Terrain Not Accurate

[+HoundGrrls]

Maybe I am just irritated that I chose some caches with 1 star to do with my grandma, but I really do think that accurate terrain ratings, in particular 1 star, is important.

 

I posted a note to this effect and the owner deleted my entry and emailed me saying "yes, it is true that you could not get there in a wheelchair but ..."

 

I think others when planning their outings should know about the terrain.

 

Should I just let it go?

[+TeamK-9]

If I came across a similar scenario, I'd email the cache owner with my opinion and try to explain it as calmly and rationally as possible. If the owner absolutely refused, I might send an email to the local approver.

 

But what exactly are we talking about here? How far off is the rating?

[Micqn]

How about getting yourself a Bobcat. Those things can make any terrrain a 1 to 2 rating.

 

[+Team GPSaxophone]

Maybe I am just irritated that I chose some caches with 1 star to do with my grandma, but I really do think that accurate terrain ratings, in particular 1 star, is important.

 

I posted a note to this effect and the owner deleted my entry and emailed me saying "yes, it is true that you could not get there in a wheelchair but ..."

 

I think others when planning their outings should know about the terrain.

 

Should I just let it go?

This is the one thing that affects all cachers...accurate ratings. It's a pain when someone won't follow the ratings guide, expecially when there's a link to it right next to the selection box.

 

One cacher in my area placed a bunch of caches 1-2 miles down some narrow trails where you had to cross small sandy arroyos and climb short, but steep, hills to get to the cache. He rated them all Terrain 1. I sent him an email, and he incresed it by a 1/2 star Not what I was hoping for.

 

My suggestion is to forbid anyone from rating a cache with only 1 star unless they also check a box that says "This cache is wheelchair accessible". This would put the "default" rating at 2 stars (suitable for small children) instead of 1 star (handicapped accessible)

 

In the meantime, you can only ask that they adjust the rating. Be cautious about looking for any of their other caches.

[+briansnat]

Despite the fact that there is a link to the rating system on the cache submission page, too many people are unaware that there is one.

 

I proposed placing a link to the rating definitions on the cache page, by clicking on the word "terrain" or "difficulty" but it didn't get beyond a few people saying "good idea".

 

I think this would help publicize the fact that these definitions exist and that the ratings aren't totally subjective.

 

Personally, if I find the rating to be way off, or if its 1 star for terrain and not wheelchair accessable, I'll probably mention that in my logs.

Edited June 14, 2004 by briansnat

[+Planet]

A 1 terrain cache is supposed to be wheelchair accessable, no ifs ands or buts about it. You just log your note or find again, or even better, perhaps e-mail the cache owner with this cache rating system link and tell him if he has doubts about it, to go to the cache page, click on "edit this cache" and scroll down to the terrain rating and he can also find the link right there. People should stop rating things based on their own perspective of how easy or hard it is to get to, and learn about this system so they can rate it the way it should be rated. You need to send the link to the cache owner though, because not all cachers come to the forums. We had a big discussion at our event, regarding challenged cachers, and Mopar said placing a handicap accessible cache is one of the hardest caches to place. You should walk along the trail shuffling your feet and everytime you bump into something realize that is a hurdle a wheel chair must get past. How high is it? Does it block the whole trail? How easy is the cache to reach? Do you have to stand up? Or get out of the chair?

Did you know that there is a group of blind geocachers? Two, I think! Send the cache owner a link to this thread as well, if you'd like. I looked up a cache in FL a while back and it was rated a 3. Then the cache description says "You can only get there by boat". That automatically makes it a five star rating, if you need special equipment. I notified the owner of this, and am trying to remember which cache it was so I can see if it's fixed, I think he had two such caches. He was unaware of the rating system. So come one folks!! It only takes one horrible split second for someone to end up in that same condition, and then you'll wish the caches were properly rated!

