Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
hydreg

[Feature request] "Hard to reach" attribute

Recommended Posts

I've been going back and forth over it, since it seems attribute suggestions are usually shunned or mocked as far as I've read other topics, but...

I propose adding "Hard To Reach" attribute to indicate cacheds that are *drumroll please* hard to reach for shorter players (let's say those placed higher than 1.8m/5.9ft above ground, but do not require climbing and no means of getting the cache down is provided).

I admit it's very selfish suggestion, as I am a pretty short woman, but I've got talking with other female cashers at recent MEGA and it seems it's not only me with that problem. Imagine approaching a cache that requires significant hike or stealth only to discover you're unable to get it, because of your short stature. That's a major frustration and waste of time that's perfectly avoidable with one attribute.

Now, I don't criticize caches placed like this, I'm perfectly capable of bringing small stepladder (yes, really), taking a bike to get a boost or bringing someone taller with me. It would be great to know in advance though, it would really improve caching experience for others like me. It would also serve as warning - I've seen many broken branches and bent fences in places where players attempted to reach caches placed a bit higher and caches muggled, because someone barely managed to reach it but failed to put it back or were spotted because someone was frantically jumping to get it.

For those arguing that terrain diffuculty should be the indicator of this - CO's and player's milage may vary. What CO sees as 1.5* because they're tall enough to comfortably get it becomes 3* or more  for someone else. Suitable for kids or Wheelchair accessible aren't good indicators either, because there's plenty of caches that are not suitable for kids or wheelchairs that a short person can get to, so filtering PQ with those attributes is a major overkill.

tl;dr; "Hard To Reach" attribute would vastly improve quality of caching for shorter players

  • Upvote 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, hydreg said:

What CO sees as 1.5* because they're tall enough to comfortably get it...

 

As a vertically-challenged cacher I sympathise absolutely - I passed on one the other day because I wasn’t prepared to shin up a lamppost in my suit - but I’m not sure an attribute would really help.

 

It’s just too subjective. 1.8 m might be fine for you or me, but what about a person a centimetre or two shorter?  Just a couple of centimetres out of reach is still out of reach. 

 

Chances are that a (tall) CO wouldn’t see the cache as ‘hard to reach’ anyway.  And as a (short) cacher, I’d be unlikely to filter them out - always hopeful!  I’m still waiting for my growth spurt. ;-)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, IceColdUK said:

It’s just too subjective. 1.8 m might be fine for you or me, but what about a person a centimetre or two shorter?  Just a couple of centimetres out of reach is still out of reach. 

I realize it's subjective, but so are attributes like Significant hike (what's the difference between Significant hike and Long hike anyway?), Difficult climbing,  and Dangerous area or Recommended for kids, yet they exist. That's the thing with attributes - they're more warnings to let players plan accordingly than set in stone facts. Even if not all caches would be categorized accordingly, even some being marked would make a difference.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post

Sounds to me like what OP really wants is for CO to state the height of cache from ground level somewhere on cache page. Then she can decide whether to bring her TOTT on the hunt.

 

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, hydreg said:

I propose adding "Hard To Reach" attribute to indicate cacheds that are *drumroll please* hard to reach for shorter players (let's say those placed higher than 1.8m/5.9ft above ground, but do not require climbing and no means of getting the cache down is provided).

 

First of all: I am rather tall and my girlfriend is rather small (we make two normal people together ;-)) so I have no problems myself but I understand the problem completely.

 

In fact it is an interesting idea but I do not like the name as "hard to reach" may be anything. "cache is high" may be better but as there are several attributes for hiking distances I think we should need several attributes for high caches: "cache is below 1,80 metres", "cache is between 1,80 ans 2 metres", ... and the problem is: the higher the cache is positioned the more important is the given height. No one cares if the cache is 1,50 or 1,65 or even 1,75 metres high (99% of the cachers can grab this) but if it is 2,30 or 2,35 or 2,40 metres high that might be important - for me and for you it is probably in the area of 1,80 to 1,90 were it changes from "reachable" to "out of reach"? How will you put all this in one attribute?

