Should I say anything about difficulty in log?

[+booksncomics]

I went to one today that was rated 1.5 difficulty and terrain. Terrain wasn't bad, but the cache was in a hollow cavity of a tree. The cavity was at my eye level, and a 2 foot stick I picked up didn't reach the bottom of the cavity. I stuck my phone in and took a picture, so I know it's there, just out of my reach without a special tool.  I'm married to a tall man, so next time, I'll take him and a garden claw so he can scoop it out.  On the app, when I click on the 1.5 it says for terrain: 1.5 The cache is somewhat easy to get to and reach. On a pc it says (for both difficulty and terrain: "Easy to find or solve within 10-15 minutes. The hike is less than 0.5 mile (0.8 km). Most likely flat but may not be wheelchair accessible." Nothing about being easy to reach. One log did say she didn't want to stick her hand in so used a TOTT. Would it be revealing too much if I said short people need to bring a step stool or a tall person and some kind of scooper?

Edited December 17, 2024 by booksncomics
change a to and

[+GeoElmo6000]

4 minutes ago, booksncomics said:

Would it be revealing too much if I said short people need to bring a step stool or a tall person and some kind of scooper?

 

I think it's fine to say something about how it was hard to reach and you are a (relative height here) person, that you need long arms to get the actual cache.  It could be the terrain or difficulty is wrong for the cache.

 

If the CO is sensitive as some CO's are, be prepared for a nasty message or a deleted log.  I once said a cache's terrain was too high (T2) in a log when it was just next to a flat path near a parking lot (should have been a 1 or 1.5) and the CO got mad at me and archived the cache.  Whoopsie!  But I'm hoping that's not normal behavior for a CO.

[+lee737]

11 minutes ago, booksncomics said:

Would it be revealing too much if I said short people need to bring a step stool or a tall person and some kind of scooper?

I don't think so. Just say that you were a bit too short to easily access....

[+booksncomics]

45 minutes ago, GeoElmo6000 said:

If the CO is sensitive as some CO's are, be prepared for a nasty message or a deleted log. 

Yikes! 

[+CAVinoGal]

14 hours ago, booksncomics said:

Would it be revealing too much if I said short people need to bring a step stool or a tall person and some kind of scooper?

 

I, too, am "vertically challenged", and have mentioned in logs that my TOTT was my taller husband, or a taller caching companion.  Or a note that said I could see it, couldn't reach it, and would be back another time with additional tools.  Those logs did not get deleted, and I didn't get any backlash from a CO.  Offhand, I don't recall the difficulty/terrain rating for those, but if all it required was a taller person with a longer reach, the difficulty/terrain is probably fine at 1.5/1.5.

[+Bear and Ragged]

Be vague, rather that specific.

Be prepared to have the log deleted!

 

As CAVinoGal says, something along the lines of  "needed my TOTT of taller husband/caching companion." mentions the fact - and may help others - without upsetting the CO too much.

[+Smitherington]

It is interesting how some easy caches that are described as eye level (or similar) are not eye level to me and require the use of my Geocaching Equalizer or step ladder.

[+kunarion]

It's a good idea in general to not give away the hide style. Not just for a DNF log. Some of my caches are out of the norm of “box dropped on the ground”. So if it's 6 feet up, I would like for cachers to not specify that. Maybe say “it was hard to access”, or “I could see it but not grab it” in the case of a DNF (and then contact me if there's something wrong). I've gotten logs like “I'm short, so I almost could not reach it up there!”, and so the cacher did in fact reach it, and has now posted that it's “up there” in reach.  And if it even higher up, it's likely that nobody is tall enough.  Even then, try to get it without announcing the hide style.

 

Most of my caches are ever so slightly difficult, but in no way tough, and the hide style is supposed to be a fun surprise (or to add... something... that prevents it from immediately being muggled). I love a nice story log, but please try to avoid the part that spoils it for others, merely because it's not the standard dropped on the ground kind.

 

I don't delete a log just because it's too specific. But now the cache can soon become non-viable due to that log (you gave away the hide), and it gets muggled and then archived.

[+kunarion]

3 minutes ago, Smitherington said:

It is interesting how some easy caches that are described as eye level (or similar) are not eye level to me and require the use of my Geocaching Equalizer or step ladder.

