Terrain Ratings

[+Team GPSaxophone]

http://www.britishideas.com/geocaching/handicap.php

 

I do not know if this has been posted already, if so I apologize. The British Ideas site grants permission on their page to use the Handicap Accessibility Guideline Generator and to post links to their site.

Thanks for the link, Hydee. It does seem more for people that are trying to make a handicapped-accessible cache rather than just a cache that happens to be easy to get to, but it is a worthwhile tool.

[+Cherokeecacher]

That's right, CO, every handicap is different. Yet, all handicapped parking spaces are the same. Every building has to adhere to the same accessibility standards of having ramps and elevators, etc.

 

Although every handicap is different, it is generally assumed that accessibility means having a paved path, no obstacles, and that someone in a wheelchair or on crutches could get there. The path may be hard-packed-level-dirt instead, but you get the idea. It would still be up to the seeker to decide if they want to attempt it. If I was a quadrapalegic, I probably wouldn't be out hunting caches alone anyway. If I could get around town in a wheelchair by myself, I would probably be able to hunt a terrain "1" cache by myself also.

Agreed. My point is that this is something we as cache owners should be dealing with. not asking our listing service to handle.

Would you have the same stance if this was about requiring terrain "5" for mountain-climbing and scuba-diving?

 

Geocaching.com, as a listing service, should be concerned about the integrity if its listings. Therefore, they should require caches be rated appropriately.

 

If a cache says "A nice place to walk your dog or ride your mountain bike." or "Find the fence, find the section cornor and look down the arroyo." should that be allowed to be rated a "1" for terrain? For the mountian bike, it must not be paved or they would have just said bicycle. For the arroyo, well arroyos are very sandy, not a good place for a handicapped person. (BTW, the mountain bike one is also in an arroyo)

 

Would you rather I email you a list of caches with inappropriate ratings or would you like it built into the approval process instead? There really aren't that many "1" caches, but it would be nice for people that "need" to do that kind to set their PQ's up and not have to discount 90% of them.

sax, we are agreeing in everything but who should be responsible for the rating. As an approver I have to go by what the cache owner tells me in the notes and description. a mandatory rating system is only as good as the information supplied. So it still falls to the owner to tell me as the approver and everyone as the finders what the cache rating is. I do not see a way to remove the owner from this equation. Therefore unless we as cache owners step up to the plate and properly rate our caches no listing service, no matter how strict the rules, can control what we say about it. It is the owners and finders responsibility not that of the listing service.

It really is this simple, if anyone “truly” wants to do it. A volunteer approver must approve all caches anyway. If an approver receives a request for a new cache with a 1 star rating, a very quick simple e-mail should go out to the ‘hopeful owner”.

 

“Thank you for submitting you request for your cache to be reviewed and approved to be added to the geocaching.com web listing. I noticed that you have rated it a 1 star for terrain. All I really need to know is, can someone in a wheelchair easily get to this location?

 

Thanks for taking the time to place this cache and I look forward to receiving your reply soon,

 

Geocaching.com Cache Approver”

 

Just an opinion, everyone has one

[Keystone]

Would it surprise you to hear that several volunteers already DO question the terrain ratings of 1 when they appear to be at odds with the cache description, maps, etc.? But I don't do this each and every time someone assigns a rating of "1."

 

Requiring this sort of dialogue prior to cache approval might result in more accurate ratings. It would do so by sacrificing approval speed. We would trade the current multiple topics about handicapped accessible caches for another set of forum topics complaining about how the volunteer reviewers are being picky and delaying the approval of caches.

 

I don't want to be placed in the position of judging whether a cache is handicapped accessible. From my desk, I am not well qualified to assess this for a cache in a park 100 miles away that I've never visited.

[+Karma Hunter]

I don't want to be placed in the position of judging whether a cache is handicapped accessible. From my desk, I am not well qualified to assess this for a cache in a park 100 miles away that I've never visited.

