Jump to content

Geocache adopter changing d/t levels


Smitherington
Followers 3

Recommended Posts

North of Brooksville, Florida, is a giraffe geoart.  It consists of about 80 caches placed along country roads. The first one is 01 Giraffe, GC70YFH. Shan7on created the geoart.

 

I enjoyed finding the giraffe geoart series shortly after they were placed.  Recently I noticed that my d/t grid was completely full so I checked to see why my stats suddenly changed. It turns out that someone changed the difficulty and terrain ratings on many of the caches in this geoart. Shan7on put the d/t levels at numbers that I thought were accurate.  Now that someone else has access to edit the cache, the numbers changed drastically.  I assume it was framptoncomesalive to whom these were transferred in Dec. 2020 when Shan7on moved out of the area. I believe they should be changed back to reasonable levels.

 

Have other geocachers seen this happen before?

Link to comment
15 minutes ago, Smitherington said:

North of Brooksville, Florida, is a giraffe geoart.  It consists of about 80 caches placed along country roads. The first one is 01 Giraffe, GC70YFH. Shan7on created the geoart.

 

I enjoyed finding the giraffe geoart series shortly after they were placed.  Recently I noticed that my d/t grid was completely full so I checked to see why my stats suddenly changed. It turns out that someone changed the difficulty and terrain ratings on many of the caches in this geoart. Shan7on put the d/t levels at numbers that I thought were accurate.  Now that someone else has access to edit the cache, the numbers changed drastically.  I assume it was framptoncomesalive to whom these were transferred in Dec. 2020 when Shan7on moved out of the area. I believe they should be changed back to reasonable levels.

 

Have other geocachers seen this happen before?

I've seen two different scenarios regarding changing of D/T:

 

1. MY cache changed, so I updated T and get NASTY emails complaining that I've wrecked someone's DT grid. To them, their grid is more important than my cache having an accurate  D/T rating. Stats are everything to some people.

 

2. There are some in my area, and I'm sure everywhere, who rate their caches for the SOLE purpose of helping others fill their D/T grid. Example: A skirt lifter cache is rated 5T so that others can fill a grid on a difficult square to find.

 

You may have something different going on with the geoart, I don't know. I'm just answering to the changing of the D/T.

  • Upvote 7
  • Helpful 2
Link to comment
20 minutes ago, Smitherington said:

North of Brooksville, Florida, is a giraffe geoart.  It consists of about 80 caches placed along country roads. The first one is 01 Giraffe, GC70YFH. Shan7on created the geoart.

 

I enjoyed finding the giraffe geoart series shortly after they were placed.  Recently I noticed that my d/t grid was completely full so I checked to see why my stats suddenly changed. It turns out that someone changed the difficulty and terrain ratings on many of the caches in this geoart. Shan7on put the d/t levels at numbers that I thought were accurate.  Now that someone else has access to edit the cache, the numbers changed drastically.  I assume it was framptoncomesalive to whom these were transferred in Dec. 2020 when Shan7on moved out of the area. I believe they should be changed back to reasonable levels.

 

Have other geocachers seen this happen before?

I see what you mean. 9 hint says: "post, low" yet it's rated 5 Terrain!

Link to comment

Yeah, there's a series of challenges in my area that have higher D/T ratings than I think they deserve, and since they're different from each other, I'm assuming that's the reason.  So there's a traditional with a T of 5 because you have to climb a tree to about 12 feet high, then there are Ts (and Ds) of 4.5 and 5 that are tupperwares in the crotch of a tree 50 feet from the road.  Not sure I should complain, since clearly they had their reasons, and a bunch of people would be mad if they changed it, but I'd feel a LOT better about the higher grid squares I now have filled in if I really earned them.  And yeah, higher Ds on puzzle or challenge caches that are hard to accomplish are reasonable, even if the tupperware isn't hard to find, but the T rating should only reflect how easy/hard it is to GET to the cache IRL, and I definitely don't feel I've earned a higher score for these particular finds.

Link to comment

I've never seen anything that bad, but I have no trouble imagining it. I suggest you talk to the new CO and mention how his inaccurate ratings have ruined your statistics. Point out to him that, like most geocachers, you aren't interested in meeting challenges using fake data.