 

I have seen many listings saying "the cache it 2 metres high" when it were about 2,30 in the end - probably the owners don't care as they are as big as I am. Though I have no problems reaching those I always post the difference to my log and ask the owner to change it.

 

You might add one attribute only saying "higher than 2 metres" (I'd take this height, perhaps there is a better one considering the "normal" cacher) and if ever an owner uses it he should be "forced" to give the height in the listing or additional hint.

Of course you do not use the attribute for climbing caches or if you just have to climb on a small wall to reach the cache - that still gives a higher terraing rating (as by the way any cache thigher than 2 metres should give).

 

In the end such important details should be visible in the listing. An attribute only can give you a clew to read the listing - but shouldn't you do so anyway!?

 

Jochen

Share this post


Link to post

I wouldn't care to see this if it was requiredSome caches are meant to be tough to find , with D/T and common sense as clues.

Requiring a "height rating"  just further dumbs-down this simple hobby.  

I feel the terrain rating, hints,  and the cache description are enough help.   :)

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

I wouldn't care to see this if it was requiredSome caches are meant to be tough to find , with D/T and common sense as clues.

 

The point is that some caches are not meant to be tough to find but, by some genetic quirk of nature, are significantly harder for some than others.

Share this post


Link to post
30 minutes ago, IceColdUK said:

The point is that some caches are not meant to be tough to find but, by some genetic quirk of nature, are significantly harder for some than others.

 

The "point" is if a cache is "hard to reach" and even including how high, that gives all cachers an idea where that cache is located.

Couple years ago, a few people tied vinyl surveyors tape at GZ, on mostly already low D/T hides. 

Meant as help, but spoiled it for a lot of folks. 

Saying "how high" a cache is hidden in it's spot (I feel) does the same.   I'd like to find it for myself, thanks...

 

Edited by cerberus1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

 "Hard To Reach"  is not the best name for the attribute because it is as vague as geocaching guidelines. Without exact height measurement it would be impossible to know whether you are able to reach the cache or not. You need more categories depending how tall the player is.

Share this post


Link to post
40 minutes ago, arisoft said:

 "Hard To Reach"  is not the best name for the attribute because it is as vague as geocaching guidelines. Without exact height measurement it would be impossible to know whether you are able to reach the cache or not. You need more categories depending how tall the player is.

 

Handicaching.com provides accessibility ratings for geocaches.  There's a height rating and more.

http://www.handicaching.com/

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, arisoft said:

"Hard To Reach"  is not the best name for the attribute because it is as vague as geocaching guidelines.

I sometimes refer to caches that are overhead and out of reach as "elevated caches". That word might work.

 

But as someone who is 6'3" (190cm) and can touch an 8' (244cm) ceiling while standing flat-footed, I have a different perspective on what makes a cache "hard to reach". And I tend to use the phrase "elevated cache" to refer to something that is well out of reach of everyone, that requires climbing or the use of an extension pole for everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

Saying "how high" a cache is hidden in it's spot (I feel) does the same.   I'd like to find it for myself, thanks...

 

You must hate those ‘wheelchair accessible’ caches. 😉

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
53 minutes ago, IceColdUK said:

You must hate those ‘wheelchair accessible’ caches. 😉

 

Don't know.  Not a one has been accurate.   :D

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, IceColdUK said:

 

The point is that some caches are not meant to be tough to find but, by some genetic quirk of nature, are significantly harder for some than others.

 

Not to be mean to shorter members of the community, but wouldn't a shorter person be the best person to judge their reaching capabilities and perhaps compensate... for example, I know a shorter geocacher and he often has a step ladder in the back of the car for this very purpose.

 

We're all different in terms of size, shape and physical ability, and we all make our way through life doing what we need to do...

  • Upvote 2
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, funkymunkyzone said:

 

Not to be mean to shorter members of the community, but wouldn't a shorter person be the best person to judge their reaching capabilities and perhaps compensate... for example, I know a shorter geocacher and he often has a step ladder in the back of the car for this very purpose.

