Handicap accessible

[+GawrshImGoofy]

I was reading that anything with a terrain of 1 has to be handicap accessible. What exactly is considered handicap accessible? I am placing new cache and it has a gravel walking path around it but the cache is going to be roughly 5 1/2 feet off the ground. A person in a wheel chair could get to it but I don't know if they could reach it. Maybe I looked over it but I am just a little confused on the guidelines for what is and isn't considered handicap accessible. 

 

Thank you

[+Max and 99]

10 minutes ago, GawrshImGoofy said:

I was reading that anything with a terrain of 1 has to be handicap accessible. What exactly is considered handicap accessible? I am placing new cache and it has a gravel walking path around it but the cache is going to be roughly 5 1/2 feet off the ground. A person in a wheel chair could get to it but I don't know if they could reach it. Maybe I looked over it but I am just a little confused on the guidelines for what is and isn't considered handicap accessible. 

 

Thank you

The one terrain is supposed to be wheelchair accessible. My favorite caching partner is in a wheelchair and there are a few 1 terrain caches that he cannot even get to. in my opinion one terrain means he should be able to get to it and reach it in his wheelchair.

[+niraD]

16 minutes ago, GawrshImGoofy said:

What exactly is considered handicap accessible?

Good question. I've known a number of people who have used wheelchairs. Their capabilities have varied widely. And the reality is that many cache owners have very little idea what is or is not accessible to a "typical" geocacher who uses a wheelchair.

 

But there is a way to assess accessibility in more detail here: http://www.handicaching.com/

[+GawrshImGoofy]

4 minutes ago, niraD said:

Good question. I've known a number of people who have used wheelchairs. Their capabilities have varied widely. And the reality is that many cache owners have very little idea what is or is not accessible to a "typical" geocacher who uses a wheelchair.

 

But there is a way to assess accessibility in more detail here: http://www.handicaching.com/

 

Thank you, I will look that over :). 

[+coachstahly]

From Keystone back in December of 2006.  The article link doesn't appear to work, but considering it's 14 years old, that's not too surprising.

Quote

 

When someone submits a cache in my review territory, rates it one star for terrain, but doesn't use the wheelchair attribute, they receive the following notice:

 

  Quote 

Your new cache submission will be published momentarily, but I would ask you to please double-check to make sure the terrain is rated properly. If you used the cache rating system link ( http://www.clayjar.com/gcrs/ ) when you submitted the cache, you will note that a 1 star terrain cache should be wheelchair accessible. If that's the case, great! (Please consider using the handicapped accessible "cache attribute" to let people know this.) If it's not wheelchair accessible, then the terrain should be at least 1.5 stars. For more information, please see this article: http://www.todayscacher.com/2004/sep/outdoors.asp#disable

 

Thanks,

Keystone

Geocaching.com Volunteer Cache Reviewer

 

I commend the linked article for everyone to read.

 

 

Edited April 30, 2020 by Keystone
fixed quote of my old post

[+niraD]

4 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

I commend the linked article for everyone to read.

The URL looks dead. The Wayback Machine still has a copy though:

https://web.archive.org/web/20101209085942/http://www.todayscacher.com/2004/sep/outdoors.asp

[+coachstahly]

43 minutes ago, GawrshImGoofy said:

I was reading that anything with a terrain of 1 has to be handicap accessible. What exactly is considered handicap accessible? I am placing new cache and it has a gravel walking path around it but the cache is going to be roughly 5 1/2 feet off the ground. A person in a wheel chair could get to it but I don't know if they could reach it. Maybe I looked over it but I am just a little confused on the guidelines for what is and isn't considered handicap accessible. 

 

Thank you

 

Based on the article, it appears that your potential cache is a 1.5 T instead of a 1 T, due to the gravel on the path.

[+ecanderson]

I keep wondering why, after gc.com 'broke' the terrain rating, that the "Wheelchair accessible" attribute remains available for use.  Seems now to be redundant since they appear to be mutually inclusive.

 

[+cerberus1]

1 hour ago, GawrshImGoofy said:

I was reading that anything with a terrain of 1 has to be handicap accessible. What exactly is considered handicap accessible? I am placing new cache and it has a gravel walking path around it but the cache is going to be roughly 5 1/2 feet off the ground.

A person in a wheel chair could get to it but I don't know if they could reach it.

Maybe I looked over it but I am just a little confused on the guidelines for what is and isn't considered handicap accessible. 

 

Like others, though the guidelines don't get specific,  I'd also say your cache is a 1.5 because of the height.

