Difficulty / Terrain rating changes - What would you do?

January 8

I have a cache that originally involved bushwacking, thorns etc. and was rated at 3.5 difficulty. They cleared the area and I had to move it 50 feet which is now in a pretty simple area, and it’s rated 1.5 difficulty. I recently had a Cacher reach out and they want me to change it back to 3.5 because that’s what it was when they found it. My problem with changing it back is it’s not the current difficulty level and I know I used to use this when caching with my little one’s and would have avoided this cache altogether when planning if they were with me. Below is the message I received and I was hoping to get feedback on what the proper etiquette would be. Honestly I think it’s a geocaching.com issue and they should be locking in the D/T when the found log is posted. I could see where someone is also getting credit for higher ratings then when they found it if it's later more difficult.

Quote

Regarding GC62: Tombstone – So I was checking on my D/T numbers and I noticed that https://coord.info/GC62 Tombstone changed from a 2.5/3.5 when i found it in 12/20 and is now 2.5/1.5 I'm not sure if you know that making that change affects everyone who has ever found the cache, not just going forward.

Changes like this can take squares away on a D/T grid or make people not qualify for challenges that require certain d/t averages. I know this is an oldest cache so archiving it to lock in the d/t is not possible but I really think it is unfair to take 2 stars away from all of those that have logged this cache over time. Also for the new finders, I don't know of anyone who complains about over rated caches vs those that earned the higher rating and lost it.

Any feedback on what everyone feels I should do is appreciated.

11.2k · January 8

Here's a previous discussion that might help you decide:

https://forums.geocaching.com/GC/index.php?/topic/382859-changing-dt-rating-of-your-geocache-after-publication-and-finders-logging-it/

January 8

D/T ratings are supposed to reflect the current situation. Their statistics are not your concern

9.2k · January 8

Or.

Change the D/T back, and archive the cache.

Make a 'new' cache with the new D/T.

If a cache changes too much, either D/T container or location, it really could be considered a new cache.

Having said that, challenges of 'filling in squares/grids is a sideline of caching!

9.1k · January 8

1 hour ago, Bear and Ragged said:

Or.

Change the D/T back, and archive the cache.

Make a 'new' cache with the new D/T.

If a cache changes too much, either D/T container or location, it really could be considered a new cache.

Having said that, challenges of 'filling in squares/grids is a sideline of caching!

While generally this is great advice, I would make an exception when the cache is the oldest active cache in a country/province/state. OP would create way more drama and angst for archiving the oldest cache in the State vs. adjusting the D/T rating.

1.9k · January 8

2 hours ago, Bear and Ragged said:

Having said that, challenges of 'filling in squares/grids is a sideline of caching!

It was, now it is supported by HQ, with congratulations and all on your stats page, with a link to help you to fill it in again....

My personal thoughts (from a DT seeker) - once your cache has a 4 or more in it (maybe even a 3.5 as above!), fiddling with the DT ratings, especially decreasing, has a good chance of upsetting people.

13.7k · January 8

8 hours ago, HackAttack said:

Any feedback on what everyone feels I should do is appreciated.

Add me to the "this isn't about stats, it's maintaining true D/T on a cache" total.

We did caches in a new park that still had logging roads. We wore muck boots, but coulda worn waders the water/muck was so deep in spots.

Just a year later, the park had blacktop roads n parking, and logging trails were neat n trim. No mud! The CO changed the terrain to fit.

6.1k · January 8

I was initially thinking return the cache to it's original rating, archive it and publish a new one, on the basis that this is now effectively a new cache; however seeing that it's a "historical" cache I'm now coming down on the side of retain the listing and change it's ratings to reflect it's current position.

1.4k · January 8

9 hours ago, HackAttack said:

I could see where someone is also getting credit for higher ratings then when they found it if it's later more difficult.

You don't "get credit" for ratings. The ratings are (or should be!) just a statement about the current average (across all possible weather situations[*]) D/T of the cache hide, so that a cacher roughly knows what to expect. Don't let the statistics crowd rule the game even more than they already do .