 

We're all different in terms of size, shape and physical ability, and we all make our way through life doing what we need to do...

 

I don’t think there’s a problem that needs fixing here, and I really don’t see an attribute being particularly useful.

 

Of course, I’m aware of my limitations (I’ve always been short!), but it’s still disappointing to turn up for an ‘easy’ cache and not be able to retrieve it because you’re a few centimetres below average height.  I can only think of a couple of times this has stopped me, so it really is no big deal.  The last was after a business meeting in central London, and I’d forgotten my box. 😉

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post

Maybe just like the arbitrary hike range attribuites (<1km, 1-10km, >10km) there could be height range attributes (<5', 5-7', >7')?  :laughing:

Adding the attribute is entirely optional, but say you have a low d/t cache, adding the >7' attribute can be helpful to those for whom the height would boost the D or T?

(I fully don't expect a height range attribute to be implemented, but it's a neat thought experiment)

It could still be puzzlingly vague if say you place a Winter Friendly Available In Winter attribute with <5' ;P

Share this post


Link to post
54 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Maybe just like the arbitrary hike range attribuites (<1km, 1-10km, >10km) there could be height range attributes (<5', 5-7', >7')?  :laughing:

Adding the attribute is entirely optional, but say you have a low d/t cache, adding the >7' attribute can be helpful to those for whom the height would boost the D or T?

(I fully don't expect a height range attribute to be implemented, but it's a neat thought experiment)

It could still be puzzlingly vague if say you place a Winter Friendly Available In Winter attribute with <5' ;P

 

I more often see something like "Look Low", or "Eye Level", or some relation to eye level.  And I use that as a general hint about where to look.  I don't obsess on "how am I supposed to know where someone six feet tall keeps their eyes!".  Which I see asked sometimes around the Fora.  If you require cache info down to the millimeter, that's not gonna happen.  It's hard enough to convince finders to put the container back into its spot.

 

And not everybody can access every cache upon arrival, described or not.  It's OK to not get'em all.

 

Edited by kunarion
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
30 minutes ago, kunarion said:

I more often see something like "Look Low", or "Eye Level", or some relation to eye level.  And I use that as a general hint about where to look.  I don't obsess on "how am I supposed to know where someone six feet tall keeps their eyes!".

That reminds me of a cache where the hint was "eye level". I'm 6'3" (190cm) and I had to reach up for it. I haven't met many geocachers taller than 7' (213cm), but apparently that cache was hidden by one of them.

  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 2
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not in favor of a 'Hard to Reach' or 'Elevated Cache' attribute. If the CO wants to point this out, they can do so in the cache description. In fact, most of the time, in my area, the CO does put this in the cache description. In some cases, it is to let the person know what to look for, so the cachers don't trample other areas, like planter boxes, near GZ.

 

Hard to reach can mean much more than 'its up high'. It could be at the bottom of a crevice. Maybe the opening is too small for a large hand to fit in. I did a cache that was 12 feet up an easy to climb tree. There was a perfect branch to sit on and the cache was less than a foot away. Is this cache hard to reach? There are a couple of hard to reach caches nearby, they are ammo cans on top of abandoned telegraph poles. The cache descriptions all say to not attempt the cache unless you have the means to put the cache back in place. That is enough of a hint as to where the cache is located.

 

And, is a cache elevated if it is up on a ledge underground in an abandoned railway tunnel? :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

It could still be puzzlingly vague if say you place a Winter Friendly Available In Winter attribute with <5' ;P

 

It never snows here, in fact winter is the best time of year for caching because it isn't as hot and humid as the rest of the year, but 43 of the 329 caches within 16km of me have the Available in Winter attribute. I still haven't figured out what it's supposed to be saying about those caches that makes them different to the other 286.

 

Back on topic, most of my caches are tucked under rock ledges so are usually at or close to ground level and sometimes require crawling into a confined space to reach. Maybe they need a Not recommended for tall people with arthritic knees attribute.

