How hard is too hard?

June 12, 2003

I'm a bit concerned over some of the caches being hidden around my area - Maryland. A couple have been so hard to find that they took experienced, hard core cachers multiple visits to find. There might need to be a new rating system that says "This cache for super cache freaks only."

I enjoy Geocaching because it is a fun game/sport that I can enjoy with my family. We do not enjoy hunting around for multiple hours in poison ivy and mosquitos for a cache that we can't find even then.

The game/sport will not attract new members if they try one of these chaes early on and loose interest.

Perhaps Jeremy can come up with an "Extreme Cache" rating or such that will warn people like me not to bother even looking, since it is hidden for a select few hard core searchers.

Cadwalader & the Golden Horde

June 12, 2003

I am a little puzzled by your post. Why would we need a separate rating to indicate difficult caches? I thought that was what the standard ratings for difficulty and terrain were for.

I recommend avoiding caches rated 4 difficulty, if you aren't interested in making multiple trips. I believe that's part of the definition for a 4 difficulty rating.

--

"I saw two shooting stars last night,

I wished on them--but they were only satellites!

Is it wrong to wish on space hardware?

I wish, I wish, I wish you'd care."

--Billy Bragg, "A New England"

June 12, 2003

I'd say that's taken care of with the current rating system.

Difficulty rating:

* Easy. In plain sight or can be found in a few minutes of searching.

** Average. The average cache hunter would be able to find this in less than 30 minutes of hunting.

*** Challenging. An experienced cache hunter will find this challenging, and it could take up a good portion of an afternoon.

**** Difficult. A real challenge for the experienced cache hunter - may require special skills or knowledge, or in-depth preparation to find. May require multiple days / trips to complete.

***** Extreme. A serious mental or physical challenge. Requires specialized knowledge, skills, or equipment to find cache.

Terrain rating:

* Handicapped accessible. (Terrain is likely to be paved, is relatively flat, and less than a 1/2 mile hike is required.)

** Suitable for small children. (Terrain is generally along marked trails, there are no steep elevation changes or heavy overgrowth. Less than a 2 mile hike required.)

*** Not suitable for small children. (The average adult or older child should be OK depending on physical condition. Terrain is likely off-trail. May have one or more of the following: some overgrowth, some steep elevation changes, or more than a 2 mile hike.)

**** Experienced outdoor enthusiasts only. (Terrain is probably off-trail. Will have one or more of the following: very heavy overgrowth, very steep elevation (requiring use of hands), or more than a 10 mile hike. May require an overnight stay.)

***** Requires specialized equipment and knowledge or experience, (boat, 4WD, rock climbing, SCUBA, etc) or is otherwise extremely difficult.

There is a quick questionaire that hiders can use to see which of these ratings their cache falls into.

If the cache isn't rated properly, a note on the cache page will help future finders. If a certain hider is consistently low on rating their own caches, you might want to steer clear of their caches if you're not up to the challenge that's offered. Different people like different challenges.

Cheval

To finish is to win. www.aerc.org

5.9k · June 12, 2003

quote:
How hard is too hard?

Frankly, I'm a little disappointed that the subject line was somewhat misleading.

http://fp1.centurytel.net/Criminal_Page/

June 12, 2003

Part of the problem with the current rating system is that the definitions do not cover some extreme cases. Many caches are rated 4 or 5 and can still be found with a reasonable amount of effort.

If everyone else enjoys looking for caches that are essentially impossible to find, then perhaps we need a different dfinition of the sport/game.

1.6k · June 12, 2003

There's no such thing as "too hard."

The current cache rating system provides for rating caches that are extreme. It's called "5 stars."

Pay attention to the difficulty ratings and you shouldn't be getting into more that you hoped for.

Okay, even with that said, let's hope the caches rated properly, too. Though, it's not likely that a 4 or 5 star cache would be rated 1 or 2.

CR

3.1k · June 12, 2003

If a 4 or 5 difficulty can be found with a "reasonable" amount of effort, it's not rated properly. The first cache I hunted is rated 4.5/4.5, but I just ran it through the ClayJar system and got 2/3.25, which sounds right to me. So it does happen.