[*] Maybe excluding special cases like caches on an island, which can be reached on foot in extremely cold winters.

January 8

Honestly, I consider the D/T ratings to be part of the experience of the geocache. If a D/T changed significantly enough that I would change the rating, I'd just archive and re-list it. Those people bushwhacking though thorns to find the cache are having a much different experience to those not having to do so. Just my 2 cents.

1.7k · January 9

4 hours ago, MartyBartfast said:

I was initially thinking return the cache to it's original rating, archive it and publish a new one, on the basis that this is now effectively a new cache; however seeing that it's a "historical" cache I'm now coming down on the side of retain the listing and change it's ratings to reflect it's current position.

Interesting discussion - does the "value" of an old cache, (and GC62 IS an old cache!) outweigh the value of accurate D/T? Those that found GC62 at a 3.5 T rating should keep that rating; if it has changed that significantly, I'd archive and replace with a cache correctly rated. Yes, you lose that old cache status, but those that found it, keep their find and the D/T THEY FOUND!

I know it's hard to let those old caches go, but they will be getting more and more rare as years go by - and I feel an accurate D/T (while allowing those that found a more difficult combo to keep it) outweighs the old cache value. That's just my 2 cents!

January 9

2 hours ago, CAVinoGal said:

Interesting discussion - does the "value" of an old cache, (and GC62 IS an old cache!) outweigh the value of accurate D/T?

Agreed interesting discussion.

What about older caches that have never had correct D/T GC17 is a 1/1 and defiantly not a 1/1. Do we archive that one? Hopefully no tho the CO has not logged in for a short while hopefully they have an adoption plan.

Personally I'd go back to the original D/T and place a note in the page that says the actual D/T is what it is now. Let's face it the OP talks about a a previous finder that takes their stats personally. Can't blame them. Every cacher has their own personal motivations to cache how they cache, which is why I think challenges are a draw for me specially any revolving around my stats.

4.2k · January 9

4 hours ago, CAVinoGal said:

I'd archive

:surprise: 😥😭...NO.

15.3k · January 9

17 hours ago, The Leprechauns said:

While generally this is great advice, I would make an exception when the cache is the oldest active cache in a country/province/state. OP would create way more drama and angst for archiving the oldest cache in the State vs. adjusting the D/T rating.

IMHO, this is true for the oldest active cache in a region, but it's also true for the newest active cache in a region. All caches have history that is more valuable than the stats, and they shouldn't be archived just because situation changes (or the CO's understanding of the situation changes). Update the difficulty/terrain ratings and don't worry about the stats.

6.1k · January 9

11 hours ago, CAVinoGal said:

Interesting discussion - does the "value" of an old cache, (and GC62 IS an old cache!) outweigh the value of accurate D/T?

No, I (and I think you) believe that the DT rating for a cache should represent it's current state, hence why I suggested keeping the cache and changing it's DT.

11 hours ago, CAVinoGal said:

Yes, you lose that old cache status, but those that found it, keep their find and the D/T THEY FOUND!

So I think your question would have been better phrased as :

Quote

Does the "value" of an old cache and an accurate D/T outweigh previous finders' personal stats?

And IMO the answer to this is "Yes". It's unfortunate that some finders might lose a T3.5 find in their stats, but then again they'll gain a T1.5 and there seem to be plenty of other T3.5 caches in that region.

And for the record I do track my DT grids, and I once "lost" a full grid because someone added half a star to the T on a cache which had been there for ~6 years due to a new cacher complaining about the nettles at the GZ.

3k · January 9

If I had a T3.5 cache that I needed to move 50 ft and change to T1.5 then I would archive the old listing and submit a new one. The container might be the same but the experience has changed such that it's nor really the same cache anymore.

January 11

You shouldn't archive caches just to please a small amount of the community who play the game differently

1.7k · January 11

3 hours ago, Sottiwotti said:

You shouldn't archive caches just to please a small amount of the community who play the game differently

Agreed. But we are talking about a cache that has substantially changed in hide style and terrain from the original, so it should be listed as a new cache. If the original is no longer viable as listed, it eneeds to be archived.

