Island Cache?

[godchaser]

I am jusat starting caching. I am looking to hide a few caches that would only be acessable by canoe / boat. Is this ok to do?

[+Stunod]

I am jusat starting caching. I am looking to hide a few caches that would only be acessable by canoe / boat. Is this ok to do?

Sure, just be sure to rate them correctly (if a boat is required they should be rated 5 star terrain)

[+Cache Viking]

Yup. Here are two that I want to find.

 

Kim's Emerald Adventure

and

Kyrkjøy

[+Skadog]

You just hit on my new pet peeve. As I have said before, in my opinion, a water hazard should only cost you one stroke. You may have to get your little tootsies wet, or buy a ten dollar rubber raft from Wal Mart, but I don't think a five star rating is warranted unless class four rapids are in play.

[+briansnat]

You just hit on my new pet peeve.  As I have said before, in my opinion, a water hazard should only cost you one stroke.  You may have to get your little tootsies wet, or buy a ten dollar rubber raft from Wal Mart, but I don't think a five star rating is warranted unless class four rapids are in play.

Your opinion differs from the established guidelines. One of the problems is that to many people disregard the guidelines and rate caches according to their arbitrary opinion.

 

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

Edited July 23, 2004 by briansnat

[thorin]

You just hit on my new pet peeve.  As I have said before, in my opinion, a water hazard should only cost you one stroke.  You may have to get your little tootsies wet, or buy a ten dollar rubber raft from Wal Mart, but I don't think a five star rating is warranted unless class four rapids are in play.

Your opinion differs from the established guidelines. One of the problems is that to many people disregard the guidelines and rate caches according to their arbitrary opinion.

 

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

Based on the guideline he is correct it isn't a 5.

 

As you stated

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

It requires specialized equipment but doesn't require knowledge or experience (ie: it's flat water).

 

I would agree that since it does require specialized equipment but not experience that perhaps it's a 4 or 4.5 (depending on how you look at it) but it's not a 5. IMHO of course.

 

Unless the quideline is incorrect and should actually read:

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

 

Thorin

 

Edited: To fix a tag....

Edited July 23, 2004 by thorin

[+briansnat]

You just hit on my new pet peeve.  As I have said before, in my opinion, a water hazard should only cost you one stroke.  You may have to get your little tootsies wet, or buy a ten dollar rubber raft from Wal Mart, but I don't think a five star rating is warranted unless class four rapids are in play.

Your opinion differs from the established guidelines. One of the problems is that to many people disregard the guidelines and rate caches according to their arbitrary opinion.

 

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

Based on the guideline he is correct it isn't a 5.

 

As you stated

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

It requires specialized equipment but doesn't require knowledge or experience (ie: it's flat water).

 

I would agree that since it does require specialized equipment but not experience that perhaps it's a 4 or 4.5 (depending on how you look at it) but it's not a 5. IMHO of course.

 

Unless the quideline is incorrect and should actually read:

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

 

Thorin

 

Edited: To fix a tag....

Knowing how to paddle a canoe is specialized knowledge/experience. Give a person who has never been in, or paddled a canoe before a paddle and watch the fun. Even rowing a boat can be problematic for a novice.

Edited July 23, 2004 by briansnat

[thorin]

I think you're taking that too far. By your definition walking is specialized knowledge, knowing how to use a GPSr is specialized knowledge, knowing how to read a map is specialized knowledge, knowing how to use this site is specialized knowledge.

 

So now all caches are 5 stars?

 

Edit: Perhaps you feel that the Skadog and I are suggesting a stance too far in the other direction but there has to be a pratical/applicable happy medium.

 

Thorin

Edited July 23, 2004 by thorin

[+sleddood]

rowing a boat/driving a motor boat is not particularly all that specialized. Rapelling 75 ft. down a cliff or flying a helicopter to the location would be special.

[+flask]

here's my opinion, which is not at all humble:

 

any water hazard that's a SHORT swim does not rate a 5. some of those aren't worth the trouble to unrack my boat.

[+briansnat]

rowing a boat/driving a motor boat is not particularly all that specialized. Rapelling 75 ft. down a cliff or flying a helicopter to the location would be special.