Besides the rating, I would recommend avoiding micros and any thing with logs saying things like "Wow, amazing camo!", at least starting out.

Well the mountain was so beautiful that this guy built a mall and a pizza shack

Yeah he built an ugly city because he wanted the mountain to love him back -- Dar Williams

June 12, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Cadwalader & the Golden Horde:
Part of the problem with the current rating system is that the definitions do not cover some extreme cases. Many caches are rated 4 or 5 and can still be found with a reasonable amount of effort.

If everyone else enjoys looking for caches that are essentially impossible to find, then perhaps we need a different dfinition of the sport/game.

I suppose that depends on your definition of "reasonable." In your original post, you seemed to indicate that requiring multiple trips was unreasonable, yet that is part of the standard description of a 4-star cache. I would argue that multiple trips are therefore reasonable for a 4-star and 5-star cache. I would assume that a 5-star cache requires an extreme amount of effort to find. Again, because that's in the description.

Extreme should be reasonable, on a 5-star.

--

"I saw two shooting stars last night,

I wished on them--but they were only satellites!

Is it wrong to wish on space hardware?

I wish, I wish, I wish you'd care."

--Billy Bragg, "A New England"

9.1k · June 12, 2003

Last month, I found my first accurately rated 4.5 star difficulty cache. This multicache, which had elements of letterboxing in it, took me four trips, six hours of active searching and hiking, and five hours of driving. Because of its rating, I skipped this cache until I had been geocaching for ten months and it was the only one left unfound on my first three pages of caches.

I wish that both hiders and finders would pay attention to the geocache rating system. It works, if only as a suggested guideline that the hider can use as a starting point.

x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x

Some mornings, it just doesn't pay to chew through the leather straps. - Emo Phillips

2.7k · June 12, 2003

Category 5 usually implies needing special equipment...boat, rope/climbing gear, etc. It also applies if a hike is unusually hard...e.g. a wilderness scramble up a valley that's nothing but devils club, vine maple, salmonberry, no game trails, etc. I tried to plant a cache up in my area to Dream Lake. I ended up having to give up on that pursuit after hours of fighting brush. We ended up planting the cache at the end of a very,very rough trail:

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=73113

I am a nut as I'm going to try for that lake again! This time we'll go up in August and wade teh creek all the way or most of the way. I think we'll have to go over land where the terrain gets steep as the valley hits the wall. I will lug an ammo box up there...either moving the current cache above or bringing another one and this will be a 5-star rating as the terrain while not requiring special equipment is very, very demanding. By the way, you have to hike 5 miles just to get to this rough trail and then the rough trail climbs 800 feet in little over half mile and peters out. It's another 900 feet of dense brush/creek to the lake. It took us several hours to go .58 miles!!!! We still had a good .2 to go to the lake. I might consider a light one night backpack when we go up next so we can enjoy the lake for a bit.

June 12, 2003

Could you give all of us an example of a cache in Maryland that is extreme?

Daniels may be the only cache that I would say qualifies, but the hider has rated it 5 stars. Once you get to the general area, you KNOW what you have to do.

Could you provide a link?

June 12, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Cadwalader & the Golden Horde:
Part of the problem with the current rating system is that the definitions do not cover some extreme cases.

I'm curious. What are some examples of extreme cases not covered by the rating system?

Cheval

To finish is to win. www.aerc.org

4.7k · June 12, 2003

no such thing as "too hard". if i can't do it, i leave it undone. i do not complain that nobody will want to play anymore.

it doesn't matter if you get to camp at one or at six. dinner is still at six.

June 12, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by flask:
no such thing as "too hard". if i can't do it, i leave it undone. i do not complain that nobody will want to play anymore.

it doesn't matter if you get to camp at one or at six. dinner is still at six.

Or she stops by several days in a row until she finds it.

Who am I to talk...I've been working on one of Flask's caches for over a month...off and on.

Hoping to finish it soon

AchStone

38.2k · June 12, 2003

I think the current rating system is just fine. The problem is that many geocachers don't even know about it, and many that do, ignore it.

