Jump to content

Terrain 1 rating


Goldenwattle
Followers 3

Recommended Posts

I  just read the article from a handicapped geocacher. Until the beginning of this year I used to wheel someone around in a wheelchair. Although they were not a geocacher, sometimes I would take them out with me for an outing, when I went to find easier to get to geocachers, such as power trails. This was a reason to go find a power trail; so they could come on the car ride. They would sit in the car while I got the caches. Often they would comment about how unfair it was that some people wouldn't have been able to reach the cache, and that was often not 1T caches. So imagine how handicapped people must feel about 1T caches, which are NOT 1T caches.

Just because the path there is sealed and negotiable by wheelchair, does not make the cache 1T if then the person in a wheelchair cannot reach, and return, the cache from the wheelchair. Real example. A cache hidden along a designed wheelchair accessible path through a patch of rainforest. All good so far. Definitely not wheelchair accessible at GZ though, as the cache was hidden under the walkway, which would have needed the wheelchair bound person to get out of their wheelchair, step off the boardwalk, get down on their knees and reach under. It doesn't take much intelligence to put yourself in the place of the person in the wheelchair and realise that it's not wheelchair accessible, but there are some very stupid COs (cruel from this too) who can't understand this and, just because it's a wheelchair accessible path, make the cache 1T. The CO ignored my polite message to them and didn't correct the rating. Another on a wheelchair accessible path had the cache up in the rafters of a building.

I think that no one should have the ability to be able to mark a cache less than 1.5T, unless they provide detailed photographs to the reviewer of all stages of the wheelchair accessible cache proving it is 1T. Then only the reviewer should be able to mark it 1T.

It's likely not wheelchair accessible if any of the journey route is unsealed. Wheelchairs can be hard to get over grass, and very hard over gravel. That's my opinion after pushing a wheelchair places.

I have reported one 1T cache to a reviewer after the CO failed to respond and up the terrain. The CO had marked it 1D & 1T, neither of which was even close to being correct, but I only commented on the T. I now notice it is 1.5T. I have contacted several COs about the rating, but almost all have ignored me. Those were in the past. Now I contact the reviewer. CO ignoring this problem and refusing to respond to it, as they really don't give a toss about handicapped people not being able to reach their caches marked 1T. Did I mention cruel :mad:.

That article brought a rant from me.

Edited by Goldenwattle
  • Upvote 3
  • Funny 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
23 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

I  just read the article from a handicapped geocacher. Until the beginning of this year I used to wheel someone around in a wheelchair. Although they were not a geocacher, sometimes I would take them out with me for an outing, when I went to find easier to get to geocachers, such as power trails. This was a reason to go find a power trail; so they could come on the car ride. They would sit in the car while I got the caches. Often they would comment about how unfair it was that some people wouldn't have been able to reach the cache, and that was often not 1T caches. So imagine how handicapped people must feel about 1T caches, which are NOT 1T caches.

Just because the path there is sealed and negotiable by wheelchair, does not make the cache 1T if then the person in a wheelchair cannot reach, and return, the cache from the wheelchair. Real example. A cache hidden along a designed wheelchair accessible path through a patch of rainforest. All good so far. Definitely not wheelchair accessible at GZ though, as the cache was hidden under the walkway, which would have needed the wheelchair bound person to get out of their wheelchair, step off the boardwalk, get down on their knees and reach under. It doesn't take much intelligence to put yourself in the place of the person in the wheelchair and realise that it's not wheelchair accessible, but there are some very stupid COs (cruel from this too) who can't understand this and, just because it's a wheelchair accessible path, make the cache 1T. The CO ignored my polite message to them and didn't correct the rating. Another on a wheelchair accessible path had the cache up in the rafters of a building.

I think that no one should have the ability to be able to mark a cache less than 1.5T, unless they provide detailed photographs to the reviewer of all stages of the wheelchair accessible cache proving it is 1T. Then only the reviewer should be able to mark it 1T.

It's likely not wheelchair accessible if any of the journey route is unsealed. Wheelchairs can be hard to get over grass, and very hard over gravel. That's my opinion after pushing a wheelchair places.

I have reported one 1T cache to a reviewer after the CO failed to respond and up the terrain. The CO had marked it 1D & 1T, neither of which was even close to being correct, but I only commented on the T. I now notice it is 1.5T. I have contacted several COs about the rating, but almost all have ignored me. Those were in the past. Now I contact the reviewer. CO ignoring this problem and refusing to respond to it, as they really don't give a toss about handicapped people not being able to reach their caches marked 1T. Did I mention cruel :mad:.