Accurate D/T ratings are important and in my mind, more important than stat grids. If the hide location is the same, but the terrain (due to seasonal changes, etc) has changed then the Terrain should reflect that, and no need to archive and replace. But if the original location has changed, and the hide itself needs to be redone, AND there's a D/T change, that warrants a new cache, IMO.

And I agree it wold be nice for the D/T WHEN FOUND should stay - if I found a T4 that later was changed to a T1 due to weather or whatever, it makes sense that I retain the T4, as that's what I accomplished. In a perfect world....

January 12

6 hours ago, CAVinoGal said:

Agreed. But we are talking about a cache that has substantially changed in hide style and terrain from the original, so it should be listed as a new cache. If the original is no longer viable as listed, it eneeds to be archived.

Accurate D/T ratings are important and in my mind, more important than stat grids. If the hide location is the same, but the terrain (due to seasonal changes, etc) has changed then the Terrain should reflect that, and no need to archive and replace. But if the original location has changed, and the hide itself needs to be redone, AND there's a D/T change, that warrants a new cache, IMO.

And I agree it wold be nice for the D/T WHEN FOUND should stay - if I found a T4 that later was changed to a T1 due to weather or whatever, it makes sense that I retain the T4, as that's what I accomplished. In a perfect world....

Totally agree!

Happens a lot with throw downs to preserve artificially higher or unique D/T combos as well. I found a 5/1.5 that was really a 1.5/1.5 yes I filed a NM

January 12

This happened with one of mine but in a different way - the conditions didn't change, I was just stoopid with two o's. I accidentally flipped the difficulty and terrain rating when I published it. There were some people that drove hundreds of miles for that DT rating to be a part of their trip. When I noticed, I knew I had to do one of the suggestions in this thread - change it or archive and republish with the new DT. It certainly couldn't stay a terrain 4 when it's a 1.5. In my case it wasn't an oldie, so it was easy to archive without pain. I contacted the various people that had found my cache to let them know my intent to archive and republish under the proper DT and they appreciated the heads up, especially since some of them would have been unqualified for already found challenges they had used my cache for. GCA7AKX is live again and my local reviewer supported the decision.

Great discussion, everyone. It's good to hear other people's inputs. And thank you for keeping it civil - it's no fun when it gets heated.

January 12

21 hours ago, Sottiwotti said:

You shouldn't archive caches just to please a small amount of the community who play the game differently

There are situations where I totally agree with you, probably most situations. Archiving just for a few people sounds similar to a super mild form of nepotism - tailoring it for a lucky or outspoken few.
At the same time, I can picture some worthwhile exceptions. Some of the intricate puzzles and/or mountainous geocaches in my area that are high rare DTs and types only get found by a small crowd of nutters and stat freaks like me. When we're looking at finds only from that small amount of the community (less than 10 people), especially when they drive from different states to find that DT, I personally feel like it is worth the discussion with them. I'm thinking of ones like GC9H56R - a 4.5/5 slot canyon hide that requires rappelling entry and rope ascending exit - 5 finders in 2 years, 2 from out of state for this DT. If that slot canyon cave roof became unusable due to a rock collapse or something, the rating of the replacement container would be off for sure.

1.7k · January 12

2 hours ago, CheekyBrit said:

If that slot canyon cave roof became unusable due to a rock collapse or something, the rating of the replacement container would be off for sure.

This one is easy - archive it! And try to find a suitable NEW cache with similar ratings.