A relative of mine  (and a cacher) is in a wheel chair most of the time.  He has a w/c model made for terrain more than a parking lot. 

 - They're able to stand,  and easily reach "roughly" 5 1/2 feet, but do you think most will ?

If you're looking to provide a cache for the handicapped (that "1" says so...) , you could be more attentive to all their issues.     

 

A friend we cache rarely with can't leave their chair at all,  and uses a "grabber" to retrieve caches on the ground.

Didn't really want to be rude, but I finally said I'll replace 'em when we're out.  The other 2/3rds coulda wrung my neck...

Ever try to replace and re-hide regular/large caches with a grabber ?  Takes a long time.     

[+barefootjeff]

23 minutes ago, ecanderson said:

I keep wondering why, after gc.com 'broke' the terrain rating, that the "Wheelchair accessible" attribute remains available for use.  Seems now to be redundant since they appear to be mutually inclusive.

 

 

One scenario I can think of is where a cache is accessible by someone in a wheelchair but the distance to the cache from the car park is more than 0.8km, which would necessitate a terrain rating of 2 (or higher). In that situation, I think it would be reasonable to use the attribute even if it's not a T1.

[+Harry Dolphin]

I had always wanted to hide a 5/1 cache.  Hard mystery, but it was accessible by wheelchair.  The container could be reached by a cacher sitting in a wheelchair.  

[+barefootjeff]

13 minutes ago, Harry Dolphin said:

I had always wanted to hide a 5/1 cache.  Hard mystery, but it was accessible by wheelchair.  The container could be reached by a cacher sitting in a wheelchair.  

 

There are seven of those in my state (New South Wales, Australia): five puzzles, a challenge cache and a damned-hard-to-find traditional.

[+cerberus1]

There's a park nearby that a few chair-bound people travel for fresh air and exercise.

Packed anti-skid material (maybe as2 or 3) they get along fine.  Once they hit crushed stone and gravel sections, many are heading back.

The few times we've chatted, it's their chair.  It's simply not made for that kinda terrain, bogged down.

Outdoors people usually fix that as soon as possible.  

We tend to look at maneuvering as "just rolling along",  and it's often not so.

 

We had a 1.5/1, had a thin sheet of slate cut to cover the hole at the bottom of the tree.  Replaced a lot with folks dropping it.   

We got fewer handicapped cachers then we thought on such a nice, flat trail.

Paving that trail, raising  the edge,  meant there's now a drop-off from the trails edge, and we were gonna have to rate it a 1.5.

It got muggled for it's last time right around then, and archived it instead.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

43 minutes ago, Harry Dolphin said:

I had always wanted to hide a 5/1 cache.  Hard mystery, but it was accessible by wheelchair.  The container could be reached by a cacher sitting in a wheelchair.  

 

I DNFd a cache that was a 4/1.  It was hidden on a tank that was on a flat grassy area and although the T1 rating narrowed down the search area considerably, I couldn't find it.  

[+Goldenwattle]

1 hour ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

 

I DNFd a cache that was a 4/1.  It was hidden on a tank that was on a flat grassy area and although the T1 rating narrowed down the search area considerably, I couldn't find it.  

There's one like that in outer Sydney that I have tried to find several times. Although only marked 3/1. 21 finds and 13 DNFs, but likely many more unlogged DNFs. I suspect it should be at least a 4D, as most people who find it said they had to get a PAF of some kind. I also suspect it's not a 1T, as there is soft ground made up of wood chips around the structure. I was likely going to call that out for the terrain, but I haven't found the cache to be sure. I sometimes have a person with me when I cache who has limited mobility (although not in a chair) and they would find that soft ground of wood chips boggy and difficult, if not impossible, to walk through. But I need to find that @%$# cache first, before I can comment for sure on that.

[+ecanderson]

4 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

One scenario I can think of is where a cache is accessible by someone in a wheelchair but the distance to the cache from the car park is more than 0.8km, which would necessitate a terrain rating of 2 (or higher). In that situation, I think it would be reasonable to use the attribute even if it's not a T1.

My point exactly!  (Sorry, it was a rhetorical question).  There are several different permutations to consider, none of which require that a T1.0 imply access by a wheelchair.