  • Funny 2
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
23 hours ago, Smitherington said:

Recently I noticed that my d/t grid was completely full so I checked to see why my stats suddenly changed.

It turns out that someone changed the difficulty and terrain ratings on many of the caches in this geoart.

(name removed) put the d/t levels at numbers that I thought were accurate.  Now that someone else has access to edit the cache, the numbers changed drastically.  I assume it was (name removed) to whom these were transferred in Dec. 2020 when (name removed) moved out of the area.

I believe they should be changed back to reasonable levels.

Have other geocachers seen this happen before?

 

We've seen similar, trails meant solely for grid filling.  

Guessing if adopted out, most of the locals found 'em already, or a string of NMs might change the new persons thinking. ;)

We've seen the reverse  as well, with trails with D/T combos that are simply ridiculous, and the new CO decided to correct that nonsense.

If those ridiculous ones were fixed by me, I wouldn't expect a single person to whine about their fake D/T grid...

D/T can also change naturally, and if it had be changed to be "accurate" again, someone's "grid" wouldn't be a reason for me to let it go.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

While I don't think it applies in this particular case, I have seen D/T's that don't match my experience finding the cache. I have found a 5/5 cache. You can drive right up to it, if you have a modified 4x4 (special equipment). This is how the CO intended the cache to be found. The cache description even talks about what modifications you will need. Or, you can simply park a short distance away, and walk to it up a moderately steep hill. (Not nearly as challenging as some of the locations that barefootjeff gets off to.) Took me about 45 minutes round trip. And, the cache was an ammo can in a hollow tree trunk. Not even covered with leaves. Maybe a 2/2.5.

  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 1
Link to comment

I noticed those recently.  I needed to solve a couple, as I figured they were near trails where I was placing. i was right. Yeah, if I'd found them, I'd complain about NOT wanting fake ratings for fake stats.

It's obnoxious.  Original owner certainly did a nice job  there, including appropriate ratings.

 

  • Helpful 1
Link to comment

Hmmmmm,

      Second verse ... same as the first.  I recall a similar thread with associated angst 10-12 years ago.   

 

      I went out last month to "re-seek" a combination which had become "re-necessary" due to D/T change hi-jinks. It is indeed a hide chapper.

 

I think we can all agree that D/T ratings are somewhat subjective.  ***(A level 2 terrain at 11K elevation is rather different from a level 2 terrain at 1K elevation)*** ... rather distressing to watch a sea level cacher struggling for air at 11K

 

Bogus D/T ratings indeed cheapens certain challenges.  So say some of us who ethically play the game.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
4 hours ago, rustynails. said:

I some areas the terrain is judged by height from level ground. A magnetic cache placed 15ft up a lamppost could be a 4T. Whatever the hider rates it, is what it is.

If you need a ladder T4 is low. According to the guidelines should be T5

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
8 minutes ago, Lynx Humble said:
5 hours ago, rustynails. said:

I some areas the terrain is judged by height from level ground. A magnetic cache placed 15ft up a lamppost could be a 4T. Whatever the hider rates it, is what it is.

If you need a ladder T4 is low. According to the guidelines should be T5

 

The Help Centre defines T4 as "Very strenuous movement that may include significant distance, overgrowth, swimming, or elevation changes" so I guess shinnying 15 feet up a lamppost could be considered very strenuous movement. Even more so if there's a policeman standing at the bottom when you shinny back down.

 

All the T4s around here are strenuous hikes, usually with lots of rock-scrambling and battling through scratchy undergrowth. I don't recall ever encountering a magnetic hide on a post that couldn't be reached while standing on the ground, or perhaps if I did I just kept walking past.

  • Funny 3
  • Love 1
Link to comment
40 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

I don't recall ever encountering a magnetic hide on a post that couldn't be reached while standing on the ground

I have. I think that sometimes a tall person places a cache and thinks that's easy to reach, when many people can't reach it. Then rates it 1.5T and the next person needs a ladder, or to climb the post :bad:.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
14 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:
14 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

I don't recall ever encountering a magnetic hide on a post that couldn't be reached while standing on the ground

I have. I think that sometimes a tall person places a cache and thinks that's easy to reach, when many people can't reach it. Then rates it 1.5T and the next person needs a ladder, or to climb the post :bad:.