That article brought a rant from me.

I forwarded that blog post to my friend in a wheelchair as soon as I saw it. He is my favorite caching partner, and we have seen quite a few 1T rated caches that someone in a wheelchair cannot get. It's quite frustrating. 

I've seen the most ridiculous things rated 1T: you'd have to jump onto a big curb, on to the grass assuming it's not muddy, then get your wheelchair into the landscaping in order to retrieve the cache that's under a rock. I suspect too many people think 1T just means easy 👎

 

 

 

 

Edited by Max and 99
Link to comment
15 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

I  just read the article from a handicapped geocacher. Until the beginning of this year I used to wheel someone around in a wheelchair. Although they were not a geocacher, sometimes I would take them out with me for an outing, when I went to find easier to get to geocachers, such as power trails. This was a reason to go find a power trail; so they could come on the car ride. They would sit in the car while I got the caches. Often they would comment about how unfair it was that some people wouldn't have been able to reach the cache, and that was often not 1T caches. So imagine how handicapped people must feel about 1T caches, which are NOT 1T caches.

Just because the path there is sealed and negotiable by wheelchair, does not make the cache 1T if then the person in a wheelchair cannot reach, and return, the cache from the wheelchair. Real example. A cache hidden along a designed wheelchair accessible path through a patch of rainforest. All good so far. Definitely not wheelchair accessible at GZ though, as the cache was hidden under the walkway, which would have needed the wheelchair bound person to get out of their wheelchair, step off the boardwalk, get down on their knees and reach under. It doesn't take much intelligence to put yourself in the place of the person in the wheelchair and realise that it's not wheelchair accessible, but there are some very stupid COs (cruel from this too) who can't understand this and, just because it's a wheelchair accessible path, make the cache 1T. The CO ignored my polite message to them and didn't correct the rating. Another on a wheelchair accessible path had the cache up in the rafters of a building.

I think that no one should have the ability to be able to mark a cache less than 1.5T, unless they provide detailed photographs to the reviewer of all stages of the wheelchair accessible cache proving it is 1T. Then only the reviewer should be able to mark it 1T.

It's likely not wheelchair accessible if any of the journey route is unsealed. Wheelchairs can be hard to get over grass, and very hard over gravel. That's my opinion after pushing a wheelchair places.

I have reported one 1T cache to a reviewer after the CO failed to respond and up the terrain. The CO had marked it 1D & 1T, neither of which was even close to being correct, but I only commented on the T. I now notice it is 1.5T. I have contacted several COs about the rating, but almost all have ignored me. Those were in the past. Now I contact the reviewer. CO ignoring this problem and refusing to respond to it, as they really don't give a toss about handicapped people not being able to reach their caches marked 1T. Did I mention cruel :mad:.

That article brought a rant from me.

Sounds like you have a localised problem or perhaps it may be more widespread than what I have experienced. IIRC I've come across this only once. I logged Found It mentioning the terrain rating should be higher than T1 (wheelchair walkway with cache under a small bridge). I thought the CO would read the log (I was FTF) and fix it. Nothing happened so, after a week,  logged a NA to quickly get the reviewers attention and the CO fixed it quickly - with apologies. I will however, admit that I rarely take note of the terrain rating unless I suspect in advance it may more than, say, T2, so there may have been others.

Link to comment
34 minutes ago, colleda said:

Sounds like you have a localised problem or perhaps it may be more widespread than what I have experienced. IIRC I've come across this only once. I logged Found It mentioning the terrain rating should be higher than T1 (wheelchair walkway with cache under a small bridge). I thought the CO would read the log (I was FTF) and fix it. Nothing happened so, after a week,  logged a NA to quickly get the reviewers attention and the CO fixed it quickly - with apologies. I will however, admit that I rarely take note of the terrain rating unless I suspect in advance it may more than, say, T2, so there may have been others.

Perhaps you have never realised the problem, plus you wrote, "I will however, admit that I rarely take note of the terrain rating."

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Goldenwattle said:

I think that no one should have the ability to be able to mark a cache less than 1.5T, unless they provide detailed photographs to the reviewer of all stages of the wheelchair accessible cache proving it is 1T. Then only the reviewer should be able to mark it 1T.