 

There are 'T1.0' (true rating of the terrain) caches that are NOT accessible by wheelchair unless one were able to then stand up at the site ... I placed and owned several in the past.  Originally, whenever one was on flat, level ground with easy access to that point, and easy access to the cache from that point, it was a T1.0.  IF, in addition, one could access that cache by wheelchair (and because we already had a T1.0, one would assume from a sitting position when using the attribute), then the "Wheelchair accessible" attribute was available to signify this as a separate feature of the cache.  What was wrong with that arrangement?  It would seem to be more accurate than the system we have now, where 1.0 terrain is the same as 1.5 terrain, only with a secondary implication about access to the cache, and the the "Wheelchair accessible" attribute is, if anything, an afterthought sometimes used by COs and sometimes not, since that is now implied by a T1.0.

 

Better to provide both pieces of information individually and accurately, rather than conflating things.  At least I would think it would allow people who roll to caches but can stand briefly on site the additional information they need. 

 

My preference is to return to what things used to be:

1.0 terrain = you can roll there, but whether you can access it depends on your abilities and the attribute...

Wheelchair accessible = even if you can't stand when you get there, you can probably snag this cache.

 

That would, I should think, add a lot of clarity for mobility impaired folks to do their search/sort with better results --- assuming the COs took the time to use the attribute, of course.  Then again, if we're going to nanny this with questions after the CO uses a 1.0T, why not do it sensibly?

Rather than asking the CO whether, when using a 1.0T listing, it is wheelchair accessible, better to immediately ask if the cache can be accessed while sitting in a wheelchar, and automatically flag one with a "Yes" response with the attribute.

 

[+Goldenwattle]

27 minutes ago, ecanderson said:

Wheelchair accessible = even if you can't stand when you get there, you can probably snag this cache.

And how do they return it? I came to one such 1T cache. Good flat concrete path to cache, but the cache was then high up in the rafters. If they were lucky, the wheelchair person might have found a long stick to knock the cache down with, if the nearby tree had been obliging at the time and dropped a suitably long stick in reach of the handicapped person. There was such a stick there when I found that cache, that I was able to pick up and utilise. But there wouldn't always be such a stick, especially after a clean up. But then how would the handicapped person return the cache in this situation? Very hard to throw up a cache and have it land, balance and stay there on a roof beam. They would need to leave it on the floor underneath, where any muggle could find it. Although if they did, I wouldn't blame them, nor have sympathy for the stupid CO.

[+ecanderson]

Same way they got it.  If the attribute is set, the idea is that it is accessible from a sitting position.  That would reasonably apply to all facets of the 'find', including replacement.

 

[Ageleni]

You are thinking of "terrain" as ground only.  Broaden this definition to include the entire environment, and then you will see why a level surface with a cache too high (or too low) to reach from a chair would not be a 1 rating.  It needs to be wheelchair accessible, not just on the ground, but all around the person in the chair.

[+Goldenwattle]

30 minutes ago, Ageleni said:

You are thinking of "terrain" as ground only.  Broaden this definition to include the entire environment, and then you will see why a level surface with a cache too high (or too low) to reach from a chair would not be a 1 rating.  It needs to be wheelchair accessible, not just on the ground, but all around the person in the chair.

Yes, if anyone is unsure, they should sit in a chair with armrests, with something wrapped around their waste to limit their bending ability and then see if they can get and return the cache without standing up. If they can't, it's not 1T. This as well as a short, well sealed, flat path to GZ. Allowing for handicapped people to arrive in a car, easy, spacious parking should be available to.

[+Gill & Tony]

On 5/1/2020 at 7:13 AM, ecanderson said:

I keep wondering why, after gc.com 'broke' the terrain rating, that the "Wheelchair accessible" attribute remains available for use.  Seems now to be redundant since they appear to be mutually inclusive.

 

I have long argued that the wheelchair attribute should mean that the general area around GZ is accessible by someone in a wheelchair and that the terrain rating should indicate whether or not the cache is accessible from the wheelchair.   The point being to indicate that a group including one or more wheelchairs can all get to GZ.

 

If there are a number of caches along a flat level boardwalk they would all have the wheelchair attribute, but the one up the tree might be T3.

[+Goldenwattle]

3 hours ago, Gill & Tony said:

If there are a number of caches along a flat level boardwalk they would all have the wheelchair attribute, but the one up the tree might be T3.