But it still requires specialized equipment...in this case a canoe. Specialized equipment, by definition, requires specialized knowledge to use it. As I said in the earlier post, give someone who has never been in a canoe a paddle and tell him to go to an island and you'll see very quickly that the ability to paddle a canoe is specialized knowledge.

 

Those of us who grew up around water and boats forget that there is a learning curve involved. Put someone who has never rowed a boat in one, he's likely to go in circles for quite a while and if the oarlocks are the old fasioned kind, forget it. He ain't going anywhere. Being that I have a home on a lake, with canoes and rowboats, I've seen many a guest get in one for the first time and make total fools out of themselves.

 

Besides, despite the poorly worded definiton for a 5 star terrain rating, if you read the discussions at the time the ratings were developed, it is clear that their intent was that need for specialized equipment (including boats) calls for a 5 star rating.

 

I think you're taking that too far. By your definition walking is specialized knowledge, knowing how to use a GPSr is specialized knowledge,

 

Hardly. Walking is a fairly common skill among us humans. A GPS is specialzed equipment for the average person, but not for geocachers, as the vast majority of geocachers use GPS's. On the other hand, a minority of geocachers own boats, or climbing equipment.

Edited July 23, 2004 by briansnat

[thorin]

There's a big difference between knowledge/experience (as would be needed for rapids/white water) and willingness to try (as would be needed for flat water). Use of a watercraft is suggested but not required, I'm sure people could swim for all the OP cares. And ownership of the craft is not required either, they can rent/beg/borrow/steal. Perhaps it'll take an inexperienced person a bit more time but no more so that someone climbing a tree who never has before (which could be said to require knowledge), or a city slicker on a slightly rough trail to a cache (which might require footwear with ankle support [specialized equipment]).

 

Thorin

[+briansnat]

There's a big difference between knowledge/experience (as would be needed for rapids/white water) and willingness to try (as would be needed for flat water). Use of a watercraft is suggested but not required, I'm sure people could swim for all the OP cares. And ownership of the craft is not required either, they can rent/beg/borrow/steal. Perhaps it'll take an inexperienced person a bit more time but no more so that someone climbing a tree who never has before (which could be said to require knowledge), or a city slicker on a slightly rough trail to a cache (which might require footwear with ankle support [specialized equipment]).

 

Thorin

OK, you win. You obviously know a lot more about this sport than I do. So ignore the established guidelines and do whatever pleases you. Just don't get offended when people start complaining about your ratings in the logs.

Edited July 23, 2004 by briansnat

[thorin]

Wow dude I thought we were actually having a half decent discussion about fair interpretation of the "established guidelines".

 

<shrug> /me scratches his head....

 

I didn't realize there was a rating associated with my post etc that determined my knowledge of this sport (perhaps you really know me in real life and I just don't realize who I'm speaking with ..... ya that must be it).

 

Thorin

Edited July 24, 2004 by thorin

[+Skadog]

So ignore the established guidelines and do whatever pleases you. Just don't get offended when people start complaining about your ratings in the logs.

 

First of all, a guideline is just that. I think there should be a broad spectrum of caches to accommodate everyone's interest. However, rowing a little boat does not require special knowledge or skills, and most of these caches that I have seen fitting this description can be done quite easily with water wings. I have done two such caches recently that did not require a boat or swimming. I even did one a couple of weeks ago where I didn't even have to go near the water. I like to challenge people, and give them a sense of pride in what they have accomplished. If someone complains about my ratings, great, let them go back to there 1/1 caches. At least no one will say that I rated the cache to highly. Common sense guides me on this subject. -Skadog

Edited July 24, 2004 by Skadog

[+Skadog]

I was checking out some other threads, and apparently a GPS receiver is specialized equipment. There go the Guidelines!

[+briansnat]

However, rowing a little boat does not require special knowledge or skills.

 

A boat itself is specialized equipment. The average geocacher doesn't bring a boat along on cache hunts. Therefore it earns a 5 star rating according to the guidelines.

 

And although people who know how to row a boat, or paddle a canoe might not think so, they are skills that have to be learned and they are skills that aren't as common as you might think.

 

I have done two such caches recently that did not require a boat or swimming. I even did one a couple of weeks ago where I didn't even have to go near the water.