Edited by barefootjeff
  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

Back on topic, most of my caches are tucked under rock ledges so are usually at or close to ground level and sometimes require crawling into a confined space to reach. Maybe they need a Not recommended for tall people with arthritic knees attribute.

 

I realise this is tongue in cheek, but it does illustrate the OPs problem: compare ‘not recommended for tall people’ with ‘not possible for short people’.

 

If you’re tall there may be things about the placement of a cache that makes it a little  harder.  But if you’re short, it can mean a step change (or perhaps, a step ladder change!) in difficulty.

  • Love 2

Share this post


Link to post
21 hours ago, funkymunkyzone said:

 

Not to be mean to shorter members of the community, but wouldn't a shorter person be the best person to judge their reaching capabilities and perhaps compensate... for example, I know a shorter geocacher and he often has a step ladder in the back of the car for this very purpose.

 

We're all different in terms of size, shape and physical ability, and we all make our way through life doing what we need to do...

That's fine for drive bys, but what about after walking several kms the 1.5 terrain rated cache is found to be out of reach, with no way of getting to it. Do you really expect the short person to lug a ladder, just in case.

  • Love 2

Share this post


Link to post

A starting point would be not to take your own height as the norm, but check the average height for your own local population. If you want to make the cache easy to reach for most of the population, use the female height. Anything above that will be hard to reach for many. I am taller than the average female, but I still have difficulty reaching many caches that are meant to be easy to reach, because the hider was too egocentric when placing their 1.5T cache. (Until I saw these statistics, I thought I was short :o :))

 

This is from the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

"HEIGHT AND WEIGHT

In 2011-12, the average Australian man (18 years and over) was 175.6 cm tall and weighed 85.9 kg. The average Australian woman was 161.8 cm tall and weighed 71.1 kg.

In general, older people are shorter than younger people with the average male aged 75 years and over (169.7 cm) being 8.1 cm shorter than one aged 18-24 years (177.8 cm). Women aged 75 years and over (155.7 cm) were also 8.1 cm shorter than women aged 18-24 years (163.8 cm) on average."

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

That's fine for drive bys, but what about after walking several kms the 1.5 terrain rated cache is found to be out of reach, with no way of getting to it. Do you really expect the short person to lug a ladder, just in case.

 

I'm 175cm, so not especially tall or short, but I've done a couple of long hikes (one over 5km of hilly terrain) and found I couldn't reach the cache when I got there, not so much because of my height but because I felt uncomfortable climbing unaided to where I needed to be to reach the cache. So I returned, redoing the hike with a telescopic ladder strapped to my back, and made the find.

 

LadderPack.jpg.9790bced0b9a552e36f7eb46faf99efe.jpg

  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

I'm 175cm, so not especially tall or short, but I've done a couple of long hikes (one over 5km of hilly terrain) and found I couldn't reach the cache when I got there, not so much because of my height but because I felt uncomfortable climbing unaided to where I needed to be to reach the cache. So I returned, redoing the hike with a telescopic ladder strapped to my back, and made the find.

 

LadderPack.jpg.9790bced0b9a552e36f7eb46faf99efe.jpg

LOL, not for me. Two days ago four of us lugged a boat up and down hill for a km on our shoulders or head (me) depending on height, and that was bad enough. And there were four of us.

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/2/2019 at 4:02 AM, hydreg said:

"Hard To Reach" attribute would vastly improve quality of caching for shorter players

 

I am one of those "shorter" players, or vertically challenged as some like to call it.  And I don't think an attribute will help improve my quality of caching - height varies greatly from person to person and it is hard to define levels (as suggested above) without potentially giving away the hide.  The length of a hike and elevation change are physical constants that can be given along with the difficulty of the terrain.  The height of the cache is too much of a giveaway, IMHO, and that can easily change if someone replaces the hanger in a tree a branch or two lower or higher than it originally was.

