees) and have the terrain rating apply.

 

As an example, I've found caches on the side of a sidewalk/path. If a reasonable wheelchair user travels down the paved surface, they can access the cache. But that's only 180 degrees of access. If they try to approach from the other side, then they will certainly be thwarted by the unpaved surface.

[+hzoi]

On 10/3/2018 at 10:58 PM, Harry Dolphin said:

There's a bizarre series of caches on an abandoned railway.  It looks as though the D/T ratings were derived using darts.  4/3, 4/4, 2.5/1.5, 1.5/5, 5/2.5, 1/4.5, 4/3.5, 1.4/4.5, 4.5/4.5, 4.5/4.  Maybe I should go for a few of them for the D/T Challenge.

 

That's probably the hider's intent, to "help" folks qualify for challenges.

[+noncentric]

Knowing that I'll get a variety of responses here, I'd like to ask - Do you consider the distances in the Terrain rating definitions to be 'round-trip' or 'one-way'.  For example, if a cache is hidden 0.4 miles from a trailhead, then would you suggest it be T1.5 or T2.0 - and let's assume that the trail is relatively-flat and packed dirt. T1.5 says 0.5 miles, which the cache is one-way - but it's more than 0.5 miles roundtrip back to the trailhead, so should it be T2.0?

 

Another wrinkle. Would the answer to the above be different if getting to the trailhead requires (or your mechanic would advise) an AWD vehicle rather than a 2WD.  I mean, you could drive right up to the trailhead, but it might be tough to do so in a 2WD or low-clearance vehicle.  I wonder if it's better to up the terrain a bit to err on the side of caution and maybe steer away cachers that might think they can just drive to it in any car and then they run into trouble. Or maybe just mentioning the AWD/2WD in the cache description is sufficient.

 

 

On 10/5/2018 at 9:01 AM, 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.

The example in the photo I would rate as a T 2.5, assuming the photo is taken from a relatively-flat, relatively-short unobstructed walking path.  I agree that the riding bike portion of the terrain definition is a bit confusing.

 

[+barefootjeff]

5 minutes ago, noncentric said:

Knowing that I'll get a variety of responses here, I'd like to ask - Do you consider the distances in the Terrain rating definitions to be 'round-trip' or 'one-way'.  For example, if a cache is hidden 0.4 miles from a trailhead, then would you suggest it be T1.5 or T2.0 - and let's assume that the trail is relatively-flat and packed dirt. T1.5 says 0.5 miles, which the cache is one-way - but it's more than 0.5 miles roundtrip back to the trailhead, so should it be T2.0?

 

I've wondered that myself, not only for terrain rating but the distance attributes (short hike, medium hike and long hike) too. The concensus around here at least is that it's the one-way distance.

 

11 minutes ago, noncentric said:

Another wrinkle. Would the answer to the above be different if getting to the trailhead requires (or your mechanic would advise) an AWD vehicle rather than a 2WD.  I mean, you could drive right up to the trailhead, but it might be tough to do so in a 2WD or low-clearance vehicle.  I wonder if it's better to up the terrain a bit to err on the side of caution and maybe steer away cachers that might think they can just drive to it in any car and then they run into trouble. Or maybe just mentioning the AWD/2WD in the cache description is sufficient.

 

I would think it'd depend on what the typical cacher is likely to be using and the relative distances of the 2WD and AWD accesses are. If you can get a 2WD within a few kilometres of the cache and most visitors are likely to be driving those, I'd rate it accordingly and mention in the description that an AWD will get you closer. If on the other hand, someone in a 2WD would have to hike 20 or 30 kilometres through rugged terrain, whereas an AWD will get them much closer, I'd rate it based on AWD access and mention in the description that anyone contemplating using a 2WD had better think again!

[+dprovan]

53 minutes ago, noncentric said:

Knowing that I'll get a variety of responses here, I'd like to ask - Do you consider the distances in the Terrain rating definitions to be 'round-trip' or 'one-way'.  For example, if a cache is hidden 0.4 miles from a trailhead, then would you suggest it be T1.5 or T2.0 - and let's assume that the trail is relatively-flat and packed dirt. T1.5 says 0.5 miles, which the cache is one-way - but it's more than 0.5 miles roundtrip back to the trailhead, so should it be T2.0?

I consider it one way. Not only is that what I sense is standard in my area, I also claim that it makes sense logically: the CO is only rating what it takes to find the cache. Getting back isn't the CO's problem.

54 minutes ago, noncentric said:

Another wrinkle. Would the answer to the above be different if getting to the trailhead requires (or your mechanic would advise) an AWD vehicle rather than a 2WD.  I mean, you could drive right up to the trailhead, but it might be tough to do so in a 2WD or low-clearance vehicle.  I wonder if it's better to up the terrain a bit to err on the side of caution and maybe steer away cachers that might think they can just drive to it in any car and then they run into trouble. Or maybe just mentioning the AWD/2WD in the cache description is sufficient.