January 12

2 hours ago, CheekyBrit said:

There are situations where I totally agree with you, probably most situations. Archiving just for a few people sounds similar to a super mild form of nepotism - tailoring it for a lucky or outspoken few.
At the same time, I can picture some worthwhile exceptions. Some of the intricate puzzles and/or mountainous geocaches in my area that are high rare DTs and types only get found by a small crowd of nutters and stat freaks like me. When we're looking at finds only from that small amount of the community (less than 10 people), especially when they drive from different states to find that DT, I personally feel like it is worth the discussion with them. I'm thinking of ones like GC9H56R - a 4.5/5 slot canyon hide that requires rappelling entry and rope ascending exit - 5 finders in 2 years, 2 from out of state for this DT. If that slot canyon cave roof became unusable due to a rock collapse or something, the rating of the replacement container would be off for sure.

I agree with you

January 13

On 1/11/2024 at 11:31 AM, Sottiwotti said:

You shouldn't archive caches just to please a small amount of the community who play the game differently

The argument to NOT archive is also just to please a small amount of the community who play the game differently. (Jasmer)

Personally I have zero interest in Jasmer, Fizzy, or Challenge caches, so my vote would be to have accurate ratings regardless of weather it's by way of editing or republishing.

January 13

Could you leave it as it now is and make a note in the description the change and the reason?

1.7k · January 14

On 1/12/2024 at 9:26 PM, Jayeffel said:

Could you leave it as it now is and make a note in the description the change and the reason?

Aren't we always complaining about how nobody seems to read descriptions anymore?

4.2k · January 14

9 hours ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

Aren't we always complaining about how nobody seems to read descriptions anymore?

:antenna: Put it in the hint as well then.

1.7k · January 14

1 hour ago, Goldenwattle said:

Put it in the hint as well then.

I personally wouldn't choose to do that. Hints are for hints, not for extra information you're trying to shoehorn into visibility on the app for people who don't want to open the description or don't even know that it's there.

1.9k · January 14

I put important info I want them to see in the hint - like - 'the inner may fall out when you unscrew the bottom' - this is important 10m up a tree....

January 14

15 minutes ago, lee737 said:

I put important info I want them to see in the hint - like - 'the inner may fall out when you unscrew the bottom' - this is important 10m up a tree....

You mean you don't wish to climb the tree twice?

1.9k · January 14

1 hour ago, MNTA said:

You mean you don't wish to climb the tree twice?

Don't worry - we've done that!

1.7k · January 14

2 hours ago, lee737 said:

I put important info I want them to see in the hint - like - 'the inner may fall out when you unscrew the bottom' - this is important 10m up a tree....

But doesn't putting it in the hint defeat the purpose of giving them important information like that?

The POINT is to only look at the hint if you get frustrated! If you see the gizmo up in the tree and ascend to it, there's never a need to reveal the hint.

6.8k · January 14

17 minutes ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

The POINT is to only look at the hint if you get frustrated! If you see the gizmo up in the tree and ascend to it, there's never a need to reveal the hint.

The trouble is the official app puts the hint button more prominently above the description and says to only look at the description if you get stuck (by which time it's probably too late).

Screenshot_20240115_091230_Geocaching.jpg.30142b53d98427b58f5ba42d80c83911.jpg

Sometimes I wonder if it might be better on traditionals to just put "This page intentionally left blank" as the description and have everything in the hint.

4.2k · January 15

7 hours ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

I personally wouldn't choose to do that. Hints are for hints, not for extra information you're trying to shoehorn into visibility on the app for people who don't want to open the description or don't even know that it's there.

My comment was for people who complain no one reads the description now. Personally, I would just put it in the description and leave it at that. People can read it, or not.

2.7k · January 15

7 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

The trouble is the official app puts the hint button more prominently above the description and says to only look at the description if you get stuck (by which time it's probably too late).

Sometimes I wonder if it might be better on traditionals to just put "This page intentionally left blank" as the description and have everything in the hint.

With this cache there is an additional hint in the description could help but I think most would miss it.

"Cache is a small 375ml container ...."

1.9k · January 15

9 hours ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

But doesn't putting it in the hint defeat the purpose of giving them important information like that?

The POINT is to only look at the hint if you get frustrated! If you see the gizmo up in the tree and ascend to it, there's never a need to reveal the hint.

You would think.... but I would put a guess out there that for the average trad, hints are read at a rate maybe 5-10x that of descriptions....