 

Yes, I have come across caches that were out of my reach.  I came back later with a TOTT (human or otherwise) - and made note in my log that I needed assistance.  Usually reading the logs, hints, and descriptions (or knowing the CO's and how they typically hide things!) lets me know that a cache may be out of my reach, and I will need to come prepared.  This is probably an exaggerated example - but the cache desciption does say it's a high hanger and you 'll need a TOTT.  We brought one.  It wasn't enough!  We came back later with reinforcements (and a step stool!) to make the grab. GC898JF

 

I stil have one that I saw but couldn't reach - others have gotten it without "help" - I need a bit of extra reach.  It's all part of the game, and you learn to read logs for clues and carry a grabber or a stool for those times when "just above shoulder height" means I can't reach it without help.  My shoulders are way below the CO's!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
33 minutes ago, CAVinoGal said:

This is probably an exaggerated example - but the cache desciption does say it's a high hanger and you 'll need a TOTT.  We brought one.  It wasn't enough!  We came back later with reinforcements (and a step stool!) to make the grab. GC898JF

 

 

I had something similar on a T5 up-a-tree cache that said a ladder was required, so I took along my telescopic ladder, carried it several hundred metres through mud and bush from the nearest road (and it started raining halfway there) only to find when I got to the tree that my ladder was about a metre too short. About six months later I happened to mention it to a caching friend and she offered to meet me at GZ with her extension ladder, which made it easy.

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

That's fine for drive bys, but what about after walking several kms the 1.5 terrain rated cache is found to be out of reach, with no way of getting to it. Do you really expect the short person to lug a ladder, just in case.

 

I'm a fairly big guy with big fingers.  So should there be an attribute for fiddly caches in tight spots too?  Just how ridiculous should it get?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, funkymunkyzone said:

 

I'm a fairly big guy with big fingers.  So should there be an attribute for fiddly caches in tight spots too?  Just how ridiculous should it get?

I have come upon many more caches high up than in fiddly spots. Anyhow it's easier to find a stick or something to get a cache out of a fiddly spot, than it is to reach something without an aid.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

I'm 175cm, so not especially tall or short, but I've done a couple of long hikes (one over 5km of hilly terrain) and found I couldn't reach the cache when I got there, not so much because of my height but because I felt uncomfortable climbing unaided to where I needed to be to reach the cache. So I returned, redoing the hike with a telescopic ladder strapped to my back, and made the find.

 

LadderPack.jpg.9790bced0b9a552e36f7eb46faf99efe.jpg

 

What's that ladder cost?

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, L0ne.R said:

What's that ladder cost? 

 

The telescopic ladder is a GODSEND!  I leave it in my car, because you never know. You'd be amaze how many caches are suddenly accessible with a 12 1/2' TOTT.

 

There are many variants, but they're typically between $80-150 USD depending on height and brand.  Well worth the purchase for the amount of use it gets!  Lightweight, portable, durable (I've used mine as a bridge a couple of times too, heh)

 

Here's a 16 foot version, $280USD.  Prices I think get higher faster with the extra height (probably more engineering R&D for safety with that style of telescopic construction at that height)

Edited by thebruce0
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
 
 
 
 
On 9/2/2019 at 11:06 PM, funkymunkyzone said:

 

 for example, I know a shorter geocacher and he often has a step ladder in the back of the car for this very purpose.

 

 

I tried it. Step ladders, chairs and boxes do not work. They are precarious/dangerous to use. The ground is not flat next to trees. 

 

But women can always follow these instructions (seems fair, equitable, and convenient ^_^):

 

How to Work With Ladders on Uneven Ground
  1. Dig the ground with a shovel to make it as level as possible. ...
  2. Lay a 12-inch-square board over the leveled area to provide extra stability for the ladder legs. ...
  3. Invite someone to hold the ladder while you climb up it. ...
  4. Set the ladder up on the ground and lean it against the structure you're going to climb.
  • Surprised 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

 

What's that ladder cost?

 

Mine's a Bullet Pro 3.8 metre which currently sells in Australia for $149 although Edisons, the distributor, shows its list price on their webpage as $319.

 

5 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

I tried it. Step ladders, chairs and boxes do not work. They are precarious/dangerous to use. The ground is not flat next to trees. 