"Au pays des aveugles, les borgnes sont rois"

June 12, 2003

We've had a rash of caches requiring swimming, boating or snorkeling in our area. Half of them are rated terrain 2, including the one that says "cache is an easy find.... that is if you either don't mind swimming a LONG way, or if you have a boat." The encrypted hint says, "don't swim, take a boat"!! Tough to be told that once you're on the island and can't locate the cache, eh?

June 12, 2003

quote:
There's no such thing as "too hard."

Ya'all said, it not me.

I have to agree with Criminal that the subject of this thread is highly misleading. I was thinking it was an extension of the sex thread.

-------------------------------------

Becky Davis

San Jose, CA

Buy Tupperware for cache containers.

38.2k · June 12, 2003

quote:
We've had a rash of caches requiring swimming, boating or snorkeling in our area. Half of them are rated terrain 2, including the one that says "cache is an easy find.... that is if you either don't mind swimming a LONG way, or if you have a boat." The encrypted hint says, "don't swim, take a boat"!! Tough to be told that once you're on the island and can't locate the cache, eh?

It's up to the finders in cases like this to gently suggest to the owner that they adjust the rating. I know some do get defensive and start calling you the "cache police", etc... but a responsible owner will adjust their rating according to the feedback from finders.

"Au pays des aveugles, les borgnes sont rois"

2.7k · June 12, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by BrianSnat:

quote:
We've had a rash of caches requiring swimming, boating or snorkeling in our area. Half of them are rated terrain 2, including the one that says "cache is an easy find.... that is if you either don't mind swimming a LONG way, or if you have a boat." The encrypted hint says, "don't swim, take a boat"!! Tough to be told that once you're on the island and can't locate the cache, eh?

It's up to the finders in cases like this to gently suggest to the owner that they adjust the rating. I know some do get defensive and start calling you the "cache police", etc... but a responsible owner will adjust their rating according to the feedback from finders.

_"Au pays des aveugles, les borgnes sont rois"_

There is a cache up north of my area that when it was posted, I noticed that the terrain was set at 3 although the cache was on an island. I posted a note on the cache page and the owner changed the rating.

June 12, 2003

I think some posters to this thread are confusing terrain rating to cache difficulty. Which seems to be what the original poster was talking about. If the cache is honestly rated a 5 for difficulty, then you better be prepared to spend some time looking for it. That is why it is rated a 5! A high terrain rating means it may be difficult to get to but not necessarily hard to find. The current rating system is just fine if used honestly and objectively.

The adventures of Navdog, Justdog, and Otterpup

June 12, 2003

Navdog is right. People get the terrain and difficulty mixed up. Lately I have been doing some pretty hard caches and the terrian is usually rated correct but most of them the cache difficulty was rated way to high. Just because it is on top of a mountain with no trails and you have to bushwhack does not change the cache difficulty rating. I think new people get confused (I know I did when I first started looking) with the term "Difficulty", thinking it also has to do with how much hiking you have to do to get there.

I personally like high terrain ratings and low "Difficulty". After hiking 5 hours the last thing I want to do is spend 2 hours looking for the cache. Of course this is just me and I am sure that some people really like spending a lot of time looking for a cache when you finally arrive at the location.

I just placed a cache with a 1/4.5

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=73378

I am pretty sure the 4.5 rating is correct since you need a boat and then rock climbing experience and a rope (Rope Not Required but would be safer). Even though it has not happened yet, I would appreciate it if somebody thought that rating was not correct and should be changed. Usually I put in more details of the terrain so people get a better idea than just looking at the rating.

38.2k · June 12, 2003

quote:
I am pretty sure the 4.5 rating is correct since you need a boat and then rock climbing experience and a rope (Rope Not Required but would be safer).

I'd say this is the definition of a 5:

***** Requires specialized equipment and knowledge or experience, (boat, 4WD, rock climbing, SCUBA, etc) or is otherwise extremely difficult.

