Jump to content

Cache Locations


Recommended Posts

This topic probably has been hashed and re-hashed, but I'm relatively new to the sport, so I'm gonna say it anyway.

I'm not old, and I'm not young. I'm one of the middle-aged geocachers who sometimes finds it very hard to traverse a mossy cliffside, or climb a tree, or scale a steep muddy embankment. Don't get me wrong, I love the sport, and love hunting in unusual places for caches....but sometimes I think some of these caches are hidden by US Navy Seals, or in the least a vengeful Gollum!

Does anyone else find that some innocent looking caches, with a difficulty and terrain rating of 2, have you traversing slippery rocks and dancing on the edge of a precipice that would be out of the question for any cacher who has small children with them?

Secondly, if someone is hiding a microcache in a heavily forested area, wouldn't a hint be in order since most GPSs lose accuracy in heavy tree cover?

I don't mean to sound bitter or angry, I'm not, my wife and I are enjoying the sport immensely and are addicted to it, I just wanted to see how others feel about this. :)

Link to comment

I think a lot of the problems stem from cache owners misrating their caches. I've found caches rated at 1 star terrain (supposedly handicap accessable) that involved climbing over down trees, stream crossings and off trail hiking and I've seen caches rated 3 stars for terrain that were a few feet off a flat, well maintained, hiking trail.

 

If they would follow the established guidelines for difficulty and terrain, this wouldn't be an issue.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

I agree with your point. However, this is a sport of individuals (not all of whom possess "common sense" - what ever that is) and some of whom are new at hiding caches without having had much experience at finding them.

I simply don't bother with caches that fit the descriptions in your comments and I try to avoid other caches created by the people who my experience tells me have done a disappointing job in the past; as evidenced in my notebook.

There are some caches in my area that have never been visited. There's a reason for that. As you gain experience and learn who in your area creates a worthwhile challenge and who doesn't you'll find your geocaching experiences to be less disappointing.

Link to comment

This is a good question.

I made a cache difficulty of 3 terrain of 5 because it was on top of a steep rutted hill.

But then someone was mad because it didn't require a humvee and helmets and rapelling gear to get to it.

Ranking these is a damned if you do, damned if you don't approach.

My two cents.

But I also have seen what you mentioned, one that should have ranked a 10 on the 1-5 scale that was listed as a 1.5

Go figure.

I always just take it as a suggestion.

:)

Link to comment

If there area is dangerous and the rating is not accurate, you have a legit gripe. If you read some of the logs they will sometimes give you an idea of how difficult the terrain is or if the rating is accurate. If you're FTF, well then that's just part of the challenge of being FTF. As far as micro in a dense forest, you're not alone. I personally don't see the point of hiding a film can in a location that can easily fit an ammo can. But hey, like I always say, there's something for everyone.

 

I haven't had the problem of inaccurate terrain rating in my area too much. If you feel the rating is off, you can mention it in the logs. That's part of the reason to log caches online, to give the cache owner feedback. Just don't insult anyone. With nearly 70 finds I think you've probably got a pretty clear idea of what should be a 1 star and what should be a 5 star.

Link to comment
Then something went click in my head...

Awhile ago clayjar made a tool that you can find here

http://www.clayjar.com/gcrs/

 

It helps to rate them properly.

I haven't used it, but it seems pretty good.

:)

Why haven't you? (And by you, I really mean everyone who's hidden a cache and NOT used it)

It's linked twice in larger text then everything else, right there where you chose the ratings when you submit a new cache.

e820d2d5-c40f-4dea-9a89-e23195a7a527.jpg

Link to comment

The Clayjar program seems to overrate terrain by a half, to 1 star. I plug in the info, see what it comes up with and compare it with the definition and I usually have to knock off a star. Still, its a good guideline and if everyone followed it, we'd be better off.

 

No more slogs through the swamp being rated one star terrain and film canisters in boulder fields one star difficulty.

 

I did a poll, back when they were allowed, and I think fewer than 1/2 of the respondants knew the system existed. And this was in the forums, where you'd think people would be a bit more aware of stuff like that.

Link to comment
Good points Brian. Maybe they need to at least force you to look at the definitions of the ratings before you can chose them for your cache.

 

I like my idea of being able to click on the difficulty and terrain on the cache pag to see the Clayjar definitions. I posted it in the gc.com forum and it quickly passed without comment from TPTB, though most posters to the thread thought it was a good idea.

Link to comment
The Clayjar program seems to overrate terrain by a half, to 1 star. I plug in the info, see what it comes up with and compare it with the definition and I usually have to knock off a star. Still, its a good guideline and if everyone followed it, we'd be better off.

 

No more slogs through the swamp being rated one star terrain and film canisters in boulder fields one star difficulty.

 

I did a poll, back when they were allowed, and I think fewer than 1/2 of the respondants knew the system existed. And this was in the forums, where you'd think people would be a bit more aware of stuff like that.

Hmmm...I always thought it misrated D/T too low

Link to comment
Hmmm...I always thought it misrated D/T too low

 

It seems to rate difficulty correctly because there is only 1 box to check. Terrain is a different story. For instance I have a cache that involves a 4 mile RT hike and the last 3/4 mile is a pretty difficult bushwack up the side of a very steep, overgrown, rocky hillside with lots of loose rocks and boulders. There are thorn bushes everywhere.

 

Anyway, to rate it, I checked:

-No specialized equipment

-No overnight stay

-Hike of 2-10 miles

-Trail? What Trail?