 

 

Whenever I take the ladder out I also take rope so I can tie it off if I'm not happy with its stability. Most times I've used it, it's been for climbing up rocks rather than trees, and on occasion I've been able to wedge the top of the ladder into a crevice to hold it securely against any sideways movement.

 

image.png.1e785bb9ef734381f56f7663ea10ade5.png

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

I have come upon many more caches high up than in fiddly spots. Anyhow it's easier to find a stick or something to get a cache out of a fiddly spot, than it is to reach something without an aid.

The stick might help! LOL

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
20 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Most times I've used it, it's been for climbing up rocks rather than trees, and on occasion I've been able to wedge the top of the ladder into a crevice to hold it securely against any sideways movement. 

 

Likewise in trees, if it's a little shifty you can sit a corner in a nook or V of a branch, or even thread a branch under the highest rung if you're uncertain of both left and right shifting.  Lots of options with such a flexible and versatile telescopic ladder :) A geocacher's must-have!

Share this post


Link to post

We started out using ladders, but realized that if our hiking was going UL,  everything else should come close.

With much of my area wooded, rather than a ladder, I've carried an etrier and around 50ft of rope to access "higher" caches.

Weighs around four pounds and fits in one of my tiny packs.

With many lower branches worn or missing by people or natural means,  that's often just the "boost" needed to get where I need to be.   :)

      We did one once that was on top of a huge boulder in another state. 

I strung rope across, tied to a nearby tree, and the other 2/3rds attached her webbed fire-escape ladder to it.

That's what she wanted to use,  and didn't really mind that it weighed twelve pounds more than my setup.  It worked...

      Years ago  bought a rolled, cabled caving ladder, and works for what it was made for ... dropping into/out of a cave, with it against something .

Weighs around ten pounds alone and just sorta-okay for trees, most trees not a straight run up.  

Share this post


Link to post

First time posting here! I was in the forum section for something totally different, and (of course) got distracted.

I agree with the suggestion of having height breakdowns similar in form to hiking distances. My suggestions would be Less than 4' tall (to include kiddies), greater than 4' + less than 6' (which probably would work for most adults), and greater than 6' (basketball players). I know they might not be perfect, but at least it's a start?

You can't make attributes saying "not suitable for short people" or "not suitable for tall people", again because it's a matter of definition. What is considered tall? What is considered short?

I don't believe it should be a mandatory requirement on a cache submission. It's just a little bit of extra info for those who want it.

  • Upvote 3
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, TeamFry49 said:

First time posting here! I was in the forum section for something totally different, and (of course) got distracted.

I agree with the suggestion of having height breakdowns similar in form to hiking distances. My suggestions would be Less than 4' tall (to include kiddies), greater than 4' + less than 6' (which probably would work for most adults), and greater than 6' (basketball players). I know they might not be perfect, but at least it's a start?

You can't make attributes saying "not suitable for short people" or "not suitable for tall people", again because it's a matter of definition. What is considered tall? What is considered short?

I don't believe it should be a mandatory requirement on a cache submission. It's just a little bit of extra info for those who want it.

I like the suggestion, as long as the measurements also come in metric, for geocachers outside of the USA.

  • Funny 1
  • Surprised 1

Share this post


Link to post

Women who are of average height should carry a telescoping ladder around to all caches (except T1), so that their reach equals that of average men.

Or stick to only T1 caches. Or cache with someone 5"10" or taller.  

 

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

Women who are of average height should carry a telescoping ladder around to all caches (except T1), so that their reach equals that of average men.

Or stick to only T1 caches. Or cache with someone 5"10" or taller.  

 

 

I doubt a ladder would be of much use to anyone (even a hobbit) on any of my hides regardless of T rating. Some knee and elbow pads perhaps...

 

DSC_0047.jpg.005cb8c699ac1ef6be58f1e0d3505357.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

Women who are of average height should carry a telescoping ladder around to all caches (except T1), so that their reach equals that of average men.

Or stick to only T1 caches. Or cache with someone or taller.  

 

Ah yes, the old thing that men are the norm and women are the add on and things should be based on the male. Biblical. I don't know about all countries, but females slightly out number males in Australia, so female is actually the norm.