Are you familiar with the Handicaching web site? http://handicaching.com/

 

The Handicaching web site rates geocaches on a scale of 1-5 in 5 different accessibility-related categories:

  • Distance to cache
  • Route surface
  • Route slope
  • Route obstructions
  • Cache height

For people who really need to know whether a cache is accessible to them, this is probably a more effective tool than whether a cache is rated T1 and has the "Wheelchair accessible" attribute. The wheelchair users I've known have had quite a range of abilities, and caches that might be accessible to one might not be accessible to another.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
13 minutes ago, niraD said:

Are you familiar with the Handicaching web site? http://handicaching.com/

 

The Handicaching web site rates geocaches on a scale of 1-5 in 5 different accessibility-related categories:

  • Distance to cache
  • Route surface
  • Route slope
  • Route obstructions
  • Cache height

For people who really need to know whether a cache is accessible to them, this is probably a more effective tool than whether a cache is rated T1 and has the "Wheelchair accessible" attribute. The wheelchair users I've known have had quite a range of abilities, and caches that might be accessible to one might not be accessible to another.

No, I wasn't aware of that site, but I am aware that not all wheelchair users are paralysed. The person I took out wasn't, and at first would have been able to stand briefly. Towards the end, not al all. Some can stand up briefly to reach something, but often require something to hang on to. Even to those people though, the cache can't be too high, or need a far reach, because of balance problems. However, as there is only one wheelchair rating I suggest, it is fairest that for a 1T rating, people in a wheelchair should be easily able to reach for and return a cache, without leaving the wheelchair and standing up. No extreme bending over either and risk someone either toppling, or having problems getting themselves upright again in the chair.

Link to comment

My nephew's in a wheelchair.  We used him to rate one of our caches once, but this kid can climb trees better than me.

We know a lot of vets that may be in wheelchairs, but they're upper-body strength allows them higher T-ratings.

 - The chair itself is the deciding factor. If they can get there, they'll probably do whatever the cache entails.

I guess I'd like to see T1 mean something super easy, but people who could barely do a T1 aren't what we're experiencing...

Link to comment
15 hours ago, niraD said:

Are you familiar with the Handicaching web site? http://handicaching.com/

 

The Handicaching web site rates geocaches on a scale of 1-5 in 5 different accessibility-related categories:

  • Distance to cache
  • Route surface
  • Route slope
  • Route obstructions
  • Cache height

For people who really need to know whether a cache is accessible to them, this is probably a more effective tool than whether a cache is rated T1 and has the "Wheelchair accessible" attribute. The wheelchair users I've known have had quite a range of abilities, and caches that might be accessible to one might not be accessible to another.

While this site is not affiliated with Groundspeak, I would suggest that, for any cache with the Wheelchair accessible attribute, GS link to the rating for that cache on handicaching.com. handicaching.com encourages linking to the site, and on each ratings page, they have cut & paste code for how to do it. Here's a link to a specific cache on handicaching.com. http://www.handicaching.com/show.php?waypoint=GCA1BRK

 

As lots of people have pointed out, and from personal experience, not all people in wheelchairs have the same abilities. Adding a link would show that GS cares about people that use wheelchairs, and shouldn't cost much in terms of development time.

Link to comment
20 minutes ago, Wet Pancake Touring Club said:

While this site is not affiliated with Groundspeak, I would suggest that, for any cache with the Wheelchair accessible attribute, GS link to the rating for that cache on handicaching.com. handicaching.com encourages linking to the site, and on each ratings page, they have cut & paste code for how to do it.

 

Is this a suitable link for a CO to place into a cache description?  I tried to do the "seal" version, and no image showed.  And the formatted link doesn't say what the "rating" is for, so I added text to the link.

 

horton-1.jpg

 

Edited by kunarion
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
3 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

My nephew's in a wheelchair.  We used him to rate one of our caches once, but this kid can climb trees better than me.

We know a lot of vets that may be in wheelchairs, but they're upper-body strength allows them higher T-ratings.

 - The chair itself is the deciding factor. If they can get there, they'll probably do whatever the cache entails.

Sounds like one of the wheelchair users I knew in college. He was a paraplegic, but his upper body strength was amazing, and he competed in wheelchair sports. In an intramural arm-wrestling competition (against able-bodied opponents), he reached the finals, but was eliminated when his inability to use his legs to brace his lower body became an issue. He used a manual wheelchair, and if necessary, he could use arm crutches and rigid leg braces to get places that were not wheelchair accessible.

On the other hand, another wheelchair user I knew in college was a quadriplegic, who needed an assistant to get him into (and out of) his electric wheelchair. He was pretty much the opposite end of the spectrum from the other guy...