[+Doggiewoggie]

Here's my little story about terrain ratings:

 

So, a while ago, I go to this cache that was listed as a 4 1/2. I show up looking like Indiana Jones--to your typical little neighborhood park. I look around--all the muggles are staring at me. They're wondering who the idiot is with the backpack, the Mac boots, the walking stick, the first aid kit, the water--the one-man band looking getup. You had to be there

 

The cache winds up being a terrain 2. So I make a point of it in my log, mentioning the online guide--and the owner posts a huffy note: "Per the online guide"? THE ONLINE GUIDE DIDNT EXIST WHEN THE CACHE WAS PLANTED +THREE+ YEARS AGO!!!!!" Boy, was she ticked off. After that, she modifies the difficulty to a 3, but posts the following in the cache description: "Please don't whine about the cache, its as old as the hill its buried in. And the coordinates are off by about 30', because back in 1812 when we buried this thing, we couldn't get ENIAC back into the woods."

 

Just thought I'd share

Edited June 14, 2004 by prettynwitty

[+Sagefox]

My suggestion is to forbid anyone from rating a cache with only 1 star unless they also check a box that says "This cache is wheelchair accessible". This would put the "default" rating at 2 stars (suitable for small children) instead of 1 star (handicapped accessible)

I see 1 rated terrains often that a wheelchair can't get to.

 

I think your suggenstion is very good because many people don't notice the wheelchair description or forget about. Been guilty of this myself.

 

I would still like to have the 1.5 available as a minimum. There are many caches that are not quite a 2 but not completely wheelchair accessible.

[+briansnat]

The cache winds up being a terrain 2. So I make a point of it in my log, mentioning the online guide--and the owner posts a huffy note: "Per the online guide"? THE ONLINE GUIDE DIDNT EXIST WHEN THE CACHE WAS PLANTED +THREE+ YEARS AGO!!!!!" Boy, was she ticked off. After that, she modifies the difficulty to a 3, but posts the following in the cache description: "Please don't whine about the cache, its as old as the hill its buried in.

 

She's full o beans. The Clayjar system was around when that cache was placed. Just more proof that people don't read the cache submission page.

[+HoundGrrls]

Well, I doubt that posting another note or emailing her again would help. She was rude to me (FTF unpleseant geocacher). As far as what the terrain should have been, I am not sure because after I saw the serrated (sp?) metal shards, broken syringes, hobo trash, etc. and my great aunt stuck in the car, and grandma trying to look, I gave up and quit looking. I posted info about the trash too and she made a rude comment and deleted the whole entry. If any of you are caching near Ventura, CA email me and I will tell you about the kid, dog, and elderly unfriendly one rated 1 star.

[+The Jester]

People should stop rating things based on their own perspective of how easy or hard it is to get to, and learn about this system so they can rate it the way it should be rated.

Yes, stop using your own perspective and use clayjar's perspective. Anyone else have a question about this? I've used it, but find that it doesn't have much fine control. The options are too broad. It's a guideline, not gospel fact, people.

 

And when I first started this sport, 1 terrian did NOT mean wheelchair access! There have been a number of threads that were trying to find such caches.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

People should stop rating things based on their own perspective of how easy or hard it is to get to, and learn about this system so they can rate it the way it should be rated.

Yes, stop using your own perspective and use clayjar's perspective. Anyone else have a question about this? I've used it, but find that it doesn't have much fine control. The options are too broad. It's a guideline, not gospel fact, people.

 

And when I first started this sport, 1 terrian did NOT mean wheelchair access! There have been a number of threads that were trying to find such caches.

Are you saying this sport shouldn't evolve/keep up with the times? Fine, let's get rid of all cache types except 5 gallon buckets, since that's what the first cache was

[+Renegade Knight]

If you don't select a terrain it defaults to 1. That's the probelm. It should defualt to "Not Rated" or Zero which would mean Not Rated. Or it should just not let you submit the cache like when I forget to include my state.

 

It's not a fix for bad ratings but it is an idea to make sure all ratings have been thought about.

[+The Jester]

Are you saying this sport shouldn't evolve/keep up with the times? Fine, let's get rid of all cache types except 5 gallon buckets, since that's what the first cache was

Not at all. Just a historical note. And clayjar's system has evolved too, it didn't, at first, say 1 star was wheelchair accessable. I'm trying to remember where the note was about ratings - something along the lines of 'don't worry if the last few feet don't match the terrain rating' - meaning that sometimes the cache may be in bushes/mud/hillside next to a paved trail, but still a 1 star (or whatever) rating.