 

Well, you can also stand on the ground and use a very very long pole. What's evil is if it's too high, and it's attached, thus you need to leave the ground. All of these are factors to consider in the T and/or attribute settings.

Link to comment
7 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

 

Well, you can also stand on the ground and use a very very long pole. What's evil is if it's too high, and it's attached, thus you need to leave the ground. All of these are factors to consider in the T and/or attribute settings.

I have on more than one occasion (for a T1.5, and even for a T1) knocked down the cache and then left it at a height to match the rating. When I did this for a T1 cache, the next finder wrote that they agreed with what I had done. T1 up in the rafters of a building :o:blink:.

For a magnetised attached cache on a post, I would return it to where I could reach. I might write something like, that this had suffered cache creep and was found higher than its T rating. Now returned to a place to match its rating. That's very likely to be true, as any finder could have put it up higher than the CO meant it to be.

With my caches, I try very hard to get the ratings correct, and will adjust this following sensible comments by finders. Pig headed not to.

Link to comment
20 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

For a magnetised attached cache on a post, I would return it to where I could reach. I might write something like, that this had suffered cache creep and was found higher than its T rating. Now returned to a place to match its rating. That's very likely to be true, as any finder could have put it up higher than the CO meant it to be.

With my caches, I try very hard to get the ratings correct, and will adjust this following sensible comments by finders. Pig headed not to.

 

Yes, caches can drift. There was a 2/2 traditional at Terrigal that became something of a nemesis for me early in my caching life. On my first attempt, a DNF, I could see it tucked into a crevice in the cliff face but it was far too high for me to safely climb to. The CO checked and confirmed it had been put back in a much harder spot than it was meant to be and moved it back down. My next attempt was also a DNF as by then it had gone missing. The CO replaced it and finally I was able to record a find.

 

One of my own, a fake rock (now archived), was meant to be sitting in plain sight but a few times people decided it needed to be covered up with other rocks, making it much more difficult than the D2.5 rating I'd given it. A couple of times when doing a check I'd been about to declare it missing only to eventually spot it hidden away totally out of sight.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

This is the response I got from the current CO. I must say that I have not gone back to check on any of them. I may have to do that.

 

Quote: “Regarding the giraffe geo art,

For lack of a better phrase (and I'm sure I'll come up with a better one later) you are the first person to openly complain about the d/t changes that have been made. Everyone else I've talked to so far whether it be here, on Facebook or face to face has been supportive of the changes I've made. I'm sorry that you don't see things the same way. This might be something we may never agree on until kingdom come, but it's how I see things. I feel like it's appropriate for the situation things are today, which is different than when the geo art first published. Now whether we ever come to an agreement on it is yet to be determined, but for now, probably not. Some of these caches aren't even on the same roads they were once on which I can only assume was a placement issue that happened before I adopted them.”

Link to comment
11 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

I have on more than one occasion (for a T1.5, and even for a T1) knocked down the cache and then left it at a height to match the rating. When I did this for a T1 cache, the next finder wrote that they agreed with what I had done. T1 up in the rafters of a building :o:blink:.

"Return the logbook and cache to their original location"

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
5 minutes ago, mustakorppi said:

"Return the logbook and cache to their original location"

You mean where the last finder left it, not the CO? Cache creep is a thing. How do you know that the CO didn't place their cache carefully to match the rating, but someone else moved it and gave it the wrong rating by doing so.? Also, a 1T should not be up in the rafters of a building. You expect those in a wheelchair to reach that. After they have parked their car, heaved themselves from their car into their chair, and made their way to GZ, and then to find the cache way above their head, where they can't possibly reach it. You are mean to think it should be left there, wherever the CO meant this cache to be. If they wanted it in the rafters they shouldn't rate it 1T, and disappoint a wheelchair occupant. That's just evil!

Normally I am very careful to return caches carefully where I found them, but when a magnetic cache is high up on a post, rated T1.5, way beyond reach without a chair or ladder, that's not 1.5T. That's not in a 1.5T position, so must be cache creep, unless you think that the CO purposely was mis-rating their cache. I like to think that the CO was not that nasty, and it's cache creep. If it's meant to be beyond reach for most people, don't confuse the issue by rating it 1.5T.

 

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
22 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

You mean where the last finder left it, not the CO?

If in doubt you could always ask the CO. Or post a maintenance log.