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Wet Pancake Touring Club said:

As lots of people have pointed out, and from personal experience, not all people in wheelchairs have the same abilities. Adding a link would show that GS cares about people that use wheelchairs, and shouldn't cost much in terms of development time.

 

I had a cache once that was beside a picnic table, where you could basically drive up and park, and the cache may be 10 feet from parking (although you could park within inches of it, assuming you know in advance where it is).  Most everything would be accessible from a wheelchair, except the picnic area is covered with gravel.  So that one would be great, if accounting for gravel.  It was a 3.0 Difficulty cache due to aggressive camouflage, but otherwise easily reached.

 

But is it worthwhile to "accessibility rate" every cache I own?  I have several with very rugged, ever-changing uneven ground, drainage ditches that must be jumped across (may be full of mud and water), no defined trail, tall bushes, weeds and thorns to bushwhack through for a long distance, low barb wire fence left over from when the place was a farm, and huge fallen trees.  Navigate through all that for just one cache.  Is there any value to a specialized accessibility "rating" for something like that?  Is it useful to point out that there is a nice paved trail for the first few hundred feet? 

 

I'm not being sarcastic, I'm seriously wondering if I should "rate" only the caches that could be considered "accessible" at all.  The rest by default are not what you would consider to try in a wheelchair (for example).  Some are daunting even to me, and I own the caches.  Can't I leave them "unrated" and up to the individual cacher to decide?  Yes, I know anyone can "rate" a cache there, and they are "unrated" by default.  The Geocaching Cache Rating serves the purpose, an additional rating seems unecessary.  Or would the idea apply only to "T1" caches?

 

But what about my easier ones where cachers take a weird route, and they log about bushes, thorns and obstacles?  It actually may be wheelchair accessible if you start where I said in the cache description.

 

 

Edited by kunarion
Link to comment
22 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

CO ignoring this problem and refusing to respond to it, as they really don't give a toss about handicapped people not being able to reach their caches marked 1T. Did I mention cruel :mad:.

 

I got a taste of what when I had a temporary mobility problem. I broke my right ankle while looking for a cache. Finally after almost 3 months I could try to cache again but I had to be careful. So I picked T1 caches. It was a lesson in frustration. I ended up driving sometimes for hours to find a cache I could do wearing an ankle brace and using a cane. I'd walk a kilometre on a nice crushed stone level rail trail and when I was 50m from the cache I'd stare down a steep rocky slope with a little 3 foot wide creek at the bottom that needed to be jumped over. Or I'd get to a cemetery but the cache would be a 50m trek at the back of the cemetery into the woods through thick brush and fallen trees. It happened far too often. I complained here in the forums but got little sympathy. Mostly the talk was about the minutiae of what T1 means. And how handicapped people need to bring someone with them to do the retrieving. Unfortunately few people can empathize with the problem. Why post a cache as a T1 if it isn't actually a flat accessible surface all the way to the cache? At least post a T1.5. Why  not err on the side of a terrain rating that is a little higher (a T2+) than too low. It's probably a statistics thing. T1 is probably covetted for grid fillers and challenge enthusiasts.   I agree, it is cruel. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 1
  • Helpful 3
  • Love 1
Link to comment
47 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

I agree, it is cruel. 

The first time I noticed how cruel some people can be when marking a cache 1T, was after a long drive to a cache, and finding it too difficult even for this relatively able bodied, then younger person. I had to walk along the beach (a wheelchair would be bogged at that), then scramble over boulders and climb a small cliff. Absolutely, uncaring and selfish of the CO, for whatever reason it was they marked it that way. Either that or they were just very lacking in thinking capabilities. It was the only cache there and took a considerable drive off the main road to get to it. Imagine a person in a wheelchair arriving there and then finding all that 😥. Even with someone to push the chair they wouldn't have been able to get to GZ. Neither could many people even without needing a wheelchair.

 

When marking terrain rating please mark it correctly for all levels, and think beyond yourself. Think of the person in a wheelchair if a 1T, and think of others if 1.5T or higher. Just because you might be a super athlete, does not mean everyone else is. Try to think of the general public and mark the cache accordingly, not just what you are capable of doing. Same with height. Just because you are 183 cms, doesn't mean that's average. (Women exist too, so don't think average male height). Rate according to what most people (females too... hello👋 as we also cache) could reach. Too often I read, "Lucky I had my husband with me and he could reach the cache, as I couldn't" for 1.5T.  If anyone get those logs on a 1.5T, you have the terrain marked too low. However, although that should be obvious, the rating is rarely corrected. Anything higher than what can be reached by most of the population with feet flat on the ground, is not 1.5T. If in doubt and you can't decide between a couple of ratings it's better to choose the higher rating. It doesn't matter if some arrive and find the cache a doddle. Better then others finding it harder than they expected and not being able to do it. My feeling on that :) .