"Au pays des aveugles, les borgnes sont rois"

June 13, 2003

I think the rating system is just fine as it is. The only problem is that a lot of cache hiders don't rate their caches correctly. I have used ClayJar's rating system a few times and I thought it rated the cache a little higher than I would have, but I used what it said. I receintly found a cache that took me 3 tries to find. The second try I had a hint from the hider and on the third try I basically had info from the only person to find it telling me where it was. The cache was rated a 1/1. It was down a hillside off of a skidder trail hidden under a root ball next to a bunch of Manzanita and covered with dead ferns. The GPS was pointing to a spot about 50' to the east of there. The cache container was camo'ed and when I was standing about 2' away from it and you could not tell that there was anything there at all. The first finder has about 800 finds and they only found it on their second try by accidentally hitting it with a hiking stick while walking down a fallen log. I have about 330 finds and another geocacher that has about 260 finds has been out there twice and hasn't found it (I sent her a hint).

If the cache was rated much higher, I would have expected more difficulty in finding it, but there's no way this cache should be rated a 1/1. BTW, I do enjoy the ones requiring 4WD. The cache may not be rated that way, but I can usually find an old logging trail that will get me closer than most other people can.

"The best way to accelerate a Macintosh is at 9.8m/sec/sec."

-Marcus Dolengo

June 13, 2003

Is the difficulty rating determined with or without using the encypted hint?

38.2k · June 13, 2003

quote:
Is the difficulty rating determined with or without using the encypted hint?

I don't know how others do it, but I base my rating assuming the finder has not encrypted the hint. I try to make my hints dead giveaways, so it could change a 2.5 star difficulty to a 1 star.

quote:
I receintly found a cache that took me 3 tries to find. The second try I had a hint from the hider and on the third try I basically had info from the only person to find it telling me where it was. The cache was rated a 1/1. It was down a hillside off of a skidder trail hidden under a root ball next to a bunch of Manzanita and covered with dead ferns.

In this case both the terrain and difficulty ratings are obviously way off. A note to the owner would be in order, or if they refuse to change it, a warning to others in your log.

I had a similar one. A 1.5/1 that was a bushwack down a steep hillside, with several stream crossings, a swampy area, a boulder field and many downed trees to negotiate. The difficulty was close, as we found it in about 15 mins, but the terrain was way off. The annoying thing was that we chose this cache because my wife had recently injured her back and had a difficult time walking.

I noted that the terrain rating was too low in my log, but the owner never changed it.

"Au pays des aveugles, les borgnes sont rois"

June 13, 2003

How does plant life add to terrain ratings? I recently had an annoying experience with this cache rated 1/1. [spoiler ALERT] I wore capris and flip-flops and brought my sister-in-law along with her 18-month-old son and their dog, but had to leave them behind when I found that the cache required a fair bit of off-trail walking in tall grass and poison ivy, and then this: the log where it was hidden (the only logical place, unless the coordinates were seriously off) was covered with stinging nettles . I hunted around as best I could for 15-20 minutes, getting my feet, ankles and hands stung, before I gave up. I made a note of my experience as politely as I could, but the cache owner's only response was to confirm that the cache was still there. I almost think it was somebody's idea of a joke, but I've decided to chalk it up to inexperience instead.

In my opinion nasty plants should bump up the terrain rating by at least half a point. Poison ivy is a fact of life, I know, but I also think it should be factored in. Wearing long pants is not something I always do when hiking in summer, so I like to be prepared.

3k · June 13, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Sugar Kane:
How does plant life add to terrain ratings? I recently had an annoying experience with http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=68502 rated 1/1.

Well, I agree the difficulty and terrain ratings might be a half star too low, but the cache description clearly states the cache is "just off the trail" and that "long pants are recommended." Of course, these could be the result of a page edit after your experience, for all I know.

But I don't think this cache rates being listed in a "how hard is too hard" thread.

Back on topic, there is no cache that is too hard ... for somebody. Each of us has to realize what our abilities and limitations are and choose caches we can reasonably expect to accomplish within those limitations.

3k · June 13, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by pcakes:
Is the difficulty rating determined with or without using the encypted hint?

Without decrypting the hint; using the (formerly) encrypted hints lowers most caches to a 1/1.5 difficulty.

June 13, 2003

I know it's not an "extreme" cache, but since the topic seems to have migrated to inaccurate ratings I thought I'd put my two cents in.