 

This particular case, whether a cache that's high up but can be retrieved and returned with a tool without moving from the ground should have a high T rating, can legitimately be interpreted both ways. Your interpretation doesn't match the HQs, but that's beside the point as far as I care. The people who take it upon themselves to enforce HQs interpretation by attaching other people's high T caches up in trees so they can't be fished down are equally in the wrong.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
48 minutes ago, mustakorppi said:

If in doubt you could always ask the CO. Or post a maintenance log.

 

This particular case, whether a cache that's high up but can be retrieved and returned with a tool without moving from the ground should have a high T rating, can legitimately be interpreted both ways. Your interpretation doesn't match the HQs, but that's beside the point as far as I care. The people who take it upon themselves to enforce HQs interpretation by attaching other people's high T caches up in trees so they can't be fished down are equally in the wrong.

The 1T I couldn't reach, and I'm not disabled. I doubt a tall person could have either. I believe that's one thing a reviewer can come in on; wrongly rated handicap caches.

Ask the CO. How? I don't know them necessarily, and by the time they answer I could be many kms away.

I try hard to rate my caches correctly, listening and taking note of comments in logs. I would like the same respect from other; that they also try to get their rating correct. Not say, another example I came upon, had a 1.5T cache up a tree. I trusted their rating; that's why I made an effort to get there. One 1T cache I drove about 30kms one way to get that cache. Then I discovered it was across sand (the wheelchair would be bogged), then over boulders and up a small cliff. Putting this bluntly, caches like this, if I can get my hands on them (they can be beyond me, an able bodied person; that cliff one was) stuff them, I am placing the cache to match the rating, especially handicapped 1T ones. I often take someone out in a wheelchair, and I have come upon a cache they would be unable to reach, and despite telling the CO they have not fixed the problem. This is cruel, expecting a handicapped person to drive (in the cliff example) 60kms round trip to get to what they expect to be able to reach, but then be disappointed (and I imagine they will be - have some empathy to them).

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
2 hours ago, mustakorppi said:
14 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

I have on more than one occasion (for a T1.5, and even for a T1) knocked down the cache and then left it at a height to match the rating. When I did this for a T1 cache, the next finder wrote that they agreed with what I had done. T1 up in the rafters of a building :o:blink:.

"Return the logbook and cache to their original location"

The original location, where the cache was hidden, is not necessarily where I found it. An obvious example is a cache with a hanger and the hint "hanger" which I find on the ground under a tree. I think it would be stupid of me to put it back on the ground where I found it because that's obviously not the original location.

 

Admittedly, this specific example of changing the elevation to agree with the terrain rating is a little more ambiguous, but I support Goldenwatttle's actions here. Even if the cache is in its original location -- i.e., the CO gave it a terrain rating that was clearly incorrect -- I'd tend to rehide it according to the terrain rating and pretend that I thought the CO must have meant it to be hidden that way even when I'm pretty sure they were just wrong about how they rated it.

 

1 hour ago, mustakorppi said:

If in doubt you could always ask the CO. Or post a maintenance log.

Well, no, I rarely have any way of contacting the CO when I'm out in the field, and I'm not going to bother or, for that matter, wait for an answer, anyway. I'm going to guess even if I have some doubt that my guess is correct. If I'm worried about it, I'll mention it in my log so the CO knows what I did.

 

1 hour ago, mustakorppi said:

Your interpretation doesn't match the HQs, but that's beside the point as far as I care.

I must have missed where we discussed HQ's interpretation. All I saw was the word "original location". They could have said "where you found it" if that was their intention. (Although I wouldn't have cared that much if they had said "where you found it" in that document: I found the "return the cache" quote in an intro to geocaching guide, and a new cacher wouldn't have the experience to recognize that they didn't find the cache in its original location, so I wouldn't put much weight on the fact that HQ didn't open up the possibility by using "original location" instead of the more precise phrase.)

  • Love 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, dprovan said:

I must have missed where we discussed HQ's interpretation.

This was in reference to Goldenwattle's idea that a magnetic cache high up a lamp post cannot be T1.5.

 

If you don't bring the appropriate tool to retrieve the cache from the ground, that's not a problem with the rating. If the CO is intentionally jerking people around (e.g. by omitting the special tool required attribute), then I personally have no issue with returning the favor. But messing with correctly rated caches just because you choose to interpret the ratings differently isn't right. Having to cross sand, boulders and cliffs is an entirely different matter.