Unfortunately I have found a cache on a marked wheelchair boardwalk rated 1T, when the cache was hidden under the boardwalk. To get the cache the paralysed wheelchair user would have to stand up and walk , step off the boardwalk, get on their hands and knees to reach it. I mentioned in my log that this was not 1T, but the CO never changed the rating. I suspect the CO always expected the wheelchair user to have an able bodied person with them who would fetch the cache for them, but this shouldn't be counted on. That was some years ago. If I find another one like that I will do a NM and if that is ignored a NA. Too many COs don't take this seriously enough and I would hate for a wheelchair bound person to turn up expecting they could manage this cache, but find they were mislead. And it's not only wheelchair bound people who might not have been able to reach this cache. People with other disabilities too might be using the 1T as a guide to caches within their abilities too. I sometimes have a passenger with me who can walk, but would not be physically able to step off the boardwalk and get down and fetch the cache.

[+Gill & Tony]

44 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

Unfortunately I have found a cache on a marked wheelchair boardwalk rated 1T, when the cache was hidden under the boardwalk. To get the cache the paralysed wheelchair user would have to stand up and walk , step off the boardwalk, get on their hands and knees to reach it. I mentioned in my log that this was not 1T, but the CO never changed the rating. I suspect the CO always expected the wheelchair user to have an able bodied person with them who would fetch the cache for them, but this shouldn't be counted on. That was some years ago. If I find another one like that I will do a NM and if that is ignored a NA. Too many COs don't take this seriously enough and I would hate for a wheelchair bound person to turn up expecting they could manage this cache, but find they were mislead. And it's not only wheelchair bound people who might not have been able to reach this cache. People with other disabilities too might be using the 1T as a guide to caches within their abilities too. I sometimes have a passenger with me who can walk, but would not be physically able to step off the boardwalk and get down and fetch the cache.

That would be a perfect situation for my idea.  Attribute says that the area is accessible then the terrain could show that the cache isn't.  Having both to mean the same thing is poor design.

[+Goldenwattle]

22 minutes ago, Gill & Tony said:

That would be a perfect situation for my idea.  Attribute says that the area is accessible then the terrain could show that the cache isn't.  Having both to mean the same thing is poor design.

I like that now when someone makes a cache 1T the wheelchair accessible symbol appears. No one should use 1T if a cache isn't wheelchair accessible.

[+Gill & Tony]

9 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

I like that now when someone makes a cache 1T the wheelchair accessible symbol appears. No one should use 1T if a cache isn't wheelchair accessible.

I completely agree.  T1 should mean that someone sitting in  a wheelchair is able to retrieve and replace the cache unaided.  My wish is that they decouple the attribute from the terrain.  Then the attribute would mean that a wheelchair can reach GZ and the terrain could mean what it says.

 

The stroller accessible attribute doesn't mean that a child in a stroller can reach the cache.  Why should the wheelchair attribute be any different?

[+Goldenwattle]

4 minutes ago, Gill & Tony said:

I completely agree.  T1 should mean that someone sitting in  a wheelchair is able to retrieve and replace the cache unaided.  My wish is that they decouple the attribute from the terrain.  Then the attribute would mean that a wheelchair can reach GZ and the terrain could mean what it says.

 

The stroller accessible attribute doesn't mean that a child in a stroller can reach the cache.  Why should the wheelchair attribute be any different?

I like them joined together. 1.5T is low enough for easy terrain that isn't wheelchair accessible.

[+NanCycle]

4 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

Unfortunately I have found a cache on a marked wheelchair boardwalk rated 1T, when the cache was hidden under the boardwalk. To get the cache the paralysed wheelchair user would have to stand up and walk , step off the boardwalk, get on their hands and knees to reach it. I mentioned in my log that this was not 1T, but the CO never changed the rating. I suspect the CO always expected the wheelchair user to have an able bodied person with them who would fetch the cache for them, but this shouldn't be counted on. That was some years ago. If I find another one like that I will do a NM and if that is ignored a NA. Too many COs don't take this seriously enough and I would hate for a wheelchair bound person to turn up expecting they could manage this cache, but find they were mislead. And it's not only wheelchair bound people who might not have been able to reach this cache. People with other disabilities too might be using the 1T as a guide to caches within their abilities too. I sometimes have a passenger with me who can walk, but would not be physically able to step off the boardwalk and get down and fetch the cache.

I found a cache rated T1 where the cache was under a bridge and it was necessary to climb over a low wall to reach it.  I informed the CO that it was rated incorrectly and was told, basically, to mind my own business.

[+Goldenwattle]

6 minutes ago, NanCycle said:

I found a cache rated T1 where the cache was under a bridge and it was necessary to climb over a low wall to reach it.  I informed the CO that it was rated incorrectly and was told, basically, to mind my own business.