[+bons]

And clayjar's system has evolved too, it didn't, at first, say 1 star was wheelchair accessable.

Actually, it still doesn't.

 

The words "wheelchair accessable" don't appear anywhere in the clayjar page. The ONLY case of the word "wheelchair" is in the terrain elevation section and the actual description of a "1" is "Handicapped accessible. (Terrain is likely to be paved, is relatively flat, and less than a 1/2 mile hike is required.)" which doesn't say jack about being able to reach the cache while sitting in a wheelchair. It also doesn't say anything about "trail will not have this big barrier in the middle near entrances and bridges designed to keep vehicles (such as wheelchairs) wider than bikes off the trail".

 

A close reading of the page looking for the words "wheelchair accessable" and realizing just how many barriers to wheelchair accessability aren't on the page will tell you on thing: just how many people are really "rating things based on their own perspective of how easy or hard it is to get to, and not learning about this system so they can rate it the way it should be rated."

 

A 1 star rating either means "wheelchair accessable" or it means what the clayjar system says it means. But the two are NOT the same thing.

 

Edit: Adding link: http://clayjar.com/gcrs/

Edited June 15, 2004 by bons

[+briansnat]

Handicapped accessible. (Terrain is likely to be paved, is relatively flat, and less than a 1/2 mile hike is required.)" which doesn't say jack about being able to reach the cache while sitting in a wheelchair.

 

The term "handicap accessible" is generally understood to be wheelchair accessible. Most handicap accessible facilities are marked by a depiction of a wheelchair, not a guy on crutches, or someone carrying an oxygen tank and they are designed with a person in a wheelchair in mind...hence ramps and similar accomodations.

Edited June 15, 2004 by briansnat

[+briansnat]

Yes, stop using your own perspective and use clayjar's perspective. Anyone else have a question about this? I've used it, but find that it doesn't have much fine control. The options are too broad. It's a guideline, not gospel fact, people.

 

It's not just Clayjar's perspective. The guidelines were developed after much discussion in the forums and with input from many. Yes they are a guideline. I've found using the rating program tends to rate the terrain about 1/2 star too high when compared to the actual definitions of each rating, so I adjust the rating accordingly.

 

But guideline, or gospel, it's still unacceptable to have a cache rated at 1 star terrain where you have to boulder hop across streams, climb over down trees and slog through a swamp to get to it (I've encountered this). Underrating terrain like this can be dangerous by encouraging people to attempt caches that they aren't physically prepared for

 

Over rating caches isn't dangerous, but it is annoying. You'll feel like a bit of a fool bringing your best mountaineering gear only to find yourself looking for the cache next to a kids swingset.

Edited June 15, 2004 by briansnat

[+bons]

If I'm reading your last two posts correctly, you seem to be saying that freely interpreting the clayjar system to mean what you want it to mean and adjusting the ratings to suit what you think the ratings really mean is perfectly acceptable as long as you actually used the clayjar system at some point, even if the ratings you entered aren't the ratings it gives and the meaning of the definations aren't what the clayjar system says. Note that not only does a "1" not use the words "wheelchair accessable" (which you interpret "handicapped accessable" to mean), nowhere on the page does it discuss "ramps and similar accomodations" in order to make sure that that particular piece of accessability is there. Not only is it not a test for wheelchair accessability but it doesn't even claim to be that.

 

If everyone sets their own scale for how far to adjust the clayjar system (and a number of people in previous threads have indicated they do just that) and if the definition of a rating isn't what the clayjar system says (and I've seen a lot of tests for rating 1 that aren't on the clayjar system, from the "shopping cart test" to "how high the cache can be off the ground") then why do we get upset when someone's ratings are off?

 

It seems like the constant advice on this forum is "Use the clayjar system" but the problem is that people aren't using the clayjar system. They're all using their own personal varient of the clayjar system and then complaining that the results aren't consistant.

Edited June 15, 2004 by bons

[+briansnat]

Note that not only does a "1" not use the words "wheelchair accessable" (which you interpret "handicapped accessable" to mean),...