 

I thought this thread was about caches that are accessable only boat or canoe. How does this fit in?

 

I was checking out some other threads, and apparently a GPS receiver is specialized equipment. There go the Guidelines!

 

Well then go ahead and ignore them.

Edited July 25, 2004 by briansnat

[thorin]

I have done two such caches recently that did not require a boat or swimming. I even did one a couple of weeks ago where I didn't even have to go near the water.

 

I thought this thread was about caches that are accessable only boat or canoe. How does this fit in?

He's talking about caches that supposedly were on islands.

 

Thorin

[+briansnat]

I have done two such caches recently that did not require a boat or swimming. I even did one a couple of weeks ago where I didn't even have to go near the water.

 

I thought this thread was about caches that are accessable only boat or canoe. How does this fit in?

He's talking about caches that supposedly were on islands.

 

Thorin

"...am looking to hide a few caches that would only be acessable by canoe / boat."

Edited July 25, 2004 by briansnat

[thorin]

I have done two such caches recently that did not require a boat or swimming. I even did one a couple of weeks ago where I didn't even have to go near the water.

 

I thought this thread was about caches that are accessable only boat or canoe. How does this fit in?

He's talking about caches that supposedly were on islands.

 

Thorin

"...am looking to hide a few caches that would only be acessable by canoe / boat."

I guess his point was wasted on you.

Edited July 25, 2004 by thorin

[+Alan2]

I could see the points on both sides. WHile a rowboat rental in a city park to get to an island wouldn't be considered 5 stars per se compared to ocean canoeing 5 miles in ocean surf to get to an island, the 5 stars also flags the cacher that he better check to see if equipment is needed before he sets out and has to cancel his trek due to lack of equipment. A different rating especialy if the cacher doesn't regularly read the logs would place him in the second situation and "up a creek without a paddle" so to speak

[thorin]

Exactly.

[+Robespierre]

Man, I sure thought those guidelines spelled it out...Is Bill Clinton around...it's not sex unless....quit tryin' to pick apart the rules to change it your way.

[+Jared_and_Tanis]

Here's my take:

 

Our standard (non-specialized) equipment on a cache hunt:

GPS, camera, batteries, water, cache sheet, pen, trading item, tavel bugs, etc. No, I don't think a GPS is considered a piece of specialized equipment - geocaching is BUILT on the premise that you have a GPS.

 

So, if a cache needs a boat, climbing gear, helicopter, space ship, pressure suit, SCUBA gear, or anything else that I don't pack in my geocaching kit regularly, it is specialized. The rules/guidelines state NOTHING about the user's ability to use the item.

 

The cache the OP (original poster) is suggesting is one where it will only be accessible by boat. This requires a piece of non-standard, specialized equipment. This rates the cache a 5 star. No questions about whether I can drive/paddle the stupid boat - I need one, and it isnt something I keep in the trunk of my car (although maybe I should...)

 

And if we WANT to cover the user's ability to properly use the equipment - Say I want to grab a cache that requires me to repel 75 ft. down a cliff. I've never climbed rocks. So, I can either 1) not do the cache or 2) go to my local recreation center, take a class, rent some gear, and log the cache (my personal choice).

 

In this one, I agree whole-heartedly with Brian. I agree more with Robespierre - the rules are vauge to allow a wide variety of ideas and caches, so that all the caches are boring 1/1 green ammo cans hidden in dead trees.

 

~Jared

Edited July 26, 2004 by Jared_and_Tanis

[+briansnat]

>>>Personal attack, profanity and graphic sexual references removed<<<

Edited July 26, 2004 by briansnat

[+Akulakat]

I really think it should be rated whatever the cache owner wants it to be rated. Let the ones finding it complain to them what the rating should or should not be.

[+briansnat]

I really think it should be rated whatever the cache owner wants it to be rated.  Let the ones finding it complain to them what the rating should or should not be.

That makes sense. Toss out all the standards. Then we'll have 5 star terrain in city parks and 1 star terrain on Mt. McKinley. We'll have people setting out for a cache on peak in the White Mountains in sneakers and shorts because the owner says it's one star terrain.