This (and the rest of your post) is understandable. However, I've yet to hear a reason why this idea:

Perhaps this could be coded into the site. An error message could come up when someone submits a new cache that says "You have listed a terrain rating of "1" indicating this cache is handicapped-accessible. Is this correct?"

wouldn't work. CO Admin took the position that all handicaps are different, and therefore the 1= "handicapped accessible" rating is not helpful. I disagree. A 1 indicates that the owner thinks it is accessible. Someone who wants to know the details before visiting could contact the owner by email, but would at least know that the odds are good and that they cache is worth investigating. Under the current system there are enough 1's that aren't accessible in any way shape or form, that inquiring about them individually would be a waste of time. Sax's suggestion wouldn't change the current system, just make it accurate enough to be useful.

[+bons]

Just want to make sure I'm clear on all of this:

 

1) a "1" means 'handicapped accessable" except when it means "wheelchair accessable" or some other form of "accessable".

2) It's up to either the approvers (who are relying on the owner to describe things and therefore unable to tell) or the owners (who don't really understand what "handicapped accessable" means and therefore unable to tell) to accurately rate the cache.

3) Clayjar doesn't rate caches correctly because it says a wheelchair accessable cache with a 3 mile trail is a 3, not a 1, but we should all use Clayjar for accuracy.

4) The safest thing to do is simply rate your cache a 1.5, especially since the cache may no longer be in reach of a wheelchair if it's moved during the re-hiding.

 

Is it just me or are we further from a solution than we were before this discussion began?

 

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

From another thread:

The idea of listing a cache with a terrain rating of 1 if the cache is wheelchair accessible

Could someone PLEASE point me to the page where it states that a "1" is actually handicapped or wheelchair accessable so I can actually know what the heck is going on? I've been up and down through the "submit a cache" pages and I simply can't find it.

 

Please?

Edited February 18, 2004 by bons

[+Team GPSaxophone]

1) a "1" means 'handicapped accessable" except when it means "wheelchair accessable" or some other form of "accessable".

I think we're defining "handicapped-accessible" as "wheelchair-accessible" since there are many different types of handicaps

2) It's up to either the approvers (who are relying on the owner to describe things and therefore unable to tell) or the owners (who don't really understand what "handicapped accessable" means and therefore unable to tell) to accurately rate the cache.

We rely on the approvers to not list caches near railroad tracks, in National Parks, etc. All we're asking from the approvers is to get more information before approving a cache rated as "1" for terrain. They ask for more information on virtuals, why is this different?

3) Clayjar doesn't rate caches correctly because it says a wheelchair accessable cache with a 3 mile trail is a 3, not a 1, but we should all use Clayjar for accuracy.

How many handicapped people do you know that could go 3 miles, even on a paved trail? Distance alone doesn't determine accessibility, but it is a factor

4) The safest thing to do is simply rate your cache a 1.5, especially since the cache may no longer be in reach of a wheelchair if it's moved during the re-hiding.

That's not a bad idea. Rate your cache "1.5" unless you are sure that it is handicapped-accessible.

Is it just me or are we further from a solution than we were before this discussion began?

I think we're getting much closer than we have ever been to solving this problem. There is still some room to grow, but this is a step in the right direction.

[+rldill]

 

Could someone PLEASE point me to the page where it states that a "1" is actually handicapped or wheelchair accessable so I can actually know what the heck is going on? I've been up and down through the "submit a cache" pages and I simply can't find it.

 

Please?

Go to theClayjar rating system and rate a cache.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

From another thread:

The idea of listing a cache with a terrain rating of 1 if the cache is wheelchair accessible

Could someone PLEASE point me to the page where it states that a "1" is actually handicapped or wheelchair accessable so I can actually know what the heck is going on? I've been up and down through the "submit a cache" pages and I simply can't find it.

 

Please?

Here ya go, it's from here

Terrain rating: 1

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

[+Sparky-Watts]

Would it surprise you to hear that several volunteers already DO question the terrain ratings of 1 when they appear to be at odds with the cache description, maps, etc.?

Come to think of it, *gln asked me that question when I submitted my first cache......