 

Me and most of society.

 

It seems like the constant advice on this forum is "Use the clayjar system" but the problem is that people aren't using the clayjar system. They're all using their own personal varient of the clayjar system and then complaining that the results aren't consistant.

 

What I'm saying is that people should read the definitions for each rating and rate their cache accordingly. This is what was envisioned when the system and definitions were developed. Of course there is a level of subjectivity, but if you go by the definitions, you will know what constitutes 1 star terrain, or 5. Sure ratings may vary a half star here and there and that's not a big deal. The problem comes when people rate their caches with total disregard for the established guidelines and this is the issue at hand.

Edited June 15, 2004 by briansnat

[+Mopar]

If you don't select a terrain it defaults to 1.  That's the probelm. 

When was the last time you submitted a cache???

It hasn't done that in a long time.

 

It should defualt to "Not Rated" or Zero which would mean Not Rated.  Or it should just not let you submit the cache like when I forget to include my state.

 

It's not a fix for bad ratings but it is an idea to make sure all ratings have been thought about.

That's what it does! There is no default rating, and if you don't enter a rating, it won't let you submit the cache.

Edited June 15, 2004 by Mopar

[+Allen_L]

Yes, stop using your own perspective and use clayjar's perspective.

Actually it was brokenwing who proposed the current description back in Jul 8, 2001 what clayjar did was set up a webpage that gave the answers based on brokenwing’s criteria.

[+briansnat]

Yes, stop using your own perspective and use clayjar's perspective.

Actually it was brokenwing who proposed the current description back in Jul 8, 2001 what clayjar did was set up a webpage that gave the answers based on brokenwing’s criteria.

I don't mean to be Manny Markwell, but it was Scout who proposed it in May of that year. What he suggested is pretty much what was adopted, with some tweaking.

Edited June 15, 2004 by briansnat

[+Allen_L]

Yes, I should have included brokenwing's comment

Thanks to all the others that have posted, as I borrowed extensively from all of them.

Edited June 15, 2004 by AllenLacy

[+Mopar]

 

And when I first started this sport, 1 terrian did NOT mean wheelchair access!  There have been a number of threads that were trying to find such caches.

Looks like those threads have been found, hehehee.

Looks like 3 weeks after you joined, the terrain ratings DID mean wheelchair access. (Maybe even sooner, since even back in May 2001, Markwell mentioned already seeing Scout's example

 

Also looks like they were firmly in place and accepted by the community and the site by the time you hid your first physical cache back in August 2001. So is that 3/1 cache rated right?

Edited June 15, 2004 by Mopar

[+ClayJar]

IIRC, with all the discussion going on, brokenwing used it to create a ratings calculator program that you could download and use. He sent me the source, and I cooked the logic a bit to come out with something that gave comparable results to the application, eliminated the possibility of ratings <1 or >5, streamlined the logic to make it easy to understand and reimplement, and provided the above via a simple and convenient web page.

 

I provided a link to the source directly on the page so that anyone could use it, and even some non-English caching-related sites have emailed me about their use of it. It's hardly the Iron Fist of Ratings, but it is simply, straightforward, and amazingly usable. Do you have to put in a little "user-provided tweak" now and then? Sure. It's a machine (and a very, very simple one at that -- look at the source). Does it provide a baseline that far too many people lack even in the most obvious cases? Indeed.

 

As far as semantic debates as to what exactly a rating blah should be and whether a ParaMover 3000 XT counts as a valid conveyance for the purposes of claiming that you can get to the cache without any appendages whatsoever... go play with your lawyer friends; they love inane debates. (Or, to translate into diplomatic speech, "The online ratings calculator was and is intended to provide a guideline a geocacher may use to help determine a reasonable rating. It is neither a substitute for logic nor is it irrelevant.")