 

We can have micros in boulder fields rated 1 start difficulty. That would be pretty funny, someone going there expecting an easy find and spending all afternoon looking for the cache. Imagine the look on their faces! That would be hilarious!

 

We can even take it a step further. We can hide caches deep in a swamp and tell people on the cache page that its an easy walk, or hide caches in a drug infested, high crime area and urge seekers to pack a lunch and bring the kids because its a great spot for a picnic. Imagine the possibilities! You should start a thread suggesting this.

Edited July 26, 2004 by briansnat

[+PeachyPA]

IMHO, the thread "owner" needs to find a few more caches before starting to hide them. This will give the owner a guide as to what other folks rate their difficulty and terrains. When one has found one or two caches, the enthusiasm may be there, but the experience of the finds is not. Take some time to find some two, three, four and five star D/T caches before placing any. I believe the suggested number is about 15 finds. Enjoy the sport/activity!

 

PeachyPA

[+Skadog]

That makes sense. Toss out all the standards. Then we'll have 5 star terrain in city parks and 1 star terrain on Mt. McKinley. We'll have people setting out for a cache on peak in the White Mountains in sneakers and shorts because the owner says it's one star terrain.

 

Take out out the one star on the mountain, and that's what we've got now. Come on, get real. Anyone who knows how to operate a GPRs, and can't figure out the boat (or water wings), should not be out there. I have been on caches that I was not prepared for, but that only motivated me to return when I was prepared. And you know, those are the rewarding caches that you never forget. This is a sport based on adventure!

 

Complaints come from over rated caches, not under rated ones. Besides, doing the homework at home is part of the adventure, and if everyone followed the guidelines, then people like me that want the adventure wouldn't know where to look. Four and five star caches should be EPIC!!!

[+Skadog]

We can even take it a step further. We can hide caches deep in a swamp and tell people on the cache page that its an easy walk, or hide caches in a drug infested, high crime area and urge seekers to pack a lunch and bring the kids because its a great spot for a picnic. Imagine the possibilities! You should start a thread suggesting this.

 

Nobody is suggesting this, lets be resonable.

[+Shotgun & Peashooter]

Wow, I hate to get in the fray..this "reads" as one of the "nastier" chat forms to me. But, I am compelled to put in my two bits. I say rate it in the happy medium of 2 or 3. State it involves water and perhaps a form of water vehicle if the distnace requires it in the discription, then all know why you want it a five. But.. if the water to cross involves rapids (as stated by Skadog), or currents, or needs a navigational chart for hazards, then it is a 5. (those may endanger lives if not aware). Now, for those who are concerned that using the boat may need an education, I say anyone who chooses those forms of transportaion, knowingly takes the risk that they may not know how to operate them, but they are making that choice knowing their own limits. They could always use a log to float on!!

Yah, I know, don't jump me for that, just trying to keep some humor in this! I think that would be a funny sight! kick, kick, kick, paddle, kick, kick, kick, paddle.

Oops, forgot a solution to keep the gps dry. Hmmm....

[+G-Squad]

I have been on caches that I was not prepared for, but that only motivated me to return when I was prepared.  And you know, those are the rewarding caches that you never forget. 

 

Complaints come from over rated caches, not under rated ones.  Besides, doing the homework at home is part of the adventure, and if everyone followed the guidelines, then people like me that want the adventure wouldn't know where to look.  Four and five star caches should be EPIC!!!

Um, wrong! Speaking for myself, I would be more than a bit peeved if that happened to me. While I do tend to plan my caches in advance, that doesn't always happen. Sometimes I may decide to do a spur of the moment cache hunt. You think it's ok for me to spend time and effort getting there only to find out it can't be completed because I don't have the equipment required? Chances are slim to none I would go back later with the equipment. I would write a nasty DNF on the cache page and never look back. Further, I wouldn't do any other caches placed by that geocacher. If they misrated one that bad, who says the other(s) aren't misrated?

 

While I agree most complaints come from over-rating, I have seen caches that were under-rated. Under rating by 1/2 or 1 star at the 1/2/3 level is not always so bad and can happen by accident...1 when it should be a 2 or a 2 when it should be 3. But when you get into higher numbers, a 4 should not be rated a 3 and especially a 5 should not be rated a 4.