 

Link to comment

If I'm unsure, I return it to where I found it. Only in extremely obvious situations do I place it differently than found (ie, the CO is very clear where it should be, by description or hint, and that's not where it was). But if I place it where I found it and it seems off, then I'll be clear about that in my log. So many people don't care and just log what they find so the CO never really knows if the cache is still in place as intended.   At least then my opinion about whether it should be a 1.5T+Tool or a 4T is clear in my log, and if the CO interprets it as though the container has migrated, they can choose whether to come back and fix it.

 

But if the hint, for example, says 10' up the pole, and I found it at 1' up the pole, I'm going to do my best to place it back at 10' -- regardless of the T rating.

Link to comment
8 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

Also, a 1T should not be up in the rafters of a building.

FWIW, I've seen elevated caches with low terrain ratings and high difficulty ratings (and possibly the "Special tool required" attribute) because the CO expected seekers to stay safely on the ground, and to retrieve (and replace) the cache using some technique other than climbing to it.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
8 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

The 1T I couldn't reach, and I'm not disabled. I doubt a tall person could have either. I believe that's one thing a reviewer can come in on; wrongly rated handicap caches.

Ask the CO. How? I don't know them necessarily, and by the time they answer I could be many kms away.

I try hard to rate my caches correctly, listening and taking note of comments in logs. I would like the same respect from other; that they also try to get their rating correct. Not say, another example I came upon, had a 1.5T cache up a tree. I trusted their rating; that's why I made an effort to get there. One 1T cache I drove about 30kms one way to get that cache. Then I discovered it was across sand (the wheelchair would be bogged), then over boulders and up a small cliff. Putting this bluntly, caches like this, if I can get my hands on them (they can be beyond me, an able bodied person; that cliff one was) stuff them, I am placing the cache to match the rating, especially handicapped 1T ones. I often take someone out in a wheelchair, and I have come upon a cache they would be unable to reach, and despite telling the CO they have not fixed the problem. This is cruel, expecting a handicapped person to drive (in the cliff example) 60kms round trip to get to what they expect to be able to reach, but then be disappointed (and I imagine they will be - have some empathy to them).

In your sand example I would be inclined to log a NM and, after say 30 days nothing is done to remedy the situation, I'd log NA to bring to reviewers attention.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, niraD said:

FWIW, I've seen elevated caches with low terrain ratings and high difficulty ratings (and possibly the "Special tool required" attribute) because the CO expected seekers to stay safely on the ground, and to retrieve (and replace) the cache using some technique other than climbing to it.

 

I've seen the opposite. A T5 cache at an event I attended a few years back has the Special Tool Required and Climbing Gear Required attributes, with it made clear that one should bring a ladder with you, but this cacher was having none of that, he just leapt up into the rafters, retrieved the cache, signed the log and swung himself back down.

 

98859b89-930c-4deb-baae-8311977286ab_l.j

  • Upvote 1
  • Surprised 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

 

I've seen the opposite. A T5 cache at an event I attended a few years back has the Special Tool Required and Climbing Gear Required attributes, with it made clear that one should bring a ladder with you, but this cacher was having none of that, he just leapt up into the rafters, retrieved the cache, signed the log and swung himself back down.

 

98859b89-930c-4deb-baae-8311977286ab_l.j

 

There will always be someone who manages to do it otherwise. This is a sink hole. There were people abseiling on my side (not in the photograph), and there's a cache part way down that wall. I think it's meant to be done with ropes, but the abseil instructor told me he saw someone free climb to the cache. He expressed amazement at that.

1219780054_Sinkhole.thumb.jpg.d7e338dadf86b1e4dae9743c928d019a.jpg

 

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

There will always be someone who manages to do it otherwise.

One of the elevated caches I've found suggested that the cache could be done either way, and that he was torn between rating it T5 for those who climbed to the cache or rating it D5 for those who used tools to retrieve the cache while standing firmly on the almost-wheelchair-accessible ground below (T1.5). IIRC, he compromised and rated it around 3/3 as an average of 5/1 and 1/5.

Link to comment

Just like every cache, the ratings and attributes can and will never indicate the 100% single and only manner of signing the log as the CO intended. They are simply guides as to what to expect per the owner's opinion.