4.2k · January 15

8 minutes ago, lee737 said:

You would think.... but I would put a guess out there that for the average trad, hints are read at a rate maybe 5-10x that of descriptions....

Agreed. One reason for this is that the hint is usually short and concise. The description also can have the history, geology, etc information and this has to be scrolled down to find any hints; slow (painful) on a small screen GPS.

6.8k · January 15

1 hour ago, Goldenwattle said:

The description also can have the history, geology, etc information and this has to be scrolled down to find any hints; slow (painful) on a small screen GPS.

The description can also contain important access and safety information that searchers really ought to look at before setting off, like GCABG77. I still have reservations about app-only cachers attempting that one, probably without looking at the D/T rating or attributes either (attributes, what are they? They're even more hidden in the app than the description). Hopefully they'll just give up when they don't find the cache sitting on top of the rock shelf above the cave, where they're unlikely to come to grief.

4.2k · January 15

35 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

The description can also contain important access and safety information that searchers really ought to look at before setting off

I do for trickier caches, but the ordinary traditions, rarely. If they have some interesting reading, I will likely read that later as I log on a bigger screen.

1.9k · January 15

1 minute ago, Goldenwattle said:

I do for trickier caches, but the ordinary traditions, rarely. If they have some interesting reading, I will likely read that later as I log on a bigger screen.

Same here (holds head down) - and we've come off second best several times as a result!

6.8k · January 15

1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

Hopefully they'll just give up when they don't find the cache sitting on top of the rock shelf above the cave, where they're unlikely to come to grief.

This gives me a segue back onto the subject of this thread. Suppose something happened at this cache (GCABG77) that made access into the cave impossible and I decided to move it vertically through the roof and onto the rock shelf above, where it would be a terrain 2 instead of a 4. After all, there's still a nice view from there out across the bay so it'd be worthy of a cache in its own right. But reducing its T rating would likely disappoint Lee as he said in his log "this cache appealed to us from the description, and its desired DT rating", so in this situation I think it's pretty clear that the right thing to do would be to archive the old listing and create a new T2 at the same coordinates. While it's in the same location on the map, it would be a very different experience.

The only difference between this and the OP's scenario is the age of their cache. I personally don't pay much attention to a cache's age and have no interest in Jasmer grids or such things, for me it's the experience of the cache itself and the journey to it that matters, but I know there are plenty of others who care deeply about their stats and would hate to see such an early and rare cache go. That one really is a case of being stuck between a rock and a hard place.

3k · January 15

On 1/12/2024 at 8:57 AM, CheekyBrit said:

I accidentally flipped the difficulty and terrain rating when I published it. There were some people that drove hundreds of miles for that DT rating to be a part of their trip.

Some people really need to stop and think about the lengths they go to chasing numbers.

1.9k · January 15

13 minutes ago, JL_HSTRE said:

Some people really need to stop and think about the lengths they go to chasing numbers.

Some people would say that about this sport/hobby in general.....

January 19

On 1/12/2024 at 9:15 AM, CAVinoGal said:

This one is easy - archive it! And try to find a suitable NEW cache with similar ratings.

You would probably indeed have to archive it. There are not many spots where you can get that terrain rating.

January 19

On 1/15/2024 at 1:48 PM, JL_HSTRE said:

Some people really need to stop and think about the lengths they go to chasing numbers.

Like me! I just changed careers so I can travel, specifically for geocaching.

January 21

I’m leaning to keeping the D/T accurate vs changing it back to the old inaccurate D/T (based on current location). Here is my rationale:

· Filter: Since you can filter on D/T to look for caches, putting the accurate D/T in the cache details would prevent someone from even seeing the cache in many cases. For example, many people may be in town for business and would never attempt a 3.5 terrain in business attire. I get lots of find logs where cacher’s log they were travelling for work. Also, if you have little one’s you may filter out higher terrains.