[+bons]

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

As far as I'm concerned if a wheelchair can roll right up to the cache it's a 1 regardless of length.  There are many "handicapped" who can manage 3 miles, don't discount their abilities.

Like I said. I'm confused.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but if the clayjar rating system is the "official" system (and I don't know if it is), this means that the cache I mentioned before (wheelchair accessable - 3 miles) should NOT be rated a 1 due to the distance. Caches rated a "1" should be wheelchair accessable (defined as, able to roll up to, if not reach the cache from the wheelchair). However it's perfectly acceptable to have wheelchair accessable caches rated 1.5 or 3 or whatever when appropriate. Am I correct in any of this? Or am I completely lost yet again?

Edited February 18, 2004 by bons

[+NJ Admin]

It really is this simple, if anyone “truly” wants to do it. A volunteer approver must approve all caches anyway. If an approver receives a request for a new cache with a 1 star rating, a very quick simple e-mail should go out to the ‘hopeful owner”.

 

“Thank you for submitting you request for your cache to be reviewed and approved to be added to the geocaching.com web listing. I noticed that you have rated it a 1 star for terrain. All I really need to know is, can someone in a wheelchair easily get to this location?

 

Thanks for taking the time to place this cache and I look forward to receiving your reply soon,

 

Geocaching.com Cache Approver”

 

Just an opinion, everyone has one

Here's the one I send for almost every 1 terrain cache I approve.

Your new cache has been approved, but I would ask you to please double-check to make sure the terrain is rated properly. If you used the cache rating system link ( http://www.clayjar.com/gcrs/ ) when you submitted the cache, you will note that a 1 star terrain cache should be wheelchair accessible. If that's the case, great! If it's not, then the terrain should be at least a 1.5 star.

Thanks,

NJ Admin

Geocaching.com

 

NOTE: If you have any questions, do not reply to the note email, I won't get it. Email me directly at nj@GeocachingAdmin.com or via the email link in my profile: http://www.geocaching.com/profile/default.asp?A=115252 .

Please include the GCxxxx number or the URL of the cache in question so I will know which cache it is regarding.

 

[+Team GPSaxophone]

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

As far as I'm concerned if a wheelchair can roll right up to the cache it's a 1 regardless of length.  There are many "handicapped" who can manage 3 miles, don't discount their abilities.

Like I said. I'm confused.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but if the clayjar rating system is the "official" system (and I don't know if it is), this means that the cache I mentioned before (wheelchair accessable - 3 miles) should NOT be rated a 1 due to the distance. Caches rated a "1" should be wheelchair accessable (defined as, able to roll up to, if not reach the cache from the wheelchair). However it's perfectly acceptable to have wheelchair accessable caches rated 1.5 or 3 or whatever when appropriate. Am I correct in any of this? Or am I completely lost yet again?

Yes, you can have a terrain 3 cache be handicapped-accessible. You should not have a terrain "1" that is not handicapped-accessible. ok?

[+NJ Admin]

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

As far as I'm concerned if a wheelchair can roll right up to the cache it's a 1 regardless of length.  There are many "handicapped" who can manage 3 miles, don't discount their abilities.

Like I said. I'm confused.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but if the clayjar rating system is the "official" system (and I don't know if it is), this means that the cache I mentioned before (wheelchair accessable - 3 miles) should NOT be rated a 1 due to the distance. Caches rated a "1" should be wheelchair accessable (defined as, able to roll up to, if not reach the cache from the wheelchair). However it's perfectly acceptable to have wheelchair accessable caches rated 1.5 or 3 or whatever when appropriate. Am I correct in any of this? Or am I completely lost yet again?

Clayjar's system is the software implementing the rating system worked out right here in the forums, by the cachers, years ago. It's official in that whenever you submit a cache, the form you fill out tells you to use Clayjar's system to rate your cache, and links to that site.

[+Sparky-Watts]

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

As far as I'm concerned if a wheelchair can roll right up to the cache it's a 1 regardless of length.  There are many "handicapped" who can manage 3 miles, don't discount their abilities.