As long as everyone remembers that regions and opinions differ, and that the only 'requirement' is your name in the logsheet, then you can be as creative as you like getting to the cache, whether your method is accurate to the listing or not. Which is why it's always a judgment call as to whether you think there's a "problem" with the listing vs how you found the cache - and at what point you do something about it immediately, or let the CO know and wait for a response to proxy maintain, or let the CO know and just move along, or just say nothing at all.

The one option that should never be on that list is taking it upon yourself to assume what the listing should be - or what the cache should be - and "fix" it yourself without even letting anyone know; cuz you know, it ain't your cache :)

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
On 9/30/2021 at 10:37 AM, Max and 99 said:

1. MY cache changed, so I updated T and get NASTY emails complaining that I've wrecked someone's DT grid. To them, their grid is more important than my cache having an accurate  D/T rating. Stats are everything to some people.

 

I am not sure what is worse. The nasty emails we get upon DT change or the intentionally falsely rated caches so someone can accommodate their friend's stats.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
56 minutes ago, bflentje said:

 

I am not sure what is worse. The nasty emails we get upon DT change or the intentionally falsely rated caches so someone can accommodate their friend's stats.

The latter for sure.

 

I fully understand someone that made a special trip for a cache for it's Fizzy Grid and then the DT change to be super angry at the CO because the CO should have published a new listing instead according to guidelines.

Edited by Lynx Humble
  • Surprised 2
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Lynx Humble said:

I fully understand someone that made a special trip for a cache for it's Fizzy Grid and then the DT change to be super angry at the CO because the CO should have published a new listing instead according to guidelines.

(Emphasis by me)

 

Do you want to say that "according to the guidelines", I shouldn't change the D/T of my cache and instead submit a new listing, when the physical realities of the cache change? Really?

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, baer2006 said:

(Emphasis by me)

 

Do you want to say that "according to the guidelines", I shouldn't change the D/T of my cache and instead submit a new listing, when the physical realities of the cache change? Really?

Really. From the Help Center :

 

''In order for other geocachers to have a consistent experience when they find your cache, try to avoid editing your cache page after publication except for small edits that will improve the experience.''

 

https://www.geocaching.com/help/index.php?pg=kb.chapter&id=38&pgid=201

Edited by Lynx Humble
  • Upvote 2
  • Surprised 1
Link to comment
5 minutes ago, Lynx Humble said:

Really. From the Help Center :

 

''In order for other geocachers to have a consistent experience when they find your cache, try to avoid editing your cache page after publication except for small edits that will improve the experience.''

 

https://www.geocaching.com/help/index.php?pg=kb.chapter&id=38&pgid=201

Ok.

 

However, I would still rate a D/T change of 0.5 points a "minor edit".

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, baer2006 said:

However, I would still rate a D/T change of 0.5 points a "minor edit".

Agreed.  One of my early hides, I rated it 1.5 as that was the default and seemed ok.  At a recent event, a finder said it really should be 2.0, as it IS a bit off trail and you can't reach it without some minor climbing/bushwhacking.  I changed the rating as I recognize his advice as correct, helpful, and accurate.  THAT's a minor change and probably didn't affect anyone's grid.

 

Changing it to a T4, on the other hand, is (in my mind) making it a substantially different experience and probably should be a new listing. As to the OP, and the changing of adopted caches to incorrect D/T ratings just to help others fill their grid...that's.just.wrong. (IMHO)

Link to comment
1 hour ago, baer2006 said:

However, I would still rate a D/T change of 0.5 points a "minor edit".

 

Correct, it doesn't say an owner cannot ever alter the listing, let alone a specific DT, in order to keep it accurate to the geocache. And when it comes to a fizzy, it doesn't matter if it's a difference of 0.5 or 4.5, it changes the qualification. So when it comes to "minor edits", that has to be allowable, which means it overrides the "but I no longer qualify" concern from finders.  Whether HQ disallows "major" edits is a different issue, and what constitutes a "major" edit. I think the spirit of the guideline is if the geocache update is sufficiently different, then a new listing should be created. But minor changes to the experience shouldn't require a new listing.

The problem is determining where that threshold lies, requiring a new listing :P

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, niraD said:
1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

The problem is determining where that threshold lies, requiring a new listing :P

If only cache listings had an owner, who was assigned the responsibility for deciding such things.