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
21 hours ago, kunarion said:

 

I had a cache once that was beside a picnic table, where you could basically drive up and park, and the cache may be 10 feet from parking (although you could park within inches of it, assuming you know in advance where it is).  Most everything would be accessible from a wheelchair, except the picnic area is covered with gravel.  So that one would be great, if accounting for gravel.  It was a 3.0 Difficulty cache due to aggressive camouflage, but otherwise easily reached.

 

But is it worthwhile to "accessibility rate" every cache I own?  I have several with very rugged, ever-changing uneven ground, drainage ditches that must be jumped across (may be full of mud and water), no defined trail, tall bushes, weeds and thorns to bushwhack through for a long distance, low barb wire fence left over from when the place was a farm, and huge fallen trees.  Navigate through all that for just one cache.  Is there any value to a specialized accessibility "rating" for something like that?  Is it useful to point out that there is a nice paved trail for the first few hundred feet? 

 

I'm not being sarcastic, I'm seriously wondering if I should "rate" only the caches that could be considered "accessible" at all.  The rest by default are not what you would consider to try in a wheelchair (for example).  Some are daunting even to me, and I own the caches.  Can't I leave them "unrated" and up to the individual cacher to decide?  Yes, I know anyone can "rate" a cache there, and they are "unrated" by default.  The Geocaching Cache Rating serves the purpose, an additional rating seems unecessary.  Or would the idea apply only to "T1" caches?

 

But what about my easier ones where cachers take a weird route, and they log about bushes, thorns and obstacles?  It actually may be wheelchair accessible if you start where I said in the cache description.

 

 

I'm going to cherry pick some of the parts of your thoughts and questions.

 

To me, gravel by itself doesn't mean a cache can't be wheelchair accessible. But, it does need to be hard packed. This geocache https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC3QFYD is in a WA state park where the entire park is designed to be wheelchair accessible. The trails are wide, and are hard packed gravel and a few boardwalks. The park has a trail map that is color coded with slope information. The cache is about halfway along a 1.5 mile trail. (The geocache was in a 3' tall stump, right next to the trail, and covered with a piece of moss.)

 

My thought is that the handicaching site be linked to only if the wheelchair accessible attribute is set.

 

You do bring up an interesting question, should the CO rate their own cache? I think they should. The handicaching site appears to allow for multiple ratings per cache, so if others disagree with the CO, they can post their own ratings based on their own experience. In some respects, the handicaching site can be considered an extended logging system that allows wheelchair users to quickly view logs specifically dealing with accessibility.

 

(Didn't recognize you initially, you changed your picture.)

  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
3 hours ago, Wet Pancake Touring Club said:

You do bring up an interesting question, should the CO rate their own cache? I think they should. The handicaching site appears to allow for multiple ratings per cache, so if others disagree with the CO, they can post their own ratings based on their own experience. In some respects, the handicaching site can be considered an extended logging system that allows wheelchair users to quickly view logs specifically dealing with accessibility.


I Handicaching rated just my two caches that could ever possibly be considered as candidates for “accessibility” by adventurous persons.  For the rest, you need to go there and look and decide whether to try it, just like anycacher does.  I think it would be discouraging for COs to receive a lot of “ratings corrections”.  Yeah, when the gravel isn’t quite as packed as the rating suggests… or it’s “3.5 feet away” rather than 3.  Especially since containers are not always returned to the intended spot.

 

3 hours ago, Wet Pancake Touring Club said:

(Didn't recognize you initially, you changed your picture.)

 

I’m trying on different Avatars for Halloween.  :anicute:
 

Edited by kunarion
Link to comment

I thought it would be fun to put a 5D/1T cache in my Geoart.  Very tough puzzle!  Cache was less than .2 mile from the parking.  On a paved walkway wheelchair accessible from the parking.  The container was waist height above the ground; accessible for anyone in a wheel chair.  Unfortunately, that made it easily muggled.  

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
On 10/26/2022 at 10:34 PM, Goldenwattle said:
On 10/26/2022 at 9:30 PM, L0ne.R said:

I agree, it is cruel. 