I wouldn't say 150-200 feet in tall grass and poison ivy is "just off the trail". And... stinging nettles??! Long pants would help to some extent, but you'd still have to reach in and get your hands stung to explore the log and uncover the cache. My complaint stands. I would recommend a terrain rating of at least two (the stipulation of "some overgrowth" doesn't kick in until three according to the chart above, but that seems too high), or at least a warning in the cache description that the terrain is tougher in summer due to plant life.

Please note that I don't mind tough terrain (although I don't know why you would hide a cache in a patch of stinging nettles). I just want to be warned so I don't bring along inexperienced cachers and small children to a cache that's too hard.

[This message was edited by Sugar Kane on June 13, 2003 at 05:49 AM.]

6.4k · June 13, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Sugar Kane:
I know it's not an "extreme" cache, but since the topic seems to have migrated to inaccurate ratings I thought I'd put my two cents in.

I wouldn't say 150-200 feet in tall grass and poison ivy is "just off the trail". And... stinging nettles??! Long pants would help to some extent, but you'd still have to reach in and get your hands stung to explore the log and uncover the cache. My complaint stands. I would recommend a terrain rating of at least two (the stipulation of "some overgrowth" doesn't kick in until three according to the chart above, but that seems too high), or at least a warning in the cache description that the terrain is tougher in summer due to plant life.

Please note that I don't mind tough terrain (although I don't know why you would hide a cache in a patch of stinging nettles). I just want to be warned so I don't bring along inexperienced cachers and small children to a cache that's too hard.

[This message was edited by Sugar Kane on June 13, 2003 at 05:49 AM.]

No offense meant here, but since you didn't actually FIND the cache, you really can't comment on where it was hid. It is very possible you were just in the wrong spot. Sometimes the GPS godz just plain out and out lie to ya.

insert Mopar story here:

Case in point, a cache I did with a group last weekend. 4 people, 4 GPSrs. Finder #1 followed the GPS right to the cache. Finder #2(me) took a few minutes, and my GPSr never got closer then 35ft or so. Finder #3 was searching 100ft down the trail until her GPSr settled down and brought her back to the right area. I'm not sure finder #4 would have ever found it without help. Her GPSr was just plain out and out playing games with her. She wasn't even close. After some good-natured teasing that just MAYBE 100ft down the trail and on the other side MIGHT be a better place to look, we even swapped GPSrs. dadgum, it was like hers was set to the wrong datum or something (it wasn't) or the waypoint was entered wrong (it wasnt). I doubt I would have found the cache either with what her GPS was showing. Finder #3 and #4 were even using the same model GPSr, and all were the same brand.

Of course, the cache was also found in the same order as our find counts. The more experience, the quicker the find. The person with 300+ finds found it within 1 minute, the person with 50 finds took 20 minutes and needed hints.

Same place, same day, same time. 4 drastically different cache finding experiences.

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

9.1k · June 13, 2003

Said "person with 300+ finds" spent an HOUR last evening searching for a well-camoflaged microcache in an urban park, before giving up and logging a not-found. The cache was found last week by someone with 25 finds.

Am I upset? Nope. I'm grateful to the hider for challenging me. If they were all really easy, there'd be no excitement left in the game. The chance of a not-found log is part of the thrill of the hunt. There is NO SUCH THING as a geocache that is "too hard" to find. Only a cache that may take more effort, or which some people might voluntarily choose to pass on, because they don't enjoy that type of hunt.

Of course, I'm hopeful that the clouds and rain yesterday (we had tornado sightings in the county I live in), and the resulting 40 foot average error on my GPSr during this hunt would be at least partially to blame for my failure. I'll be back there on a sunny day.

PS - Mopar, I never really did find that cache. I just ran up the hill and sat on the log waiting for you to come along and do the hard work. Dumba$$.

x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x

Some mornings, it just doesn't pay to chew through the leather straps. - Emo Phillips

2.7k · June 13, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Cadwalader & the Golden Horde:
The game/sport will not attract new members if they try one of these CHAES early on and loose interest.