Like I said. I'm confused.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but if the clayjar rating system is the "official" system (and I don't know if it is), this means that the cache I mentioned before (wheelchair accessable - 3 miles) should NOT be rated a 1 due to the distance. Caches rated a "1" should be wheelchair accessable (defined as, able to roll up to, if not reach the cache from the wheelchair). However it's perfectly acceptable to have wheelchair accessable caches rated 1.5 or 3 or whatever when appropriate. Am I correct in any of this? Or am I completely lost yet again?

Yes, you can have a terrain 3 cache be handicapped-accessible. You should not have a terrain "1" that is not handicapped-accessible. ok?

But what about a 2? I'm confused because you left that out.....

[+Karma Hunter]

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

Not that we need more worms, but if the definition of a 1 is part of what's causing the problem, then it seems like the thing to do is start there.

 

Maybe we could:

I) Define what a 1 should be (something simple, but indicating wheelchair access?)

II) Come up with a way to make sure that people are less likely to rate new caches a 1 without thinking (some sort of pop-up question or email?)

III) Look for ways to fix the existing caches that are mis-rated (email to exisiting owners to make sure their caches are correctly rated using the clarified standard)

 

In that order. Yes no?

[+Karma Hunter]

And yes, I left out changing the actions of the approvers on purpose. It sounds like they're doing the best they can with the limited info an owner provides. It also sounds like they would benefit from a clearer definition of a 1 as much as the rest of us would.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

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

Not that we need more worms, but if the definition of a 1 is part of what's causing the problem, then it seems like the thing to do is start there.

 

Maybe we could:

I) Define what a 1 should be (something simple, but indicating wheelchair access?)

I think we already have the definition

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

II) Come up with a way to make sure that people are less likely to rate new caches a 1 without thinking (some sort of pop-up question or email?)

That's the opening arguement in this thread

III)  Look for ways to fix the existing caches that are mis-rated (email to exisiting owners to make sure their caches are correctly rated using the clarified standard)

I already do that, started my first week of caching, actually.

[+Karma Hunter]

I think we already have the definition

Yes, but it seems that a cache could meet these standards

Terrain is likely to be paved, is relatively flat, and less than a 1/2 mile hike is required

and not be wheelchair accessible (mud, curb cuts, gates, etc. ; oh, and if we're talking wheelchair access then "hike" may be a little misleading). If everyone agreed that the definition is good then there wouldn't have been any discussion about it earlier in this thread.

 

That's the opening arguement in this thread

Yes, and I support it.

 

I already do that, started my first week of caching, actually.

Lots of people do, and it is helpful. But what I meant is a mass email from GC to all cache owners explaining that many caches are rated incorrectly, and to be sure that 1's meet the correct criteria. Edited February 18, 2004 by Karma Hunter

[+Team GPSaxophone]

Terrain is likely to be paved, is relatively flat, and less than a 1/2 mile hike is required

and not be wheelchair accessible (mud, curb cuts, gates, etc. ; oh, and if we're talking wheelchair access then "hike" may be a little misleading). If everyone agreed that the definition is good then there wouldn't have been any discussion about it earlier in this thread.

You forgot the first part of the "terrain 1" definition:

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

 

This defines both what "terrain 1" is and what "Handicapped accessible" is.

[+Karma Hunter]

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

 

This defines both what "terrain 1" is and what "Handicapped accessible" is.

Yes it does. My question though is will the average cacher, when reading that description, think to look for wheelchair accessible issues. It may sound silly, but all I'm really saying is change "handicapped" to "wheelchair" in the description. Seems like it would be a good reminder, even though they are commonly used as interchangeable terms. But, if no one else thinks so then I'm fine with it the way it is.

 

To get things back a little closer to what you wanted in the first place, it seems like the biggest issue is the one you started the thread with, which is

I'd like to request that terrain ratings of "1" be allowed only on caches that are designated as "Handicapped Accessible".

 

Perhaps this could be coded into the site. An error message could come up when someone submits a new cache that says "You have listed a terrain rating of "1" indicating this cache is handicapped-accessible. Is this correct?"