 

Oh for sure, but that's not enough to make discussion threads like this moot. There will always be people who interpret major/minor differently, who think COs should not change DTs (or by extension any cache property) because it messes up people's stats, and people who think that COs should be able to modify their listing as they see fit for listing accuracy regardless of what changes - and people in between.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:
1 hour ago, niraD said:

If only cache listings had an owner, who was assigned the responsibility for deciding such things.

Oh for sure, but that's not enough to make discussion threads like this moot.

Absolutely.

 

If we were discussing what a CO can or cannot change, that would be easy. The CO can change whatever he/she wants, except for things Groundspeak won't let a CO change (e.g., the cache type), changes that violate the guidelines (e.g., agendas or commercial content), or or changes that violate the TOU (e.g., IP violations or other illegal content).

 

But if we're discussing what a CO should or should not change, that's a judgement call. We can argue until we're blue in the face, and people will disagree. And ultimately, the CO will still be the only one who gets to make that judgement call.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Mausebiber said:

The whole discussion could be avoided if Groundspeak would make the D/T rating stick to the log entry.  If I log a specific rating it should stay, regardless if the listing is changed later on.

Fundamentally, difficulty and terrain ratings are communication tools, a way for the CO to communicate the general nature of the geocaching experience to potential seekers. They are not prizes that finders earn.

 

Yeah, I get that some geocachers keep track of such statistics and actually seek out caches with certain difficulty-terrain combinations. But if Groundspeak starts making the difficulty-terrain rating "stick" to the log entry, what else? Do they make the attributes "stick" because there are challenges based on attributes? Do they make the cache size "stick" because there are challenges based on cache sizes? How about the cache name, the "placed by" field, the state/province, the county, etc.?

 

I think a better approach would be for the handful of people who care about such things to keep track of them on their own.

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment

I agree that D/Ts should stick in your stats for when you found the cache, and the CO given the freedom (which they have, but at the risk of nastygrams) to change the D/T rating to stay current.  

 

I remember flying down to DFW and, before I arrived, checking for Jasmer fillers in the area.  Well, there was a 1/1 cache from a month in 2001 or so that I didn't have!  So I got off the plane, got my car, and drove to this park where I expected to find this easy 1/1 cache.  But over the 20 or so years since it was placed, that 1/1 became a much higher terrain rating - it was an absolute jungle of vegetation and I was not in appropriate clothing for it!  I didn't go for the cache during that trip, and I don't think I've been back since.

  • Funny 2
Link to comment
1 hour ago, niraD said:

But if Groundspeak starts making the difficulty-terrain rating "stick" to the log entry, what else? Do they make the attributes "stick" because there are challenges based on attributes? Do they make the cache size "stick" because there are challenges based on cache sizes?

Well yeah, why not do exactly this for everything that the rules allow to be challenge criteria? How does me keeping track of something like this help when a CO runs a challenge checker and sees I don't fulfill a challenge because a cache changed after I logged a find?

  • Love 1
Link to comment
2 hours ago, niraD said:

I think a better approach would be for the handful of people who care about such things to keep track of them on their own.

Only an handful? Why Groundspeak added tools to help find caches required to complete your Fizzy then?

 

1 hour ago, GeoElmo6000 said:

I agree that D/Ts should stick in your stats for when you found the cache, and the CO given the freedom (which they have, but at the risk of nastygrams) to change the D/T rating to stay current.  

 

I remember flying down to DFW and, before I arrived, checking for Jasmer fillers in the area.  Well, there was a 1/1 cache from a month in 2001 or so that I didn't have!  So I got off the plane, got my car, and drove to this park where I expected to find this easy 1/1 cache.  But over the 20 or so years since it was placed, that 1/1 became a much higher terrain rating - it was an absolute jungle of vegetation and I was not in appropriate clothing for it!  I didn't go for the cache during that trip, and I don't think I've been back since.

I agree DT should stick when found.

 

In 2001 there was no DT so I think 1/1 is the default value for those old ones.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, mustakorppi said:

Well yeah, why not do exactly this for everything that the rules allow to be challenge criteria?