Edited July 27, 2004 by GeoGeorge

[+Skadog]

OR visa versa!

[+Logscaler and Red]

I been out in the hot sun all day so I will drop all cation to the winds, so to speak.

 

The person starting the thread says flat out the cache will only be done with the aid of a boat. Now, with that little of information, people are starting to hassle over ratings? Why? Wouldn't a little more information be in order?

 

Heck, his boat rating might be a nice belt buckle deep walk through some lily pond where you where supposed to have rented a boat. Or it could require a ocean going tug to buck the bar over the Columbia. Fill in the gaps with whatever you want.

 

Until all the information about this cache is to be had, mellow out guys. Sheesh.

 

Now as for what I consider as a 5 in water born craft. Skill required to complete the task safely. As Mr. Snat states, people who have not been into a canoe or rowboat are funny to watch. Until they flip over. All humor goes right out the window then, class five rapids involved or not. People crawling out of a pond covered in duck crap have no sense of humor at all.

 

But on the other side of the coin, if the cache page states you will need a boat, then the rating should depend on what type of water craft is needed as well as the skills needed to handle said craft.

 

If you are just going to the local millpond and renting a paddle boat to chase ducks around with, why rate it a 5? If you can peddle - steer a bike you can do the peddle boat thing. Need a sea worthy craft? Bump it up.

 

Myself, I am starting to lean towards hitting a higher rating then I used to apply to my caches. I have found out there are a lot of people who don't hit things in the same manner as I do or will attempt to do.

 

The above posting was created after 12 hours of standing in 90 - 100 degree heat. Please ignore anything that offends you. Or not. Just my opinion. And it can be changed depending on the amount of information supplied in the future.

 

logscaler.

[+briansnat]

I say rate it in the happy medium of 2 or 3. State it involves water and perhaps a form of water vehicle if the distnace requires it in the discription, then all know why you want it a five. But.. if the water to cross involves rapids (as stated by Skadog), or currents, or needs a navigational chart for hazards, then it is a 5

 

Why use arbitrary ratings when there is already an estabilished standard? Standards are useless when people don't adhere to them. We should all have a general idea as to what we might expect when we hunt a 1, 3 or 5 star cache.

 

If half the cache owners follow the established standard and rate a cache that requires a boat 5 stars and the other half make up their own arbitrary ratings, it will just cause confusion. For what purpose?

[thorin]

I have been on caches that I was not prepared for, but that only motivated me to return when I was prepared.  And you know, those are the rewarding caches that you never forget. 

 

Complaints come from over rated caches, not under rated ones.  Besides, doing the homework at home is part of the adventure, and if everyone followed the guidelines, then people like me that want the adventure wouldn't know where to look.  Four and five star caches should be EPIC!!!

Um, wrong! Speaking for myself, I would be more than a bit peeved if that happened to me. While I do tend to plan my caches in advance, that doesn't always happen. Sometimes I may decide to do a spur of the moment cache hunt. You think it's ok for me to spend time and effort getting there only to find out it can't be completed because I don't have the equipment required? Chances are slim to none I would go back later with the equipment. I would write a nasty DNF on the cache page and never look back. Further, I wouldn't do any other caches placed by that geocacher. If they misrated one that bad, who says the other(s) aren't misrated?

If you're doing "a spur of the moment cache hunt" how would the rating help you? If you had access to the rating information wouldn't you have access to the entire description so you'd see his notes re: water craft etc.... ?

 

Why use arbitrary ratings when there is already an estabilished standard? Standards are useless when people don't adhere to them. We should all have a general idea as to what we might expect when we hunt a 1, 3 or 5 star cache.

I do understand your point here (consistancy in rating ..... I agree that's important). I guess what people don't get or agree with is how you rate the "next to impossible" type caches. ie: 5 is supposed to be any specialized equipment or knowledge. Well using waterwings or a peddle boat (as illustrated above) is FAR FAR FAR different then paddling a class 4 or 5 rapid, climbing a 200' cliff, or spilunking (sp?) for a cache.

 

On a side note is it possible to rate something a 5.5? If so that kinda ends the discussion/debate.