The first time I noticed how cruel some people can be when marking a cache 1T, was after a long drive to a cache, and finding it too difficult even for this relatively able bodied, then younger person. I had to walk along the beach (a wheelchair would be bogged at that), then scramble over boulders and climb a small cliff. Absolutely, uncaring and selfish of the CO, for whatever reason it was they marked it that way. Either that or they were just very lacking in thinking capabilities

 

Cruelty is either the intentional infliction of misfortune or suffering, or a knowing indifference thereto. I think a healthy application of Hanlon's razor would be apropos here. You're ascribing inappropriate T1 ratings to malice, when it's much more likely that it was ignorance.

 

For example, a third alternative to your two hypotheses is, the cache was placed before difficulty and terrain ratings were a feature on the site, and was assigned T1 D1 by default when the feature was added. Unlikely, unless the cache you were looking for is really old, but possible.

 

GC17 is a good example of this -  even if you park right at the trailhead, it's at least a 1 km hike with 200m elevation gain, and yet, T1. (It also has no attributes, which is consistent, as attributes were not initially available, either.) GC2D5 is another - T1/D1, even though it's 1 km from the road on uneven dirt trails. Here, also, aside from the red wrench automatically assigned by a needs maintenance log, no attributes.

 

Or, a fourth, and what I think is the likeliest, alternative, the cache was placed after difficulty and terrain ratings were a feature on the site, but before the default terrain setting on the cache listing page was changed from T1 to T1.5. I can't remember when the default finally changed; someone else can dig through the release notes if they care to pinpoint it. I know it was after 2007, when I started caching. But my point is, it took several years.

 

I'm going to be hobbled for a bit after foot surgery next week. I will try to go caching anyway. But for any I go for, I'll be looking at them carefully, not just filtering for T1 and stopping there.

 

I fully agree that the process should be easier for cachers with mobility issues. I just don't ascribe the fact that it's not to cruelty, and I don't think it's reasonable for others to do so, either.

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
2 hours ago, hzoi said:

Or, a fourth, and what I think is the likeliest, alternative, the cache was placed after difficulty and terrain ratings were a feature on the site, but before the default terrain setting on the cache listing page was changed from T1 to T1.5. I can't remember when the default finally changed; someone else can dig through the release notes if they care to pinpoint it. I know it was after 2007, when I started caching. But my point is, it took several years.

 

This default rating is one of my pet irks. There's no default size, the cache creation page forces you to pick one, so why is there a default D/T rating that you can just skip over without even thinking about what your rating should be? Is it really that important in the cache creation process to save a couple of mouse clicks for a 1.5/1.5 cache?

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 2
  • Love 1
Link to comment
6 hours ago, hzoi said:

I fully agree that the process should be easier for cachers with mobility issues. I just don't ascribe the fact that it's not to cruelty, and I don't think it's reasonable for others to do so, either.

Okay, call it inconsiderate; that they didn't consider others, which for whatever reason, they didn't.

  • Upvote 1
  • Surprised 1
Link to comment

When I was at Iguassu, I saw a group of 3 obviously military men, one in a wheelchair.  There was no way that anyone would call the terrain wheelchair friendly.  That didn't bother these guys.  When the going got tough, thr tough just picked up the wheelchair, occupant and all, and carried it over the rough bits.

  • Love 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Gill & Tony said:

When I was at Iguassu, I saw a group of 3 obviously military men, one in a wheelchair.  There was no way that anyone would call the terrain wheelchair friendly.  That didn't bother these guys.  When the going got tough, thr tough just picked up the wheelchair, occupant and all, and carried it over the rough bits.

Which means that it was not wheelchair friendly. The person in the wheelchair should be able to do a 1T without needing assistance.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
17 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

Which means that it was not wheelchair friendly. The person in the wheelchair should be able to do a 1T without needing assistance.

To quote my post "There was no way that anyone would call the terrain wheelchair friendly. "

 

I'm not sure of the point you are making.  I never suggested that a cache there would be T1.  I was just pointing out that some folk with mates  in wheelchairs  don't let rough terrain stop everyone from enjoying the area.  I was pretty impressed when I saw it and thought others might be interested.

 

 

 

 

 

  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
On 10/28/2022 at 8:15 PM, Goldenwattle said:
On 10/28/2022 at 1:25 PM, hzoi said:

I fully agree that the process should be easier for cachers with mobility issues. I just don't ascribe the fact that it's not to cruelty, and I don't think it's reasonable for others to do so, either.

Okay, call it inconsiderate; that they didn't consider others, which for whatever reason, they didn't.

 

Yep, fully agree it is inconsiderate.

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...