You must also live in a very tall population. We are shorties in Australia. 5"10" is way above the average height here. In old measurement for males that is about 5.7 feet here.

(Pasted from above).

This is from the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

"HEIGHT AND WEIGHT

In 2011-12, the average Australian man (18 years and over) was 175.6 cm tall and weighed 85.9 kg. The average Australian woman was 161.8 cm tall and weighed 71.1 kg.

In general, older people are shorter than younger people with the average male aged 75 years and over (169.7 cm) being 8.1 cm shorter than one aged 18-24 years (177.8 cm). Women aged 75 years and over (155.7 cm) were also 8.1 cm shorter than women aged 18-24 years (163.8 cm) on average."

  • Upvote 1
  • Love 2

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

Women who are of average height should carry a telescoping ladder around to all caches (except T1), so that their reach equals that of average men.

Or stick to only T1 caches. Or cache with someone 5"10" or taller.  

 

 

Please explain if this is supposed to be witty joke or it really is the incredible dismissal of women it reads as ?

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, hal-an-tow said:

 

Please explain if this is supposed to be witty joke or it really is the incredible dismissal of women it reads as ?

 

I said it because it sounds wrong. Doesn't it?

 

This topic comes up a fair amount in the forums over probably all the years geocaching.com has existed. I summarized the advice that is often offered.

Women make suggestions and are told 'bring a ladder/footstool/box to all caches'. And because Groundspeak has done nothing to help, it comes across that the company agrees.

 

If the average height man can assume, based on guidelines and the D/T chart, that they should not need a ladder for a T3* or under cache,  an average size woman should have the same rules apply.

 

When the rules apply to the average height of a woman, then everyone can assume T3* and under will not "Require specialized equipment". 

 

*it should be T4 or under but again everyone seems to want to rate their caches lower and lower

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/4/2019 at 11:10 AM, L0ne.R said:

 

I tried it. Step ladders, chairs and boxes do not work. They are precarious/dangerous to use. The ground is not flat next to trees. 

 

But women can always follow these instructions (seems fair, equitable, and convenient ^_^):

 

How to Work With Ladders on Uneven Ground
  1. Dig the ground with a shovel to make it as level as possible. ...
  2. Lay a 12-inch-square board over the leveled area to provide extra stability for the ladder legs. ...
  3. Invite someone to hold the ladder while you climb up it. ...
  4. Set the ladder up on the ground and lean it against the structure you're going to climb.

 

Man, woman, or child ... this sounds like a list of ways to work with ladders around the home, not in the woods to access a cache.

Much simpler is to keep a ladder chock with your ladder.  It's simply a triangular shaped piece of strong wood, like a woodworking shim, just much bigger.  Very simple to make from scrap lumber, or you can probably purchase one.  Try googling "ladder chock".

 

Having been a paint contractor in a previous life, I'm very comfortable with all sorts and sizes of ladder - and own most - including setting rope ladders with a well-placed plumb-bob toss.  Except these new-fangled ;) telescoping ladders. I've been pricing them out, and am overjoyed to find out they carry them at our local [remove brand name] paint store, since the big-box stores here require special order (and $$ for that). 

 

Appreciate @barefootjeff posting the photo, as that's exactly how I was picturing packing it, and was wondering if it would impede my walking.  Looks like my legs' "backstroke" would fit just between the uprights.  Thanks.

Edited by VAVAPAM
no-ad

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, L0ne.R said:

If the average height man can assume, based on guidelines and the D/T chart, that they should not need a ladder for a T3* or under cache, 

 

Just a heads-up: This would not be a safe assumption in our area. It might just mean that there are easily reached branches or toe-holds. Example: There's a 3.5 that requires shimmying up a really fat tree ... but it does have a few hand/toeholds (thus, not a 4).  Since the access point hangs over the river, I'd be very surprised that even a very tall person could reach it.