[+JohnnyVegas]

Here's my little story about terrain ratings:

 

So, a while ago, I go to this cache that was listed as a 4 1/2. I show up looking like Indiana Jones--to your typical little neighborhood park. I look around--all the muggles are staring at me. They're wondering who the idiot is with the backpack, the Mac boots, the walking stick, the first aid kit, the water--the one-man band looking getup. You had to be there

 

The cache winds up being a terrain 2. So I make a point of it in my log, mentioning the online guide--and the owner posts a huffy note: "Per the online guide"? THE ONLINE GUIDE DIDNT EXIST WHEN THE CACHE WAS PLANTED +THREE+ YEARS AGO!!!!!" Boy, was she ticked off. After that, she modifies the difficulty to a 3, but posts the following in the cache description: "Please don't whine about the cache, its as old as the hill its buried in. And the coordinates are off by about 30', because back in 1812 when we buried this thing, we couldn't get ENIAC back into the woods."

 

Just thought I'd share

Sounds like the cache owner ran out of zoloft

[+eigengott]

people should read the definitions for each rating

Where? I just searched for them on gc.com but I must be blind...

[+briansnat]

Its a link on the hide a cache page:

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. 

[+eigengott]

Its a link on the hide a cache page:

URL? I still don't see it. Only links to the Clayjar system on the "report a cache" page.

Edited June 15, 2004 by eigengott

[+briansnat]

URL? I still don't see it. Only links to the Clayjar system on the "report a cache" page.

 

 

And when you link to the Clayjar system, you get the definitions.

[+eigengott]

Not the text you quoted above. So, where *are* these definitions you expect cache hiders to read?

[+briansnat]

Not the text you quoted above. So, where *are* these definitions you expect cache hiders to read?

 

Click on "fill out our online form" then "try this system", then "rate this cache" and you see the definitions.

 

Yes, I wish it wasn't so obscure. I once suggested the defs be linked to on the cache pages by clicking on the terrain and difficulty rating, but that didn't get anywhere. But anybody who is filling out a cache submission form can't miss it.

Edited June 15, 2004 by briansnat

[+bons]

If you click on the clayjar page and then you fill out the form and get a rating THEN the guidelines pop up. Not knowing this causes people to stare at you in horror and treat you like an idiot because they assume this behavior is obvious.

 

But don't worry about it. They're only guidelines. As shown above by briansnat and clayjar, they aren't meant to be followed religiously. You can adjust your rating any way you choose. Unless of course you're the owner of the cache that started this whole thread off or any of the other examples of "incorrectly" rated caches that appear on this site on a monthly basis. If you're the owner of one of these caches, it's entirely your fault for not using the clayjar "guidelines" correctly as well as not following any of the other guidelines that someone or other has decided in their own mind that you need to follow.

 

Some simple additional guidelines are:

If you're not in a wheelchair, never rate your cache a 1. Rate it a 1.5. Hardly anyone gets flamed for saying that they weren't sure if it was wheelchair accessable or not and being on the safe side. If fact, adjusting by a half point towards the middle lessens your chance of being flamed. Sure, it throws the accuracy out the window but what the heck. It's better to be off than to be flamed.

 

Add a description of the terrain in your cache. If someone complains that the trail wasn't long enough to deserve a rating of "3" you're golden if the cache description says exactly how long the walk is.

[+briansnat]

But don't worry about it. They're only guidelines. As shown above by briansnat and clayjar, they aren't meant to be followed religiously. You can adjust your rating any way you choose.

 

Within reason. If you rate a cache that requires rapelling down the side of a cliff 2 stars, you're gonna get complaints, just as you will if you rate an easy walk in a city park 4 stars.

Edited June 15, 2004 by briansnat

[+bons]

And that's why I suggest throwing accuracy out the window and adjusting your rating towards center. You'll probably get away with it if your "2" or a "4" cache is listed as a "3". If a 4.5 is listed as a 3.5 or a 4, you're probably safe.

 

But don't use "4.5" or, heaven forbid, "1" in your cache ratings unless you're willing to defend yourself to the hilt. "4" and "1.5", while not accurate, are much safer.

[+Right Wing Wacko]

One way to solve the problem would be to have Groundspeak ask a Series of Questions similar to the ones Clayjar asks instead of simply asking for a terrain rating. The rating would then be calculated from the responses.