Well if they can't understand or comprehend what a 4 x 4 is let them choke on their inexperience.

We have stupid people laws because some yo yo's just can't understand even simple regulations, and cross a dry wash in the middle of a thunderstorm.

Even if Jeremy made an extreme cache rating some idiots would try them then cry and whine because they couldn't find it.

Just give them a silver spoon when you feed them and they may be happy.

Tahosa - Dweller of Mountain Tops.

3.8k · June 13, 2003

I've had my eyes open for a hollow needle that I can hide in a haystack.

June 14, 2003

Sorry about that hide. [] smithdw. I'll be back to check on it Sunday and adjust cords or difficulty rating. I thought you hard core Klamath Falls, Oregon cachers loved the challenge. You guys are great.[]

2.5k · June 14, 2003

You know what, though... I think that the rating should be explained in the description... Not to give it away, but something like... I've rated it a 2 because you have to go through stinkweed to get to it... Or, this is a 2 because there is 2.34 miles of walking and 7 sets of coordinants... Not to give it away, but enough to let us know what we're getting ourselves into...

Besides, sometimes you don't have a choice... I have just completed my 4th cache... There are only 2 more within 20 miles of my house. So, I don't really have an option as to which one I chose to do, because I can't really travel far.

And then what do you do for the ones that are marked wrong? According to what Cheval posted, the one I found today should have said 3 for both terrain and difficulty. I walked at least three miles, up and down hill and through narrow buggy wet trails... I had SEVEN sets of coordinants to find to get to the cache... And as for time, it took me more than TWO hours to get from my van back to my van.

The person that made the cache - and, mind you, I talked to him for 30 min yesterday and he never said anything about it's difficulty - marked this as 2 for both categories. I wouldn't have gone out for it if I knew what all was involved, but it didn't say anything about it in the description.

June 14, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Morock:
Sorry about that hide. [] smithdw. I'll be back to check on it Sunday and adjust cords or difficulty rating. I thought you hard core Klamath Falls, Oregon cachers loved the challenge. You guys are great.[]

Hey Morock,

I wasn't picking on you, but Rooster, Missnomer and I have made multiple trips out there. 1 terrain usually means something like wheelchair accessable. We all sent several emails telling each other where we looked and finally nailed it down. My only problem with the cache was the terrain and maybe the difficulty rating. I probably would have rated it about a 2 or 2.5 on terrain and a 3 or 3.5 on difficulty. You really did a good job with the camo, you can't tell anything is there at all. Missnomer's GPS was pointing down by the creek on the other side of the lower skidder trail. Rooster's and mine were at least pointing in between the two skidder trails. We all appreciate the caches you have been placing. I know Rooster is putting on more and more miles getting to caches that he hasn't found yet.

"The best way to accelerate a Macintosh is at 9.8m/sec/sec."

-Marcus Dolengo

June 14, 2003

I didn't feel picked on. I work in sales. Have to have thick skin. Hey I'm a newbie and appreciate all you old timers have done for the sport. No kiddin' ;D PS I changed the rating.

June 15, 2003

how hard is too hard? when no one ever finds it!

Regarding the impact of vegetation on a terrain rating, keep in mind that in some areas, spring/fall are very different from summer. We looked this picture and were amazed, since this entire area was covered in shoulder-high very dense nasty plants. People give the rating as it was when they placed it. Should they alter it as the seasons change? Should they make the description also say, "May be slippery in winter?"

3k · June 15, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by timpaula:
how hard is too hard? when no one ever finds it!

Then the question might as well be "when is too easy too hard?", (too lame too hard, etc.) because there are also caches that, for a variety of reasons, are never found simply because people never bother to seek them.

quote:
Originally posted by timpaula:
... People give the rating as it was when they placed it. Should they alter it as the seasons change?

Yes; another method commonly utilized is to mention in the cache description any seasons that would increase/decrease the terrain challenge.

June 15, 2003

okay, a cache is too hard when no one ever finds it AND at least 787 not-founds are logged.

June 16, 2003

Perhaps I was not clear about my concern. I can always ignore those caches which seem to be beyond the Golden Horde's interest, but all too often caches are mis-rated and less experienced or less adventurous cachers are disappointed by frustratng searches.