I would consider a NM and if not corrected consider a NA. Likely though if it's that type of CO (I have struck them to) I might just contact a reviewer, because it's my understanding that 1T is the only rating they can act on. Can someone please confirm if this is correct? Some COs are such weak, insecure individuals, that they can't handle any advice.

The only 1T cache I have published, was delayed a week, because I had to explain and describe it to the reviewer, so they could confirm it actually was a 1T. I thought this was a reasonable thing to be expected to do and was not upset that the reviewer wanted information to confirm its terrain rating.

Edited May 10, 2020 by Goldenwattle

[+kunarion]

12 minutes ago, NanCycle said:

I found a cache rated T1 where the cache was under a bridge and it was necessary to climb over a low wall to reach it.  I informed the CO that it was rated incorrectly and was told, basically, to mind my own business.

 

I don't mind my own business .  But I do mention the problem in my online log.  If it's rated T1, it must be easier to walk to than even the default "1.5", so I'll mention it if it's, say, under a bridge.  I also make lots and lots of correction logs on pill bottles that aren't listed as "Micro".  I'm making choices on which cache to hunt based on the description.  It needs to be as close to reality as possible.

[+cerberus1]

1 hour ago, kunarion said:

I don't mind my own business .  But I do mention the problem in my online log. 

If it's rated T1, it must be easier to walk to than even the default "1.5", so I'll mention it if it's, say, under a bridge. 

I also make lots and lots of correction logs on pill bottles that aren't listed as "Micro".  I'm making choices on which cache to hunt based on the description.  It needs to be as close to reality as possible.

Yep. 

We'll make mention in the log, having first-hand knowledge of "wheelchair" hides as well, figuring any future issues, there's at least one more log saying so.

 - We know it's not only our area where folks don't "want to get involved"...

OT, but I've mentioned "pill bottle smalls" in logs since they started appearing.  Some are on one of our favorite hiders.

That's for future hiders too, so they don't have to take trackables or swag, then find that the thing's too tiny to hold 'em.

 

[+Harry Dolphin]

We went for a 1T Earthcache.  Then we found it was a mile from parking, albeit on an easy paced trail.  1T does have distance limitations from parking.  My sister was having hip problems, and didn't want to walk two miles.  I notified the CO, and she changed it to 1.5T.

[+barefootjeff]

1 hour ago, Harry Dolphin said:

We went for a 1T Earthcache.  Then we found it was a mile from parking, albeit on an easy paced trail.  1T does have distance limitations from parking.  My sister was having hip problems, and didn't want to walk two miles.  I notified the CO, and she changed it to 1.5T.

 

Except a 1.5T has the same distance limitation as a 1T:

 

It should have been a 2T, which allows up to two miles, or higher still if the hike was longer than that.

[+Gill & Tony]

10 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

I like them joined together. 1.5T is low enough for easy terrain that isn't wheelchair accessible.

I agree that T1 would require the wheelchair attribute.  It wouldn't make sense to say a cache can be reached by someone sitting in a wheelchair if a wheelchair couldn't get to GZ.  On the other hand, the wheelchair attribute shouldn't require T1.

 

In the T1 definition given above it says that for T1 the wheelchair attribute is required.  Fair enough.  However, I cannot find anything in the rules which says that the wheelchair attribute cannot be used for terrain other than 1.

[+K13]

If the Wheelchair Accessible attribute is used, the cache must be marked as T1.

A T1 cache  does not have to include the Wheelchair Accessible attribute.

[+TmdAndGG]

4 minutes ago, K13 said:

If the Wheelchair Accessible attribute is used, the cache must be marked as T1.

A T1 cache  does not have to include the Wheelchair Accessible attribute.

I thought it was the exact opposite...

[+Gill & Tony]

7 minutes ago, K13 said:

If the Wheelchair Accessible attribute is used, the cache must be marked as T1.

A T1 cache  does not have to include the Wheelchair Accessible attribute.

According to the rule quoted by barefootjeff two posts above yours, you have this the wrong way round.  T1 requires the attribute.

[+K13]

37 minutes ago, K13 said:

If the Wheelchair Accessible attribute is used, the cache must be marked as T1.

A T1 cache  does not have to include the Wheelchair Accessible attribute.

 

This is the way I remember from a couple years ago, but it seems my memory has failed, or things were changed.  Seems backward to me.

Interesting that a T4.5 cache can include the Wheelchair Accessible attribute.

[+Gill & Tony]

43 minutes ago, K13 said:

Interesting that a T4.5 cache can include the Wheelchair Accessible attribute.

That is my problem.  It can't, but it should be able to.