I would tend to make the terrain rating higher because of the AWD requirement, although I'm not sure exactly how. If the AWD trip isn't too long, I'd be tempted to just assume no AWD and rate the terrain based on hiking from where someone with a mere mortal's car would have to park.

 

I'm not sure how I'd handle the possible AWD parking. Without having a specific example, I'd generally just not talk about it, hence not feel any need to explain that 2WD is ill advised.

 

[+cerberus1]

8 hours ago, noncentric said:

Knowing that I'll get a variety of responses here, I'd like to ask - Do you consider the distances in the Terrain rating definitions to be 'round-trip' or 'one-way'.  For example, if a cache is hidden 0.4 miles from a trailhead, then would you suggest it be T1.5 or T2.0 - and let's assume that the trail is relatively-flat and packed dirt. T1.5 says 0.5 miles, which the cache is one-way - but it's more than 0.5 miles roundtrip back to the trailhead, so should it be T2.0?

 

Another wrinkle. Would the answer to the above be different if getting to the trailhead requires (or your mechanic would advise) an AWD vehicle rather than a 2WD.  I mean, you could drive right up to the trailhead, but it might be tough to do so in a 2WD or low-clearance vehicle.  I wonder if it's better to up the terrain a bit to err on the side of caution and maybe steer away cachers that might think they can just drive to it in any car and then they run into trouble. Or maybe just mentioning the AWD/2WD in the cache description is sufficient.

 

The help center (submit your cache page...) says, "Physical effort needed to arrive at coordinates" for the rating.

That (to me) says that the terrain rating is only to the cache, or "one way".

We mention a rough guesstimate of round-trip on the cache page, but the rating is to the cache.  

 

Here, most rate the terrain for hiking.  The fact that you have 4wd over 2 isn't a consideration for terrain.

Like our caches for hikes, most have a mention that you can drive to it if your vehicle's capable and it's legal to do so.

An example is during the very-busy large game seasons here, some roads on game lands are open to vehicles (dragging a 400lb bear six miles not fun  ;),  but when those seasons close, the gates are closed to all motorized traffic again.

When the gates are open, terrain could even be a 2 in a vehicle, while hoofing it up n down the mountains could be a 4.

 - Most of the year those gates are closed, so the terrain may be 3+ as if gates are always closed.

[+frostengel]

4 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

The help center (submit your cache page...) says, "Physical effort needed to arrive at coordinates" for the rating.

That (to me) says that the terrain rating is only to the cache, or "one way".

 

I have another example:

If I put a cache in a deep whole (let's say about three meters) than you can easily jump down and reach the cache. Let us say terrain 2.5 for the jump. Getting out is terrain 5 but

 

12 hours ago, dprovan said:

Getting back isn't the CO's problem.

 

It would be my problem if someone would not be able to get out of the whole and starve in there - and therefore I would better rate it terrain 5.

 

Same might occur for an eight mile walk up a hill. Many people can walk this but many can't walk the twice of it. So if it one-way this has to be clear so it is necessary to write in the listing that it is one-way and you'll have to walk 16 miles to get back to the car. I would show this by the rating, too, but in any case it must be made clear, that is the most important.

 

Jochen

[+redsox_mark]

15 hours ago, noncentric said:

Another wrinkle. Would the answer to the above be different if getting to the trailhead requires (or your mechanic would advise) an AWD vehicle rather than a 2WD.  I mean, you could drive right up to the trailhead, but it might be tough to do so in a 2WD or low-clearance vehicle.  I wonder if it's better to up the terrain a bit to err on the side of caution and maybe steer away cachers that might think they can just drive to it in any car and then they run into trouble. Or maybe just mentioning the AWD/2WD in the cache description is sufficient.

 

 

A couple of points I find interesting. 

 

Around here, if you can drive to it easily in a 2WD, many COs will rate it as if you drove to it, rather than walked to it from some distance away.   If the road requires a 4WD to drive, but can be walked, then the terrain rating will be based on walking.  

 

In places where off-road caching is common, I've seen the terrain ratings reflect the off-road difficulty, not walking.   E.g. in Qatar, there are many caches in the desert which you can't practically walk from the nearest proper road; it would be miles in a desert and you may not live to get there.    There are caches on rough 4WD trails, there are caches where there are no trails at all.  There are places with extra dangers of getting stuck.    Here it is sensible I think to reflect these in the terrain rating, even if it isn't about walking.   I did some T3.5 drives, but stayed away from the harder ones.  