My original post was general since there are a number of caches placed that are difficult to "get to" or "find". My boys and I enjoy difficult caches if there is some obvious effort made to provide fun and a challenge - not just to stuff a cache in a log in the middle of a swamp or as far back in a poison ivy patch as possible.

The "Little Nasty" cache in Maryland was what got me thinking about newer cachers. It is located right in the middle of a family park, but is disguised so that it is virtually impossible to find.

This is beyond the 5 star rating. I can plant caches so that they can't be found, but where's the fun in that? I enjoy the outdoor activity, the challenge, and especially the wit and humor of the hiders.

Cadwalader & the Golden Horde

cdwldr@aol.com

June 16, 2003

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Hash: SHA1

Little Nasty is currently rated as a 5/1.

I agree that if it is in poison ivy the terrain rating should be

higher. Of course, that is assuming that you were looking in the

correct place (your log mentions that you were having signal

problems).

It also looks from your logs you made a total of three trips to the

cache on two seperate days. A 4 difficulty rating indicates that

finding may require multiple trips, so I would think a 5 could easily

require more than three trips.

Your logs also indicate that you spent over an hour each on two of

those trips. Let's assume that you put in over an hour on all three

attempts, say five hours total. A difficulty rating of 2 indicates

that an experienced finder would take up to 30 minutes to find the

cache, and a 3 should require "a good portion of an afternoon," so I

would suppose that a 5 should take significantly more time than it

appears you have put in on this cache so far.

I'm not trying to tell you how to hunt for caches. If you don't feel

this cache is worth any more of your time, I personally don't think

any less of you for your decision. What I don't understand is why you

think the rating is inappropriate. They way I read the ratings, a 5

should be nearly impossible even for experienced cachers. I agree

that this probably isn't a "family friendly" cache, most 5's probably

require a longer attention span than most kids (and maybe most

adults) have.

John

Team Shredded Bark

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

Version: PGP 7.1

Comment: Keys at http://www.jcrdesign.com/keys.html

iQA/AwUBPu6Qp0crpacku1SeEQKprgCgwe+KloiUKX86v37vvtLgyoARBBAAoKlv

e9Ho5WfIgf3CGR2kvBrYLDLN

=0nIH

-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--

"I saw two shooting stars last night,

I wished on them--but they were only satellites!

Is it wrong to wish on space hardware?

I wish, I wish, I wish you'd care."

--Billy Bragg, "A New England"

June 20, 2003

Sorry it has taken me so long to post on this subject. I am the hider of the little nasty cache that provoked the string. I currently have 7 or 8 hides and am closing on my 400th find. I have found legit 5 ratings and they are tough tough tough! In my description of the Little Nasty, I made it very clear that this would be very tough. The name even implies the nature of this hide. I rated it a 5 to warn people that prefer a garanteed find not to attempt it. The terrain rating is spot on in that it is wheelchair accessible. Stay out of the poison ivy folks. It is not there.I did not hide this cache to inflame fellow cachers, but rather to challenge those who like to be challenged. My appology to the Golden Horde who seem to be put off by my efforts. The current rating system works. Some just need to believe in the difference between a 1 or 2 and a 5.

1.6k · June 20, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Cadwalader & the Golden Horde:
This is beyond the 5 star rating. I can plant caches so that they can't be found, but where's the fun in that? I enjoy the outdoor activity, the challenge, and especially the wit and humor of the hiders.

There is no such thing as "beyond the 5 star rating." If the cache is there, it can be found as long as you don't do something that you're not supposed to do, like bury it.

The fun is in the finding that which can't be found. It seems to me that the most memorable hunts have been the ones that either we've come up empty handed or took us more than an hour to find. One, before our PDA, we forgot the printout and didn't know it was an offset. We hunted out to a radius of over 200' at least twice. But were we ready to give up? Nope. We finally found it over 500' away!

I say, the more clever the hide the better, though I personally loath needle in a haystack hides and don't feel they are clever--but they can be hard!

CR

How hard is too hard?

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

Join the conversation