No. Just no! It would be the ultimate "defeat" against the stats crowd. There are a lot of scenarios, where it makes absolute sense to change D/T rating, container size or attributes of a listing, without changing the "overall experience" of the cache in any way (or not significantly) and therefore not justifying a completely new listing.

 

Also, imagine a very old cache. Like, from 2001 or so. And the owner is still maintaining it! After 20 years, it's very likely that the surroundings of the cache have changed a lot, and a former T1.5 woodland hide may have morphed into a T2.5+ bushwhacking experience (or vice versa). Now the owner wants to keep his cache listing accurate. If they aren't allowed to change D/T, the only way to do it would be to archive the old listing and create a new one. You will hear the screams of "OMG! You can't archive such an old cache!!!!" all over the place!

 

1 hour ago, mustakorppi said:

How does me keeping track of something like this help when a CO runs a challenge checker and sees I don't fulfill a challenge because a cache changed after I logged a find?

I always copy-and-paste the results of a Challenge Checker into my log, when I log a Challenge as found. The owner can also verify it additionally, if they like. At some later time, my qualification status might have changed, but so what? I don't know any Challenge CO, who isn't fully aware that this can happen, and therefore they verify a find either (more or less) immediately or not at all.

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
2 hours ago, mustakorppi said:
3 hours ago, niraD said:

But if Groundspeak starts making the difficulty-terrain rating "stick" to the log entry, what else? Do they make the attributes "stick" because there are challenges based on attributes? Do they make the cache size "stick" because there are challenges based on cache sizes?

Well yeah, why not do exactly this for everything that the rules allow to be challenge criteria? How does me keeping track of something like this help when a CO runs a challenge checker and sees I don't fulfill a challenge because a cache changed after I logged a find?

 

I'd mentioned loooooong ago in various discussions about how if the listings kept a sort of change log for basic cache properties, then logs could easily refer to stats of its log date by looking up its state as of a certain date. No need to 'copy' an entire listing with each log (as mentioned, why just D/T? What about all the other properties used for challenges/statistics?) in order retain stats "as of" the log date.

Nonetheless, an additional changelog for listings worldwide would still be a massive undertaking, and likely only to address the relatively slim chance of a property being changed and messing up a few people's potential challenge qualifications.  The work required to implement any sort of 'fix' for altered listing properties for the sake of profile statistics is almost certainly just not worth it.

 

A way of olde was that COs might keep track of oft-used qualifier caches that have since changed, and allow people to still use it if they found said cache before the change. I've seen notes on occasional old challenges, usually DT related, saying certain specific caches were okay to use before a certain date though now they wouldn't qualify because of the DT change.

That wouldn't be possible in today's automated environment (by guidelines or by checker).

Link to comment
3 hours ago, baer2006 said:

No. Just no! It would be the ultimate "defeat" against the stats crowd. There are a lot of scenarios, where it makes absolute sense to change D/T rating, container size or attributes of a listing, without changing the "overall experience" of the cache in any way (or not significantly) and therefore not justifying a completely new listing.

Could you please re-read what was proposed. CO is free to change the cache page, it just wouldn’t retroactively change what previous finders found. 

 

3 hours ago, baer2006 said:

I always copy-and-paste the results of a Challenge Checker into my log, when I log a Challenge as found. The owner can also verify it additionally, if they like.

A cache you’ve found can change before the challenge cache it’d qualify you for even exists.

 

2 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

I'd mentioned loooooong ago in various discussions about how if the listings kept a sort of change log for basic cache properties, then logs could easily refer to stats of its log date by looking up its state as of a certain date. No need to 'copy' an entire listing with each log (as mentioned, why just D/T? What about all the other properties used for challenges/statistics?)

I mean, I don’t particularly care what the mechanism is. But how many characters would it even take to describe all challenge-relevant data if you tried to be efficient about it and didn’t care about human readability? 30-40? I don’t think it’s much of an issue either way.

 

2 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

The work required to implement any sort of 'fix' for altered listing properties for the sake of profile statistics is almost certainly just not worth it.

This is a whole another discussion, but there are quite a few things I feel aren’t worth it that HQ still spends time working on. Some things I consider a net negative, even. This? Yeah, sure it’d require some work. But at least it’s work on actual geocaching, and I can’t imagine what harm there would be in found stats more accurately reflecting what you’ve found.

Link to comment

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...
Followers 3
×
×
  • Create New...