-Yeah, its pretty overgrown

-Steep elevation changes

 

And it spit out 4 stars. Though its no walk in the park, I wouldn't consider it to be 4 star terrain. It's closer to 3, which is defined as: 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.) So I used 3 stars for the terrain rating instead of the recommended 4.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment
Though its no walk in the park, I wouldn't consider it to be 4 star terrain. It's closer to 3, which is defined as: 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.) So I used 3 stars for the terrain rating instead of the recommended 4.

Clayjar gives a 3-star terrain rating for a flat, 2+ mile walk on pavement. That would seem way overrated to me, but then again I don't carry around a 4-year-old when I'm caching. :)

Link to comment

Just had one this past weekend that (I felt) was rated WAY off and it made the difference between finding it and not.

I have been sick for the past many days. On Memorial Day I was feeling a bit better and wanted to get out to at least find ONE cache for the weekend! So I chose one nearby that had a 1.5 terrain rating figuring I could handle that.

We got to ground zero whch was in a park. My GPSr led me right to the edge of a drop-off from nice grass to a rather steep downgrade of weeds, branches, logs, etc. My GPS was pointing me another 5' to 10' down that hill.

Well this is a 1.5 terrain rating! A 1-star is supposed to be wheelchair-accessible. So I figure 1.5 should mean it would probably be accessible by someone on crutches (or similar). So I figure there's no way it's down that hill !!!!

We searched the edge of the drop-off for about 45 minutes to no avail. I had to log a DNF on it.

Later in the day I receive an e-mail from the owner stating it is about 10' to 15' down that incline. Come ON!!! I went to Clayjar's rating system and put in all the specs for the actual location. It gave me a terrain rating of 3.5. Which I think to be accurate. So I e-mailed the owner with this info.

He answers back that Wisconsin caches are all over-rated. That out east (he lists the states) this one would have been a 1.5.

What's a person to do??? This guy took it upon himself to WAY under-rate this cache and it made the difference between a find and not.

Link to comment

Face it, ratings are only general. We've come to mostly ignore them in the course of trying to find a cache. With so many different views on cache ratings it's become almost immaterial what they are rated unless you know how the final numbers were derived.

 

I'd say you'd have a better experience if you just divide the caches into "up to 3" and "4 and over" and go from there.

 

Then READ the cache discription and logs if you're not up to a certain level of fitness.

 

...and what has age got to do with anything? We've got a cache out that's up a tree. A 64 year old was MEFF! Since then 2 or 3 more 50+ year old cachers have been up that tree while some other, younger cachers have opted to not attempt it.

Link to comment

He answers back that Wisconsin caches are all over-rated. That out east (he lists the states) this one would have been a 1.5.

What's a person to do??? This guy took it upon himself to WAY under-rate this cache and it made the difference between a find and not.

What states might that be? A good portion of the caches I've seen "out east" have been rated fairly well. Sure, we have our fair share of terrain 1's that should be a 1.5, but the majority seem to be at least close on terrain. I think it's due to the fact that many of the more prolific hiders seem to get it right. All you can do is what you did. Log your observations, and try to keep it polite and constructive. Tthe people who an accurate terrain rating is most important to will probably read the logs before hunting the cache.

Link to comment

We have a guy griping on a local forum about underrated cache which is 3 years old. The owner may not even be around, for all we know, so it's hard to see how the rating question may ever be resolved. But the logs make it very clear that it's more difficult than the star-and-half terrain rating it has.

Of course some people don't read logs, or even cache descriptions, but this is chosen consciously for a more FTF-like experience and one shouldn't gripe if that's a deliberate choice.

But Clayjar doesn't seem to work well in the mountains. Our trails are generally neither asphalt nor well-packed dirt, and you can never ride a bike all the way up. The Clayjar rater gives all these caches uniform 3.5 star , plus-minus a quarter.

Next to parking? A mile away? 8 miles away? Everything is 3.5

100 ft elevation gain? Thousand? 5,000? Everything is 3.5

Trail not cleared of brush? Up to 10 miles, it's still around 3.5

You need 5 minutes to hike? Or 5 hours? Or whole day? Still 3.5

The "can't-ride-a-bike" condition pretty much overrides everything else. But of course if you tuck an ammobox behind a boulder in the brush 30 ft from paved road, and admit that there isn't a trail there, then the rating finally goes up to ****.

Link to comment
The people to whom an accurate terrain rating is most important will probably read the logs before hunting the cache.

 

Possibly.

I did read the most recent logs of the cache I mentioned earlier. Read them mostly to be sure it had been found recently and to see if there were any comments that might help me. There was no comment of it being way off in rating.

Also -- the hider is a very good cacher in this area. I was VERY surprised to see it rated so poorly.

 

I completely agree that there should be some kind of additional rating system on caches so that there would be a "floating" rating that is set by the opinions of the finders. After a few finds, that rating would probably become MUCH more valuable than the one the actual hider puts on it.

Link to comment

But Clayjar doesn't seem to work well in the mountains. Our trails are generally neither asphalt nor well-packed dirt, and you can never ride a bike all the way up. The Clayjar rater gives all these caches uniform 3.5 star , plus-minus a quarter.

Next to parking? A mile away? 8 miles away? Everything is 3.5

100 ft elevation gain? Thousand? 5,000? Everything is 3.5

Trail not cleared of brush? Up to 10 miles, it's still around 3.5

You need 5 minutes to hike? Or 5 hours? Or whole day? Still 3.5

The "can't-ride-a-bike" condition pretty much overrides everything else. But of course if you tuck an ammobox behind a boulder in the brush 30 ft from paved road, and admit that there isn't a trail there, then the rating finally goes up to ****.

 

The program is flawed. Just stick with the definitions.

Edited by Ranger One
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...