 

Thorin

Edited July 27, 2004 by thorin

[+briansnat]

I do understand your point here (consistancy in rating ..... I agree that's important). I guess what people don't get or agree with is how you rate the "next to impossible" type caches. ie: 5 is supposed to be any specialized equipment or knowledge. Well using waterwings or a peddle boat (as illustrated above) is FAR FAR FAR different then paddling a class 4 or 5 rapid, climbing a 200' cliff, or spilunking (sp?) for a cache.

 

If you read the guidelines it means "specialized equipment...or is otherwise extremely difficult". Generally, 4.5 star terrain is much harder than a lot of 5 star caches. The purpose of 5 star category is to alert the seeker that there is somthing out of the ordinary involved.

[+fly46]

You just hit on my new pet peeve.  As I have said before, in my opinion, a water hazard should only cost you one stroke.  You may have to get your little tootsies wet, or buy a ten dollar rubber raft from Wal Mart, but I don't think a five star rating is warranted unless class four rapids are in play.

Your opinion differs from the established guidelines. One of the problems is that to many people disregard the guidelines and rate caches according to their arbitrary opinion.

 

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

Based on the guideline he is correct it isn't a 5.

 

As you stated

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

It requires specialized equipment but doesn't require knowledge or experience (ie: it's flat water).

 

I would agree that since it does require specialized equipment but not experience that perhaps it's a 4 or 4.5 (depending on how you look at it) but it's not a 5. IMHO of course.

 

Unless the quideline is incorrect and should actually read:

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

 

Thorin

 

Edited: To fix a tag....

Knowing how to paddle a canoe is specialized knowledge/experience. Give a person who has never been in, or paddled a canoe before a paddle and watch the fun. Even rowing a boat can be problematic for a novice.

And thus you've hit on my issue that caches only be rated on a one to five system.

There's quite a difference between park and grab and a cache one person placed that requires about a week to do and no clue on what you're getting into until you go into a building that smells like a sewer and take a folder, yet the former is a 1/1 and the latter only goes up to a 5/5 in difficulty.

 

If the system was rated on 1-10 (and included halves) then we'd be a lot more exact on how to rate a cache.

[+briansnat]

Hey, the Michelin restaurant guide only goes from 1-3 stars. 1 star for an average eatery and 3 for a handful of the finest restaurants in the world (and no half stars either). If one of the worlds most famous dining guides can get away with only 3 ratings, we can make do with 9 possible ratings.

[+fly46]

There is a difference between Wonderful, Edible, and Crap, and what we encounter Geocaching. Although something else that would help is more questions on that checkbox form to rate your cache with. My micro in a tree came through as 3/2.25 using that system. It was a park and grab, but no path to get to it, and not handicap accessable.

[+G-Squad]

If you're doing "a spur of the moment cache hunt" how would the rating help you? If you had access to the rating information wouldn't you have access to the entire description so you'd see his notes re: water craft etc.... ?

 

PQ's that are set to 3 or less with the caches loaded in my GPSr. I have a few finds at 3 1/2 but those were intentional. Don't think I have any 4's. My body just ain't ready for those yet (and don't know if it ever will ).

 

I think Snat's comment that 4.5's are usually harder than 5's has a lot of truth to it from the many cache pages I have read. I think the only time I have come across a 5 was due to special equipment.

[+Skadog]

We should all have a general idea as to what we might expect when we hunt a 1, 3 or 5 star cache.

 

Hold the phone! We agree on this point, we just differ on what is difficult and what is not. When I go after a five star cache that is blahhhhh, it is very disappointing to me. It's like the old saying goes, "If you can't run with the big dogs...

 

Nobody is suggesting we throw out the standards, just that we use a little common sense. There, I said it again.

[+briansnat]

There is a difference between Wonderful, Edible, and Crap, and what we encounter Geocaching. Although something else that would help is more questions on that checkbox form to rate your cache with. My micro in a tree came through as 3/2.25 using that system. It was a park and grab, but no path to get to it, and not handicap accessable.

The checkbox rating system is a bit flawed. It tends to rate terrain a bit high as compared to the actual definition. But the definitions are pretty straightforward and as long as you follow them, you're OK.