 

Even so, being below average height, I *might* bring a major TOTT after seeing logs that mention needing one, but it's extremely rare.  When I do this, I leave it in (or on) the car, and eyeball the actual placement first. So far, I've been able to access them by other means. (I really love climbing trees, though!) The only one that really gave me trouble was a T4 placed by a tall CO.  I had to stand on my pack to even reach the first hand-hold.  I now definitely carry a collapsing stool that fits flat in my pack.  I also have several sundry "grabber" tools that extend my reach and act almost as well as a borrowed child ... and don't require snacks or water. :D

 

As to the bigger picture, the D/T ratings are what they are (relative to either the CO or the cacher).  A D2 cache may seem pretty straight-forward to an average cacher while  an inexperienced cacher should expect to have a bit harder time finding it.  A T3 cache that isn't out of reach for the average height person probably means I'm either going to need to use a TOTT of some sort, or practice a little athletic altered elevation. I say, "Know yourself; know the norms." I don't expect those to be changed because of my limitations; I try to make up for my limitations by adding tools to neutralize them.

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

If the average height man can assume, based on guidelines and the D/T chart, that they should not need a ladder for a T3* or under cache,  an average size woman should have the same rules apply.

 

When the rules apply to the average height of a woman, then everyone can assume T3* and under will not "Require specialized equipment". 

 

According to Goldenwattle's figures, I'm right on average height for an Australian male, but I don't make any assumptions about needing specialised equipment based on the terrain rating, except for a T5 when I know I'll need something (around here that usually means a boat although there are a couple of tree-climbing T5s). I have a wonky sense of balance due to an inner ear ailment so I've needed my ladder on caches everyone else can happily climb to. There's a T2.5 I did a couple of weeks back (GC1K67W) where I needed rope to get down to GZ but everyone else has managed it without. Conversely, I'll happily do T4 hikes that some of my less agile caching friends would struggle with, except when I injured my knee last year and couldn't manage anything much higher than a T2.

 

Terrain rating is by its very nature just a generalised guide and every cache is different, so I'll look at other things like attributes, the description, previous logs and, what is often most helpful, the gallery of posted photos. If I see images like this I know it's one I'm likely to struggle with regardless of its T rating:

 

5d1e3220-28c4-4cee-b8e5-912de70c9f3f_l.j

Share this post


Link to post

Try buying shirts with 36" sleeves.  Used to be available in most stores.  Now, very hard to find.  King Richard was used to define dimensions.  He must have been a large guy!  His foot was a foot.  From his nose to his wrist was a yard.  I can grab lots of caches that smaller geocachers cannot.  Just try buying shirts with 36" sleeves!

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

According to Goldenwattle's figures, I'm right on average height for an Australian male, but I don't make any assumptions about needing specialised equipment based on the terrain rating, except for a T5 when I know I'll need something (around here that usually means a boat although there are a couple of tree-climbing T5s). I have a wonky sense of balance due to an inner ear ailment so I've needed my ladder on caches everyone else can happily climb to. There's a T2.5 I did a couple of weeks back (GC1K67W) where I needed rope to get down to GZ but everyone else has managed it without. Conversely, I'll happily do T4 hikes that some of my less agile caching friends would struggle with, except when I injured my knee last year and couldn't manage anything much higher than a T2.

 

Terrain rating is by its very nature just a generalised guide and every cache is different, so I'll look at other things like attributes, the description, previous logs and, what is often most helpful, the gallery of posted photos. If I see images like this I know it's one I'm likely to struggle with regardless of its T rating:

 

5d1e3220-28c4-4cee-b8e5-912de70c9f3f_l.j

Looking at those on that outcrop, my guess is that there is an easy way there. (Actually they were ABS figures; not mine :))

Edited by Goldenwattle
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
39 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

Looking at those on that outcrop, my guess is that there is an easy way there. (Actually they were ABS figures; not mine :))

 

Um, no, it's a T4 and deserving every bit of it (GC6MT5R). Don't let appearances fool you, those people have done some caches I wouldn't even dream of attempting. When I did that one, I crawled out along the neck - it was one of the most nerve-wracking caches I've ever done.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

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...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

×
×
  • Create New...