[+briansnat]

And that's why I suggest throwing accuracy out the window and adjusting your rating towards center. You'll probably get away with it if your "2" or a "4" cache is listed as a "3". If a 4.5 is listed as a 3.5 or a 4, you're probably safe.

 

But don't use "4.5" or, heaven forbid, "1" in your cache ratings unless you're willing to defend yourself to the hilt. "4" and "1.5", while not accurate, are much safer.

 

Why not just follow the guidelines? If you make everything a 3, or 3.5, the ratings are useless. According the the guidelines, the distinction between a 2 and a 3 star terrain rating is pretty clear. (eg. No steep elevation changes vs. some steep elevation changes and no overgrowth vs. some overgrowth).

 

The difference between 4 and 3 star terrain is equally clear. "Off trail, very heavy overgrowth, very steep elevation changes requiring the use of hands" vs. SOME overgrowth and SOME steep elevation changes".

 

It shouldn't be that difficult to figure out how to rate the cache with some degree of accuracy. Are there some variables and grey areas? Sure, but it's not freakin' rocket science. I have to believe you're just trolling here because rating caches accurately is not that hard a concept.

Edited June 15, 2004 by briansnat

[+bons]

Why not just follow the guidelines?  If you make everything a 3, or 3.5, the ratings are useless. 

 

....

 

I have to believe you're just trolling here because rating caches accurately is not that hard a concept.

Actually what I'm doing is making a point.

 

Why not just follow the guidelines? Good question. You don't and you don't seem to have any problem with the fact that you don't follow them.

 

I've found using the rating program tends to rate the terrain about 1/2 star too high when compared to the actual definitions of each rating, so I adjust the rating accordingly.

 

Well heck, if you're going to adjust the ratings and other people are going to adjust the ratings then why the heck do we tell people to use tool whose purpose is to provide a rating we don't agree with?

 

Here you are complaining that my suggestion makes them useless when you're out there doing the exact same thing.

 

So which is it going to be? Use the rating system we have and admit that a "1" is simply any cache where the first button for every question is pushed and that's all it means or make up our own personal rating systems and complain whenever someone's rating system is different from our own?

 

Because beating people up because they don't use the same system that everyone else also doesn't use is really getting old.

Edited June 15, 2004 by bons

[+briansnat]

Why not just follow the guidelines? Good question. You don't and you don't seem to have any problem with the fact that you don't follow them.

 

I never said that. Every one of my cache placements adhere to the guidelines. It's the automated program that I don't strictly follow. Sometimes the rating it kicks out is not in tune with the description and where there is a discrepancy, I use my good judgement and rate my cache according to the description. That's the way the people who designed the system expected it to be handled.

 

Look, I'm not going to bother arguing with you anymore. I'll follow the guidelines for rating my caches and encourage others to do so as well. You go ahead and rate everything a 3.5.

Edited June 15, 2004 by briansnat

[+Renegade Knight]

... It's the automated program that I don't strictly follow. Sometimes the rating it kicks out is not in tune with the description and where there is a discrepancy, I use my good judgement and rate my cache according to the description. The way the people who designed the system expected it to be handled.

This has also been my experience. The system such as it is, is flawed, thus it reqires tweaks in the calculated rating to match the described intent.

 

Further the ratings don't really give you any idea of terrain. By way of example a 4.5 could in fact be wheel chair accessable (but not a 1) provided the person can get out of their chair and do some armwork as well as a little scooting. However you could never figure that out from a 4.5 star rating because it doesn't give you the information you need to know.

[+Mudfrog]

I allways use the rating system when placing caches. Its not perfect as there are all kinds of variables, but for the most part it gives you a pretty accurate rating. This in cahoots with your common sense should do the trick, but you gotta remember that everyone is different. What's easy for you may be extremely difficult for another. Kinda like water accessible caches. They are very simple for those of us that can swim or have boats, but we still gotta rate them a 5!

[+Bob Blaylock]

  This is not Politically Correct, but I think it has to be said.

 

  The vast majority of us have full use of our eyes, ears, appendages, and other major body parts.  Clearly, the baseline for what any of us would reasonably assume about anyone seeking a cache that we might place is going to suppose that any seekers will be similarly abled at least.