· The D/T was changed over 3 years ago and this is the first cacher who requested the D/T be changed back. I believe this would cause more headaches for all that found it over the last 3 years. It was noted in the cache log back in 2020 when I changed the D/T.

· I truly believe it’s up to the website of the geocaching partner to capture point in time D/T if it’s going to be used for stats, challenges, etc. Especially since it seems like the one’s I looked at charge.

That’s where I stand right now on this topic.

1.9k · January 21

3 hours ago, HackAttack said:

I truly believe it’s up to the website of the geocaching partner to capture point in time D/T if it’s going to be used for stats, challenges, etc.

Seems fair enough doesn't it.... *although* I suspect this could easily be misused by groups massaging their mates DT stats with changes prior to group outings etc... call me a cynic if you like!

I'm in the camp of allowing DT changes in the early part of a caches life (with a log entry to show the change has been made), then they should lock in place after a time.

4.2k · January 21

3 hours ago, lee737 said:

Seems fair enough doesn't it.... *although* I suspect this could easily be misused by groups massaging their mates DT stats with changes prior to group outings etc... call me a cynic if you like!

I'm in the camp of allowing DT changes in the early part of a caches life (with a log entry to show the change has been made), then they should lock in place after a time.

I tend to fiddle with the rating of my caches, taking feedback aboard, in the early days of the cache's placement, but rarely change the rating after that. An exception was one cache, where the terrain went from 1 to 3, size micro to small, and back again. I kept finding the T1 cache on the ground, so found another hiding spot, which was a T3. After (likely by an animal) I kept finding this cache kicked out of the hole and at the bottom of the hill, I managed to buy a cache with a better magnet and put it back in the original hide, and it's been there okay ever since. So from rating micro D1.5 T1 to small D1.5 T3, it's back to micro D1.5 T1. If I hadn't been able to change the ratings, I would have likely archived it and not replaced the cache. It was number 1 (the first placed) in a community series of caches. I would just hope that someone else would have relaced it.

6.8k · January 22

8 hours ago, lee737 said:

I'm in the camp of allowing DT changes in the early part of a caches life (with a log entry to show the change has been made), then they should lock in place after a time.

One of my Chasing Waterfalls caches, published in 2016, I originally rated terrain 3.5 as, while there's a fair bit of rock scrambling to reach the final waterfall waypoint, after comparing it to other T4 caches around here I didn't think it was quite at that level. The la Nina rains of 2020 and 2021 sparked a huge increase in undergrowth and, when I did an access check in early 2022, I decided pretty quickly that it needed to be nudged up to a 4. The cache had only had 15 finders at that point and I did check to make sure I wouldn't be emptying any of their 2/3.5 grid squares before making the change. The only feedback I've had was from an experienced finder who said it was a good move.

Access conditions can change over time, particularly when the weather switches from years of drought to years of deluges, and I think there needs to be the flexibility to accommodate that in the ratings.

9k · January 22

Years ago there were discussions (and likely others earlier) I remember... I still think that an optimal system for finders of caches that can have data changed while used in historic stats would be to capture any editable stats and store along with the Find logs. There's your historical data. But that's not really feasible as that's a lot of data to capture per log (high data, low calculation). A changelog for each listing is possible, but then you need functions to effectively recreate a listing as of a specific date (low data, high calculation).

Thankfully Project-GC covers some of this with their DT History lookup tool. You can look up caches you've found and see when/how DT values have changed. Know you qualified for a challenge in the past, but on logging the checker shows you don't now? Now it's provable

- https://project-gc.com/Tools/DTHistory

- https://project-gc.com/Tools/TypeHistory

- https://project-gc.com/Tools/SizeHistory

With these lookups available, it's supporting the idea that a cache listing should be as generally accurate according to its owner's judgment to the current state of the intended experience for the sake of someone setting out to find it. And thus they can decide whether it's changed too much and relist a new cache listing, or to edit the existing one to nudge it a bit, without concern over numbers-chasers' stats changing.

Edited January 22 by thebruce0

Difficulty / Terrain rating changes - What would you do?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment