Definitions of difficulty/terrain ratings

[Guest Bob_and_Genny]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Markwell:

They haven't (in general) yet.

 

We need to come to an agreement that the GCRS, while not 100% accurate, is a good guideline on how to rate your caches, based on consensus agreement of many cachers using the forums. It is nothing more or less than that.

---

 

They haven't been using the program. If the rating system was linked off the cache entry page, I bet more people would use. And most of those would stick with the rating it spits out.

 

I'm not trying to change the guidelines (at least I don't think I am). I'm trying to clarify them and make the program spit out repeatable default results for most people.

 

The first thing I'm trying to clarify is if the terrain attributes are additive? I.E. do I look at all 4 (or 5 if you count overnight as an attribute) attributes and come up with an overall terrain rating or do I look at the attribute I think is the biggest contributor and use that one's value?

 

The current program says look at the value of the biggest contributor , unless there are more than one biggest contributor , in which case you add them.

 

I think Iron Chef has a point about it exaggerating things. I would add, that this occurs at the low end. What's the difference between a 1 and 2? 1/2 a mile or paved vs. well marked hardpack? Yet what's the difference between a 3 and a 4? Trail vs. no trail or walk up vs. climb up.

 

But the more I think about it, the more I think this is OK. It's probably because I think my limit right now is somewhere under a 4. I would hesitate big time to do a cache rated 4. So 1,2,3 all kind of get lumped together for me. That makes it seem very non-linear.

 

Bob

[Guest brokenwing]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bob_and_Genny:

But the more I think about it, the more I think this is OK. It's probably because I think my limit right now is somewhere under a 4. I would hesitate big time to do a cache rated 4. So 1,2,3 all kind of get lumped together for me. That makes it seem very non-linear.Bob

---

 

Bob, I think you hit it right on the head. The point of the system and the standards are to accommodate everyone in this game. When cache hunting, I generally am pushing my two year old in her stroller. After a few attempts at trying to interpret whether or not I could do a cache based on the current totally subjective ratings, I felt it was time to set some groundwork. I am also less physically able to do some caches than I otherwise might be due to some physical challenges. Because of this, I wanted to insure we gave those that are even more physically challenged a way to play. For some, I can see that there may be relatively little difference in levels one through three, but for children and those with a physical handicap, those small differentiations mean a lot. To me, it's critical that we consider everyone when we rate caches.

 

Note that I'm certainly not saying that all caches need to accommodate everyone, just that we use the system to insure cachers know ahead of time if a particular cache might be possible or not. There is nothing more frustrating than driving a long way, just to discover that you can't make the trek due to totally unexpected terrain features.

 

Thanks,

brokenwing

[Guest summitcacher]

I'd like to see some sort of "specialized equipment" code seperate from the terrain rating. Here in Colorado 1/2 the population (literally) has a 4x4. Giving a cache a 5 start terrain rating may turn some people off, when in fact you can drive right to it in a 4x4.

 

Another example is setting a terrain rating of 5 for a cache that is on an island and requires a boat. A 6 year-old could get to the cache site with a dinghy, but because it requires a boat, it gets 5 stars for terrain (my "Colorado Island" cache for example).

 

Finally, I've been to a cache site on the top of a mesa. It requires a 4x4 to get to the mesa top, but once there it really is handicap accessible. Is this a 1 star or 5 star?

[Guest brokenwing]

quote:

---

Originally posted by summitcacher:

I'd like to see some sort of "specialized equipment" code seperate from the terrain rating. Here in Colorado 1/2 the population (literally) has a 4x4. Giving a cache a 5 start terrain rating may turn some people off, when in fact you can drive right to it in a 4x4.

 

Another example is setting a terrain rating of 5 for a cache that is on an island and requires a boat. A 6 year-old could get to the cache site with a dinghy, but because it requires a boat, it gets 5 stars for terrain (my "Colorado Island" cache for example).

 

Finally, I've been to a cache site on the top of a mesa. It requires a 4x4 to get to the mesa top, but once there it really is handicap accessible. Is this a 1 star or 5 star?

---

 

I would agree that if we had another way to handle specialized equipment, it might be preferable to the proposed standard. As it is, though, we don't have such a mechanism. As long as that is true, I'd argue that if any kind of specialized equipment is needed, then it's an automatic 5.

 

I don't think we can pick and choose which specialized equipment qualifies and which does not. When this was first discussed, someone made the same argument about boats and 4x4s. But from my perspective as a non-boat or 4x4 owner, such caches would be harder than a scuba or rappelling cache. I have done both of those activities and my comfort level with those is higher. Should I rate a scuba cache lower just because I dive?

 

I think the perspective we need to use is this: Think of every cache as if you had to walk/crawl/climb/swim, or otherwise self propel yourself to it from the nearest public parking or public transportation area. How hard is that Colorado Island cache now? How about the mesa cache? Rate them accordingly and you?re on the right track.