[+dprovan]

4 hours ago, frostengel said:

It would be my problem if someone would not be able to get out of the whole and starve in there - and therefore I would better rate it terrain 5.

I hope you don't really think that doing nothing other than giving it a terrain rating of 5 covers your responsibilities for your cache in the hole. Please, please, if you plant a cache like that, do a lot more to make it clear that people are getting into a trap. Rating it 5 does nothing.

 

Having said that, unlike many in this forum, I can take a logical view in general without thinking it's a concrete requirement in all cases, so I can easily see the logic in rating your hole cache at T5, and I'd rate it T5 myself even while I acknowledge it as an exception to my overall standard. But it's downright scary to think that the T5 would be considered a safety mechanism.

 

Another similar case, which actually does come up in practice, is a cache in a tree that can be knocked down with relative ease, but can only be put back in place with a high T tree climb. I readily accept a CO considering what it takes to sign the log and put the cache back as I found it when rating the cache. In fact, I'd be disappointed if he didn't.

[+baer2006]

20 minutes ago, dprovan said:

I hope you don't really think that doing nothing other than giving it a terrain rating of 5 covers your responsibilities for your cache in the hole. Please, please, if you plant a cache like that, do a lot more to make it clear that people are getting into a trap. Rating it 5 does nothing.

Indeed. Anything peculiar about the hide, which could put the unwary cacher into severe danger, must be clearly mentioned in the listing itself. And a potential one-way-ticket to the cache is definitely something, which should be mentioned in the listing big time.

Actually, I remember at least two caches of the kind, where I could have easily jumped down to the cache, but would have had really serious problems to get out again without help. None of them was listed as T5, but in both cases the problem was quite obvious. Also, both were only a few meters from an urban road, so even in the worst case, nobody would have starved in there.

 

30 minutes ago, dprovan said:

But it's downright scary to think that the T5 would be considered a safety mechanism.

Well, since you mention it ... I know a few cachers for whom a T5 label is a safety mechanism. That's because they say, if the rating is lower, then it must be doable without any (safety) equipment ... and will actually try doing it that way. Even if the T4.5 cache is 20m up a tree. Or requires you to climb around the steal beams under a 5m high bridge. And there is one CO, who has not only labeled such caches as T4.5, but additionally boasts in the listing that he himself has "of course"(!) placed the box without any safety equipment. Which leads to find logs, where cachers say something along the lines of "Wow, that was scary and I didn't feel comfortable at all. But yeah, I did it too without equipment!". So yes, a T5 rating can be a safety mechanism for some cachers ... or should I say "potential Darwin Award nominees"?

[+frostengel]

7 hours ago, dprovan said:

But it's downright scary to think that the T5 would be considered a safety mechanism.

 

In my eyes it is just the other way round:

 

- yes, rating a cache T5 does not prevent people from doing foolish things they shouldn't do; if I reach a T5 cache I still watch for possibilities to do it without any equipment. ?

- but rating a cache (much) lower than T5 leads to people overestimate their skills; if I reach ground zero of a T4 or T4.5 I expect being able to reach the cache box without equipment; and I am sure I will try...

 

So giving the T5 rating does not help against wrong decisions but giving a lower rating really encourages it! In the end any cacher has to decide for his own what he is able and willing to do - and if he is unsure he should better let it be (as I had to do some days ago being up 8 metres in a T4.5 cache tree and didn't dare doing the last two big steps :-(().

[+frumiousb]

I'd like to address cache height.  There are a lot of tall placers.  That's fine.  But not everyone is tall.  When tall placers put caches at what they think is their eye level (or above!) and then rate it a T1.5 because it's like 50' from parking in a flat park and is just into the treeline from grass, it sounds great - but 6.5' or 7' up still might be completely unreachable for someone 5' tall or shorter.  And they're often tethered, so it's not like you can use a grabber to get it down and then put it back.  If there's nothing nearby to stand on and it's not on a tree that can be climbed easily (like up in a sign, or tethered to an overhead branch near the tree trunk), shorter people simply can't reach some of these.  So tall folks, either mention the height in your descriptions or say "folks [specific height] or shorter will likely need an assist".  Better yet, don't rate them T1.5.  The "average" cacher is not 6'+ tall except maybe in the Netherlands.

Here's a specific example - a few logs back.  And mine below theirs.  This one was at least not solidly tethered, so it was (barely) removable and replaceable.  Several other finders mention having trouble reaching it or that being tall helped.
https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC9KFDG_geoint

Edited June 16, 2023 by frumiousb

[+Smitherington]

I agree. I am short. 
 

Workaround 1: take a taller person with you. But the reality is that I cache alone usually.