 

I've never assumed that "eye level" means the specific eye height of everyone.  Doesn't it seem like more of an average, a hint that it's not on the ground nor very high up?  That's about the range where I don't even mention height when I place a cache.  And I don't use the term "eye level", because of that requirement of me to measure eyeballs.

[+Goldenwattle]

  

5 hours ago, CAVinoGal said:

if all it required was a taller person with a longer reach, the difficulty/terrain is probably fine at 1.5/1.5.

No it is NOT 'fine'. A 1.5T should be an easy reach available to most, and if it requires a tall person, that means about 50% (mostly women) would not be able to reach it. I would not call that 1.5T, but from the evidence of where some 1.5T cashes are, I have come to realise that women are irrelevant to some men who place them. A 1.5T should not require a TOTT for most people.

I see so many logs where woman have needed their husbands to reach it. At 165cm (or was before aging) I am a bit taller than the average Australian woman, and sometimes I struggle to reach it, or with some caches where lots of logs from women have said they needed their husbands, I was on tiptoes and only just reached it. 1.5T should be where the average heighted woman can reach it. In Australia (and the USA) that's about 160cm apparently.

 

 

[+booksncomics]

8 hours ago, CAVinoGal said:

if all it required was a taller person with a longer reach, the difficulty/terrain is probably fine at 1.5/1.5.

 

I had to go up a short steep hill. It was easy for me, but would be too much for a wheelchair.

[+booksncomics]

I did put my height, but edited it to say "Definitely need a TOTT. I'll try again when I can bring someone tall."

[+JL_HSTRE]

On 12/16/2024 at 9:04 PM, GeoElmo6000 said:

If the CO is sensitive as some CO's are, be prepared for a nasty message or a deleted log.  I once said a cache's terrain was too high (T2) in a log when it was just next to a flat path near a parking lot (should have been a 1 or 1.5) and the CO got mad at me and archived the cache.  Whoopsie!  But I'm hoping that's not normal behavior for a CO.

 

That sounds like the behavior of a CO that shouldn't be a CO.

[+Goldenwattle]

On 12/17/2024 at 1:04 PM, GeoElmo6000 said:

the CO got mad at me and archived the cache

Some years ago in Canberra there was a new cacher who put out quiet a few caches. Actually good ones. Good sized Sistemas filled with trinkets. Unfortunately they couldn't take good coordinates. Others were attempting to assist by giving them correct coordinates. This new cacher threw an immature, tissy fit and archived the lot. How dare others tell them, who obviously knew how to take coordinates better than everyone else, that their coordinated needed correcting!🙄🙄🙄🙄😀. They weren't 20 metres out. Impossible.

Nobody was rude to this spineless baby.

Edited December 23, 2024 by Goldenwattle

[+PlantAKiss]

I have a cache where I state in the description that a cacher will need a TOTT and that the needed TOTT is also hidden nearby if one doesn't have it. Someone added a more explicit TOTT descriptor in their log that would have made it easier to eliminate many hiding places. So I messaged him to ask if he'd mind editing the descriptor and he kindly obliged. Sometimes a log is a little too close to an outright hint. I don't know if Cacher's mind getting messages to edit or not (this guy was nice). My caches aren't terribly hard but I don't want a log making them a PnG.

[+Goldenwattle]

6 hours ago, PlantAKiss said:

I have a cache where I state in the description that a cacher will need a TOTT and that the needed TOTT is also hidden nearby if one doesn't have it. Someone added a more explicit TOTT descriptor in their log that would have made it easier to eliminate many hiding places. So I messaged him to ask if he'd mind editing the descriptor and he kindly obliged. Sometimes a log is a little too close to an outright hint. I don't know if Cacher's mind getting messages to edit or not (this guy was nice). My caches aren't terribly hard but I don't want a log making them a PnG.

Whether you get over descriptive logs might depend on the rating the cache has. If it's a difficult find, say really a 3 or 4 difficulty, but rated a 1.5D, that's when it becomes tempting for a finder to leave a hint in the log.

[+PlantAKiss]

It's rated a 2.5...which I think is about right. It requires some looking but not overly hard. I think it only has 1 DNF and very complimentary logs and some FPs. Some people find it more quickly than others...which is pretty normal.