 

I had a cache at a location accessible by wheelchair but in a position which required standing.  I originally had T1.5 with the wheelchair attribute.  This was rejected by the reviewer.  I had to remove the attribute.

[yrcko]

I have a cache (GC62V51) that has the wheelchair attribute and is T2. My argument to convince the Reviewer was: It is flat, within a town, so it is wheelchair accessible, but more than 800m to hike. That means, according to clayjar it is T2.

Edited May 11, 2020 by yrcko

[+NYPaddleCacher]

17 hours ago, K13 said:

 

This is the way I remember from a couple years ago, but it seems my memory has failed, or things were changed.  Seems backward to me.

Interesting that a T4.5 cache can include the Wheelchair Accessible attribute.

 

[+Goldenwattle]

I thought that reviewers could change a 1T to 1.5T, but recently I contacted a reviewer and they say that they can't change it, as the cache was published in 2015. The cache was higher than I could reach standing, so someone in a wheelchair wouldn't have a hope. I moved the cache to wheelchair height, but as the hint is "Magnetic - Behind and high up on the pole", someone is bound to move the cache back up high.

I reported another cache and the reviewer changed it to 1.5T. So what is the problem with this cache. Why can't a cache published in 2015 have its T corrected? I doubt the CO would care. They didn't reply to my message, and after several DNFs they didn't bother to go check (I would have, or at the least posted a message).

[+MNTA]

42 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

I thought that reviewers could change a 1T to 1.5T, but recently I contacted a reviewer and they say that they can't change it, as the cache was published in 2015. The cache was higher than I could reach standing, so someone in a wheelchair wouldn't have a hope. I moved the cache to wheelchair height, but as the hint is "Magnetic - Behind and high up on the pole", someone is bound to move the cache back up high.

I reported another cache and the reviewer changed it to 1.5T. So what is the problem with this cache. Why can't a cache published in 2015 have its T corrected? I doubt the CO would care. They didn't reply to my message, and after several DNFs they didn't bother to go check (I would have, or at the least posted a message).

I also contacted the reviewer of a newly place T1 cache and was mentioned as a problem in several logs.

 

You are correct the reviewer chose to be nice and request the change:

 

As this cache has a terrain rating of "1", may I ask the cache owner to CONFIRM an individual in a wheelchair is able to access and retrieve the cache form it's location? If not, the Terrain rating should be edited to "1.5" and the "Handicap" attribute should be removed.

Thanks for understanding,

 

 

However, they do have the power to disable and archive should this request not be followed through with. Which I believe would happen. My recommendation is to file a RA log or contact the reviewer directly when T1/Handicap attributes are misapplied, also private property issues.  

[+Goldenwattle]

The reviewer said they couldn't change the 1T because of the cache's age; 2015. The reviewer said they would contact the CO. However, if the CO ignores the reviewer like they did me, it seems that nothing will be done. What are the reviewer rules on this?

[Keystone]

19 minutes ago, MNTA said:

As this cache has a terrain rating of "1", may I ask the cache owner to CONFIRM an individual in a wheelchair is able to access and retrieve the cache form it's location? If not, the Terrain rating should be edited to "1.5" and the "Handicap" attribute should be removed.

Thanks for understanding,

 

I think this is a nice approach to take when problems of this nature are brought to a Reviewer's attention.

 

We are supposed to ask about the use of the attribute prior to publication, but ultimately the terrain rating is a Cache Owner issue.  They have been to the cache location and the Reviewer hasn't.  If I received a "Needs Reviewer Attention" log about this issue, I would likely respond with a note similar to what's quoted above.

[+NanCycle]

1 hour ago, Keystone said:

If I received a "Needs Reviewer Attention" log about this issue, I would likely respond with a note similar to what's quoted above.

 

But what would you do next if your note was ignored by the CO, or the CO flat out refused to comply?

[geoawareUSA9]

On 7/30/2023 at 12:59 PM, NanCycle said:

On 7/30/2023 at 11:45 AM, Keystone said:

If I received a "Needs Reviewer Attention" log about this issue, I would likely respond with a note similar to what's quoted above.

 

But what would you do next if your note was ignored by the CO, or the CO flat out refused to comply?

 

I won't speak for @Keystone, but in either situation, I'd disable the cache until they responded.

 

If they were ignoring my notes and continued to simply ignore my notes, eventually, I'd archive the cache for their failure to ensure the cache was compliant with the guidelines.

 

If they responded but refused to comply, then I'd direct them to Appeals.