 

This could also be handled through the approvers. When a terrain "1" cache is submitted, they could change the rating to "1.5" unless the description states that it is handicapped-accessible.

 

In any event, I think making the terrain ratings and what they mean more prominent might help.

 

I still totally agree, and think this would prevent the vast majority of incorrect 1 ratings. So what do we all do to help make it happen?

[+Cherokeecacher]

All quotes are from Keystone Approver Posted: Feb 17 2004, 02:26 PM

 

Would it surprise you to hear that several volunteers already DO question the terrain ratings of 1 when they appear to be at odds with the cache description, maps, etc.? But I don't do this each and every time someone assigns a rating of "1."

 

It would not surprise me at all. From what I hear, all the volunteers do what they can with the resources available to them. I am only suggesting that it, or something like it, become common practice. Check and balance kind of thing, ya know.

 

Requiring this sort of dialogue prior to cache approval might result in more accurate ratings. It would do so by sacrificing approval speed. We would trade the current multiple topics about handicapped accessible caches for another set of forum topics complaining about how the volunteer reviewers are being picky and delaying the approval of caches.

 

OK, I will bite on this bait. Here is the “auto pilot version” have the web dev. Gurus set it up so that a similar message automatically is sent to everyone that submits a request for approval through gc.com. Instead of asking for a reply just reiterate the requirement for all 1 star ratings to be accessible by a person in a wheelchair. You are correct, nothing is perfect, and you/we/I will never please everyone all the time, but sometimes improvements can be made to head in that direction.

 

I don't want to be placed in the position of judging whether a cache is handicapped accessible. From my desk, I am not well qualified to assess this for a cache in a park 100 miles away that I've never visited.

 

You, nor any approver, is placed in a position of determining weather a cache is wheelchair accessible or not. The e-mail places that burden on the person seeking approval. That is why it is worded the way it is. Clear, concise, and to the point, no room for misinterpretation.

[+Karma Hunter]

Hellooooo... Site administrators? Knock, knock, knock. I can see your shadows moving around behind that two-way mirror. Can we please get some "official" input as to the viability of this idea:

I'd like to request that terrain ratings of "1" be allowed only on caches that are designated as "Handicapped Accessible".

 

Perhaps this could be coded into the site. An error message could come up when someone submits a new cache that says "You have listed a terrain rating of "1" indicating this cache is handicapped-accessible. Is this correct?"

 

This could also be handled through the approvers. When a terrain "1" cache is submitted, they could change the rating to "1.5" unless the description states that it is handicapped-accessible.

 

In any event, I think making the terrain ratings and what they mean more prominent might help.

 

Is there any reason NOT to try something like this that we've overlooked?

[+bons]

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

 

This defines both what "terrain 1" is and what "Handicapped accessible" is.

Yes it does. My question though is will the average cacher, when reading that description, think to look for wheelchair accessible issues. It may sound silly, but all I'm really saying is change "handicapped" to "wheelchair" in the description.

Just a note: I'm still not sure that defination of "handicapped accessable" actually means "wheelchair accessable". So far it sounds to me like "If you have a wheelchair and someone to help you over the curbs and reach the cache for you then this may work out for you".

 

The more I think about it, the more I realize that the "wheelchair accessable cache page" is a much needed idea, simply because a "1" does NOT mean the cache is easily accessed from a wheelchair and a higher rated cache may actually be much more accessable.

 

Personally, I'd remove the "handicapped accessable" quote altogether since it doesn't seem to mean what many people think it means and just encourage people to use the clayjar system to rate the difficulty of their caches. Perhaps a second link on the "submit a cache page" or "guidelines page" to the wheelchair accessable page would be nice.

[+bigredmed]

 

3) Clayjar doesn't rate caches correctly because it says a wheelchair accessable cache with a 3 mile trail is a 3, not a 1, but we should all use Clayjar for accuracy.

How many handicapped people do you know that could go 3 miles, even on a paved trail?