 

  I do not think it is reasonable to expect most of us even to know what is accessible to people with certain handicaps.  Those of us who aren't familiar with the use of a wheelchair are not going to have a good understanding of its limitations.  Those of us who are not blind are not going to understand the limitations of those methods that blind persons uses to compensate for their lack of sight.

 

  And even where we discuss persons in wheelchairs, what do we mean?  Do we mean a quadraplegic in an electric wheelchair that is controlled by jerking his head; or do we mean a relatively healthy, athletic paraplegic in a specially-built wheelchair with large wheels all around, that would easily be capable of going where the aforementioned quadraplegic cannot?

 

  I don't have a lot of experience with handicapped people, but I have seen, in my limited experience, a fairly wide range of different object that can be called “wheelchairs”, used by people with differing levels of disability; and representing a very wide range of ability to access rough terrain.

 

  I don't think it's possible to come up with an objective, usable definition of “handicapped–accessible”; and even if it were, I very much doubt of any but a tiny handful of us would be qualified to judge whether a given terrain met this definition.

 

  I propose that whatever the default terrain definition is, that it assume a person who does not have any unusual handicaps, and that in order to set a lower terrain rating than that — indicating that the cache is “handicapped–accessible” — that some special procedure must be established and followed to specifically determine that it meets that definition.  I don't know how this procedure would work, other than having a person with the specified level of disablity make a personal visit to the cache site.

Edited June 16, 2004 by Bob Blaylock

[+briansnat]

I don't think it's possible to come up with an objective, usable definition of “handicapped–accessible”; and even if it were, I very much doubt of any but a tiny handful of us would be qualified to judge whether a given terrain met this definition.

 

We don't have to, the government has done it for us.

 

And even where we discuss persons in wheelchairs, what do we mean?  Do we mean a quadraplegic in an electric wheelchair that is controlled by jerking his head; or do we mean a relatively healthy, athletic paraplegic in a specially-built wheelchair with large wheels all around, that would easily be capable of going where the aforementioned quadraplegic cannot?

 

I've brought up this point in numerous other posts on this subject. But I think the basic criterion for handicap accessability is that the terrain can be negotiated by a wheelchair. Some people have used the "shopping cart test". Can you push a shopping cart there without lifting it up? Now of course this standard is of no help to a quadraplegic who can't operate their own wheelchair, nor is it meaningful to someone whose handicap may be a bad heart, severe emphysema, or severe arthritis, but you have to draw the line someplace.

[+Renegade Knight]

...The vast majority of us have full use of our eyes, ears, appendages, and other major body parts.  Clearly, the baseline for what any of us would reasonably assume about anyone seeking a cache that we might place is going to suppose that any seekers will be similarly abled at least....

You could reverse that and just rate the terrain. You may not know what a jock in a wheel chair could do, but you do know if the path is paved, lawn, or over rocks.

 

Let the finders figure out the terrain from the ratings. That isn't what the current system does but it is one that is being worked on.

[+The Jester]

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. 

 

How is the the most difficult part of the cache? If the cache is within a few feet of a trail, don't worry about the last few feet.

 

Doesn't the second quote negate the "Handicapped accessible" label (as used by the gov't)? BTW, the second quote is from the first question asked on the rating system.

[+The Jester]

 

And when I first started this sport, 1 terrian did NOT mean wheelchair access!  There have been a number of threads that were trying to find such caches.

Looks like those threads have been found, hehehee.

Looks like 3 weeks after you joined, the terrain ratings DID mean wheelchair access. (Maybe even sooner, since even back in May 2001, Markwell mentioned already seeing Scout's example

 

Also looks like they were firmly in place and accepted by the community and the site by the time you hid your first physical cache back in August 2001. So is that 3/1 cache rated right?

Yes, it was. It was (and is, with minor changes to the ending recently due to the final site being destroyed by construction) along a paved bike path, with one short section on hard, flat gravel/dirt. It also took in account the

How is the the most difficult part of the cache? If the cache is within a few feet of a trail, don't worry about the last few feet.

for the last little bit.

 

And, BTW, I joined prior to May 2001 (just barely).

 

Edit: spelling.