 

Workaround 2: ask for help from a taller muggle.  I have done this more than once including on a downtown street when a nano was located on some some metal sculpture out of my reach.

 

Workaround 3: make a 2’ stepladder part of your TOTTs. I bought the stepladder after spotting a cache in the crotch of a tree in a cemetery. I drove to town, bought what I needed, returned to the cemetery and retrieved the cache.  It is usually with me when I am out caching.

 

Workaround 4: This is a modification to #3 - use a bright safety vest and hat and you become invisible to the general public. The stepladder becomes something you need for your job.

 

Workaround 5: I also carry two different grabbers and a foot long pair of needle nose pliers but they are of no use when the cache is tethered.

 

I guess this serves to prove the old adage: Necessity is the mother of invention.

[+terratin]

I just saw this title and wondered why anyone would want to rate me. D'oh.

Yeah, rating based on distance from ground level can be complicated if hider is a giant, or vertically challenged. As vertically challenged myself it means jumping up, standing on the paddles of my bike or something else creative. But hey, I don't need to find every cache.

[+Smitherington]

42 minutes ago, terratin said:

Yeah, rating based on distance from ground level can be complicated if hider is a giant, or vertically challenged. As vertically challenged myself it means jumping up, standing on the paddles of my bike or something else creative. But hey, I don't need to find every cache.

I agree with your final statement: I don’t need to find every cache.  Do I want to?  Yes.  But if it is too high I walk away.  There will be others I can find.

[+HoochDog]

The flip side of this is that I’ve seen cachers overrate T ratings because a cache is high. They put a magnetic 10 feet high on a pole in a parking lot and call it a T4 because you have to use a tool or a stick to get it down.  

 

[+arisoft]

2 hours ago, HoochDog said:

The flip side of this is that I’ve seen cachers overrate T ratings because a cache is high. They put a magnetic 10 feet high on a pole in a parking lot and call it a T4 because you have to use a tool or a stick to get it down.  

 

 

T4 is wrong if the cache needs a tool, for example, ladders. It should be T5 is you need such a tool.

[+niraD]

19 minutes ago, arisoft said:

T4 is wrong if the cache needs a tool, for example, ladders. It should be T5 is you need such a tool.

FWIW, I'm used to elevated caches having a higher terrain rating if the seeker is expected to climb to the cache location (using tools/equipment or not), and having a higher difficulty rating if the seeker is expected to stay at ground level and use tools/equipment to retrieve the cache.

[+arisoft]

17 minutes ago, niraD said:

FWIW, I'm used to elevated caches having a higher terrain rating if the seeker is expected to climb to the cache location (using tools/equipment or not), and having a higher difficulty rating if the seeker is expected to stay at ground level and use tools/equipment to retrieve the cache.

 

Terrain attribute indicates the physical effort needed to access the cache. I can not justify using T4 for a cache that has almost zero effort when a tool, as ladders, is required. T5 is reserved for this situation. I know that there are local differencies how these attributes are used. For example, there are regions where using a fishing pole is T5 and areas where the same setup is D5.

[+cerberus1]

27 minutes ago, niraD said:

FWIW, I'm used to elevated caches having a higher terrain rating if the seeker is expected to climb to the cache location (using tools/equipment or not), and having a higher difficulty rating if the seeker is expected to stay at ground level and use tools/equipment to retrieve the cache.

 

Same here.  We haven't seen any of the "fishing" caches high up on trees yet, but we feel they should be rated by Difficulty, not terrain.

I have a "5" terrain cache that should be easy to see, as it's a huge rural mailbox. 

It's rated 1.5 D because it's easily "found", but 5 T because it requires rope (or a 30' ladder) to access.

[+barefootjeff]

I've been irked again by the reliance on bicycles to define terrain ratings. I have a new cache which my gut feeling says is a terrain 3, as fom the trail head waypoint to GZ there's an elevation gain of 70 metres (230 feet if you prefer those) along about a kilometre of unsealed service road, with most of that in three fairly steep sections, but it's a popular mountain-biking trail amongst the locals so I've included the "bicycles" attribute. My dilemma is the definition of terrain 3 says "too difficult to ride a bike due to elevation changes", which it clearly isn't (at least for some), but the definition for terrain 2.5 says "terrain may have small elevation changes" and, while "small" is subjective, I wouldn't class 70 metres as "small" and I doubt most of the cachers here would either.

 

So I'm left scratching my head, wondering if my "bicycles" attribute and T3 rating are contradictory and which should take precedence.

Edited June 30, 2023 by barefootjeff

[+Smitherington]

Biking varies a lot from my flat land style to my grandson’s mountain bike racing style. I think HQ leans more toward the casual style. 
 

If you include that attribute it deserves an explanation. Maybe explained in a note in the description about your attribute choices.