 

This is another instance where I think we need to be more careful to try to accommodate everyone. If the average geocacher can't do the cache without the equipment, it gets a 5.

 

I think the fundamental problem here is that some people think of higher level caches as some kind of trophy. "Look at me, I did a level 5 cache!" This is silly. This game was never meant to be competitive. The need for ratings is not to rate conquests, but to assist geocachers is determining beforehand if they should attempt such a cache.

 

Why do you object to such caches being a 5?

 

Thanks,

brokenwing

[Guest summitcacher]

quote:

---

Originally posted by brokenwing:

I think the fundamental problem here is that some people think of higher level caches as some kind of trophy. "Look at me, I did a level 5 cache!" This is silly. This game was never meant to be competitive. The need for ratings is not to rate conquests, but to assist geocachers is determining beforehand if they should attempt such a cache.

 

Why do you object to such caches being a 5?

---

 

My objection is that when faced with many potential caches to visit, some geocachers may see the 5-star terrain rating and not read any further. If we had little icons (eg. a wheelchair, 4x4, boat, rope, etc) or check boxes that we could attach to a cache description we could keep the special equipment seperate from the terrain rating.

 

Along the same lines I'd also like to see a check box or $ icon if it costs money to seek this cache (parking, admission, boat rental, etc)

 

[This message has been edited by summitcacher (edited 29 August 2001).]

[Guest Bob_and_Genny]

are 2 major changes.

 

1) I've added popup help boxes for various things. They work good with mozilla and netscape, so-so with IE.

 

2) The calculation will now give ratings slightly higher than Brokenwing's and Clayjars in some cases. I'd really like you guys to try it and give me some feedback on the values it comes up with. Use some real caches that you've placed for reference.

 

It's still at http://www.bobshome.org/geocaching/rating.html

 

Bob

[Guest brokenwing]

quote:

---

Originally posted by summitcacher:

My objection is that when faced with many potential caches to visit, some geocachers may see the 5-star terrain rating and not read any further. If we had little icons (eg. a wheelchair, 4x4, boat, rope, etc) or check boxes that we could attach to a cache description we could keep the special equipment seperate from the terrain rating.

---

 

The special icon idea has been discussed before, and I think it's a good one. The problem is that Jeremy would have to first, say it's feasable based on the current DB structure, and second, say he's willing to devote time to implementing it. It's not a change that could be undertaken lightly.

 

That said, I'd be willing to bet once the GCRS was in place, people would not generally just stop reading as you suggest. If they knew about the ranking system, they would know that level 5 may relate to special equipment. Anyone that has specialized equipment/skills would likely read just to see if it's a cache that requires the equipment/skills they have. Besides, what's so horribe if they did stop reading? We have people that do that now for lower ranked caches. They automatically assume that if it's less than, say 4 that it can't be any fun. It's their loss. We can't make caches that please everyone.

 

Thanks,

brokenwing

[Guest summitcacher]

On a related topic, should a person change terrain ratings on the cache if the difficulty changes throughout the year?

 

Using my Colorado Island cache as an example, it requires a boat in the summer (5 star), you can easily walk to it over the ice in winter (2 star) and probably need a helecopter in spring and fall due to thin ice (5 star).

 

Should I change the rating to fit the season or leave it 5 all year?

 

...SummitCacher

[Guest brokenwing]

Wintering over of caches has been discussed before, and the impression I got was that one might have to change the rating. I think generally people were saying they might have to make it more difficult, but I see your point about the lake cache! Just keep in mind that if you have to walk through heavy snow for any distance, that will make the cache much harder.

 

Winter is not a real problem here in North Texas. The winters are pretty mild. In fact, I'm really looking forward to winter caching! It's got to be better than the 100 degree days we had this summer!

 

Overgrowth is the biggest change in conditions we have to deal with. Many caches were placed in heavily overgrown areas to keep them from being found by non-cachers. I've noticed some caches placed in the spring when overgrowth was heaviest that have now disappeared because the overgrowth died off in the summer heat. It will be interesting to see what happens in the winter when some caches may be visible from quite a distance.

 

Another thought: What about a cache you place in the winter and then find out in the spring that it's in the middle of a poison ivy thicket! That would certainly change the rating!

 

Thankfully, changing the rating is a simple thing. I guess we should not consider the initial rating to be a static thing.

 

Thanks,

brokenwing

[+Mopar]

Interesting.... this old thread showed as the newest post in the General forums from the main forum page. Elias must be working on something, but it's STILL good reading.

 

Tae-Kwon-Leap is not a path to a door, but a road leading forever towards the horizon.

[compass_bearing_north]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ALacy:

I use the "Geocache Rating System" at http://www.clayjar.com/gcrs/

 

Me too