Edited June 16, 2004 by The Jester

[+briansnat]

How is the the most difficult part of the cache? If the cache is within a few feet of a trail, don't worry about the last few feet.

 

Doesn't the second quote negate the "Handicapped accessible" label (as used by the gov't)? BTW, the second quote is from the first question asked on the rating system.

This is where judgement and common sense come in. Since wheelchair users have different degrees of handicaps, what is easily do-able for one may be impossible for another. I read one disabled geocacher here describe pulling herself from her wheelchair and sliding down a hill on her butt to get to a cache. This may not be possible for someone with another type of disability.

 

So if there is a minor obstruction in the last few feet, it may be OK to leave the terrain at one star, but if it involves climbing 50 feet into a pine tree, or descending the face of a cliff the the rating should be adjusted upward. In the first case, be sure to note the obstruction on the cache page so the finder can judge for himself if it's possible and if in doubt at all, that's one of the reasons for the half star.

 

For instance, I have a cache that's short walk along a flat, hard dirt path that a wheelchair can easily negotiate. I would have made it one star, but for the fact that there is a gate across the path and no way for a wheelchair to get around it, so it gets a 1.5.

 

No rating system is going to be perfect. There is always going to be a degree of subjectivity. The key is to be familiar with the guidelines and stick to them as closely as possible, while making allowances things that might not be addressed specifically in them.

[+bons]

So if the system is subjective can we quit complaining that not everyone agrees with everyone else and just admit that terrain ratings are personal opinions and not worth the paper it takes to print them out?

 

What you think a particular rating means and what I think it means are probably two different things. And the more subjective we get the less accurate we get. We have a tool that spits out consistant numbers but the very people who want consistancy keep changing that number to reflect their personal beliefs and then they get upset that the numbers everyone comes up with aren't consistant.

 

Because when it comes down to judgement and common sense it occurrs to me that anyone with any would realize that if everyone would use the same tool without readjusting it to suit their own personal beliefs then we would get consistant results and all we'd have a much better understanding of what the terrain difficulty of any particular cache really was.

Edited June 16, 2004 by bons

[+briansnat]

So if the system is subjective can we quit complaining that not everyone agrees with everyone else and just admit that terrain ratings are personal opinions and not worth the paper it takes to print them out?

 

What you think a particular rating means and what I think it means are probably two different things. And the more subjective we get the less accurate we get. We have a tool that spits out consistant numbers but the very people who want consistancy keep changing that number to reflect their personal beliefs and then they get upset that the numbers everyone comes up with aren't consistant.

 

Because when it comes down to judgement and common sense it occurrs to me that anyone with any would realize that if everyone would use the same tool without readjusting it to suit their own personal beliefs then we would get consistant results and all we'd have a much better understanding of what the terrain difficulty of any particular cache really was.

 

LALALALALALALA I can't heaaaar you. LALALALALALALALA

[+The Jester]

Because when it comes down to judgement and common sense it occurrs to me that anyone with any would realize that if everyone would use the same tool without readjusting it to suit their own personal beliefs then we would get consistant results and all we'd have a much better understanding of what the terrain difficulty of any particular cache really was.

But the tool itself asks questions different people will answer differently for the same cache. I did a cache recently that had a much higher terrain rating than I thought was right. But I'm a rock climber so I look at a "steep section" much differently than the a mom used to pushing a baby on a paved trail. Another example (not a geocaching one), there is a bicycle rider in our area that considers Seattle a mostly flat city (which it isn't) for riding. So when he says a ride doesn't have any hills - and I think I need to walk my bike up part of the ride - who's rating do you use?

 

So answering (for example) the "What is the terrain elevation like?" question, the difference between "Some elevation changes" and "Steep elevation changes" is subjective. Is a ten foot long 20 degree slope too steep to ride a bike? Depends on experience and the run you have at it. Besides, what does someone who doesn't ride a bike do? They'd push it up any hill.

 

I use the grading tool, but when it spits out an answer different than what my experience with similar caches would say, I adjust it.

 

I guess what I'm saying is that the whole process is subjective, never will everyone agree with every cache rating. Live with it.