Motorized wheel chairs. 3 miles is easy if you have a hard surface trail.

 

We have flat trails that are quite long. This situation would be a relatively common issue in Omaha. We should have a distance limit to a "1" cache.

 

Moreover, I still suggest that we consider having a 1 be a flat easy trail.

A 1 W be a flat easy trail that could be found using a human powered chair.

A 1 W+ is a flat easy trail that maybe too long for an average person in a human powered chair, but not so long that it moves up to a 1.5 or 2.

 

Having hid now something on the order of 15 caches, I have to say that with all due respect to Clayjar, the automated system is AT BEST, a rough approximation. Not only do I have caches in the 1 range that wouldn't be by the standards of handicap accessibility, I have problems with upstaging of the 2-3 range caches. Perhaps we need regional terrain walkers or we need to use Lost Outdoors.com as our default map. Then we could use topos and the approvers/cache owners would be able to address these issues as they relate to individual caches in a more informed manner.

[+Harrald]

I reiterate.

 

I'm not shy about emailing people that place one star terrain caches in the area I cache in. My message looks something like this

 

Hello,

 

I see you have placed a one star terrain cache in this area. Even though a one star terrain is supposed to be wheelchair accessible. I'm just checking to see if it is really is. I have a daughter in a wheelchair and wouldn't want her to be dissapointed when we arrive. Thanks.

 

This is an issue that affects me directly. I have become proactive because of this. Why are people that are not affected by this demanding that the site change to address this issue? A few of the approvers that will post to the forums have already stated that they actively question these caches as they appear in the queue.

Edited February 18, 2004 by Harrald

[sceptre]

I looked at the Clayjar ratings, and I am fine with that, but that doesn't seem to be any kind of rating system/rule that is set in stone. From what I see it is all about what the hider's opinion on the rating should be. IE, my 1 terrain would be an easy, short walk on a packed narrow path (and may not be a place a wheel chair or someone handicapped could get to), but it is still a 1 to me and most others.

 

I have absolutely no problems changing a rating to a 1.5 or 2 difficulty if there is some official set in stone rule...but the way I always see it and from what I am told, these are just recommendations, so it is up to me and any other individual to rate their own caches.

 

The web site when placing a cache says the following:

 

Overall Terrain Rating

(1 is easiest, 5 is hardest. Try this system to rate your cache.)

 

The above scenario is "easiest" for me and most...and it doesn't say "you must use this system"...just says "Try".

 

I am sure if we pick a cache at random, we would all rate the difficulty and terrain differently.

 

If I was in a wheel chair I would definately email the owner first before attempting their cache.

[+rldill]

 

If I was in a wheel chair I would definately email the owner first before attempting their cache.

This is true, but if the terrain ratings were correct you could at least use it as a starting point, without having to search through all the terrain 1s that a wheelchair has no hope of going to.

Edited February 18, 2004 by rldill

[sceptre]

This is true, but if the terrain ratings were correct you could at least use it as a starting point, without having to search through all the terrain 1s that a wheelchair has no hope of going to.

 

I agree, if there was a standard for the terrain rating that says that a 1 Terrain must be wheelchair accessible, then it should definately be followed. The way I see it now, it is just a quasy "guideline", and nothing seems to be set in stone (atleast from what I was reading on the web site) as to a 1 rating MUST be wheelchair accessible (or handicap accessible). And being wheelchair accessible, the cache would have to be at a position where I could reach it from sitting in my wheelchair, and not on the ground.

 

Then again if I was confined to a wheelchair, odds are I would not pick geocaching as a hobby (ok I am sure some do). I would instead put my faith in God in the hopes that one day I could walk again, despite what the doctors say.

 

As a solution, which I believe has been suggested before, is to have a check box that says that the cache is wheelchair accessible, or if a user does pick a 1 for the terrain, have a message pop up or something indicating that a 1 is intended to be for wheelchair access, and if not the system woudl change it to a 1.5. But as it is now, it's up to the individual cache placer to define what they feel a 1 is in their eyes.