[+The Commissar!]

I agree with that...I follow the definitions and then apply a little common sense.

 

I have always been a little perplexed by the 5 just because it involves a boat thing, but a little homework goes a long way towards determining what kind of water crossing difficulty you may have...

 

In my area I have one that is 100 yds from a drivable island...I may swim that. I have another that is ~ 2 miles from the nearest boat landing on wide-open water. Cake with a motor but I have seen plenty of folks I would not want attempting to paddle that in a canoe, which is what I intend to do If I can't get a ride soon. Both a 5? Yes! IMHO...

[janx]

I think briansnat is trying to apply the rating standard literally, and the others are trying to simply rate their cache between 1 and 5.

 

Neither is particularly wrong.

 

Rating something as a 5 because it is extremely difficult does make sense. Rating something 5 because it requires you to bring a rubber boat and row 30' from the shore to the dragon statue in the lake may not make sense to some.

 

Fact is, standards are NOT what defines the standard. The standard is whatever people actually do. The world is littered with specifications for standards that were ignored by the people actually implementing the system. This is another one of those cases.

 

In this case, people are looking at a simply increasing the difficulty by a factor, since it involves some boat use, but isn't particularly hard. That's the de facto standard they want to implement.

 

There's a certain logic to it. Suppose there's 2 caches. One cache on an island in a lake, with an open field on the island. The cache is sitting right there in plain sight. The second cache, is on a similar lake, but this time, there's a tall volcano on the island, and the cache is hidden just inside the mouth of the volcano. By Briansnat's method, both caches are rated a 5. I think there are many people would think that the 2nd cache is QUITE a bit harder than the first. And thus, would complain about the cache rating.

 

There's an aweful lot of supposition on what people will think the cache rating means, and whether they'll go back if it's harder than they thought. Frankly, if I don't read the cache page itself, I don't have a lot of right to complain about it when I get to the scene and am stymied to find it.

 

janx

[+Skadog]

Very well said Janx!

[+G-Squad]

There's an aweful lot of supposition on what people will think the cache rating means, and whether they'll go back if it's harder than they thought.  Frankly, if I don't read the cache page itself, I don't have a lot of right to complain about it when I get to the scene and am stymied to find it.

You are correct, but only to a point. By my choice, I usually only hunt 3's or less. I usually have hunts planned out by reading the cache pages and viewing maps ahead of time. So, if it is a spur of the moment hunt for a 3 (or less) and it ends up being a cache that requires I should have read the cache page (such as a puzzle cache), shame on me. I will likely go back later and find the cache after getting myself prepared for it. But, if the cache required special equipment and the cache is rated a 3, shame on you. Would I try a 4 or 5 as a spur of the moment cache? No way because I know a 4 or 5 requires planning ahead to attempt the cache.

 

I actually agree that rating terrain 5 stars due to special equipment does not necessarily (and in fact, most often does not) equate to an outstanding cache. But, it is currently the method employed by gc.com to flag the caching community the need for special equipment. Common sense should prevail as to what is special equipment. Simply ask yourself, is the equipment required to get to the cache a piece of equipment normally carried by the average cacher? If the answer is no, then it is special equipment. Until GC.com changes the method to flag special equipment caches, we should all use the guidelines as established.

[+briansnat]

I actually agree that rating terrain 5 stars due to special equipment does not necessarily (and in fact, most often does not) equate to an outstanding cache. But, it is currently the method employed by gc.com to flag the caching community the need for special equipment. Common sense should prevail as to what is special equipment. Simply ask yourself, is the equipment required to get to the cache a piece of equipment normally carried by the average cacher? If the answer is no, then it is special equipment. Until GC.com changes the method to flag special equipment caches, we should all use the guidelines as established.

 

You said it better in one short paragraph than I did in almost a dozen posts!

[+Skadog]

I give up, have your "guidelines."

 

I will play elsewhere!!

[+Navdog]

I actually agree that rating terrain 5 stars due to special equipment does not necessarily (and in fact, most often does not) equate to an outstanding cache. But, it is currently the method employed by gc.com to flag the caching community the need for special equipment. Common sense should prevail as to what is special equipment. Simply ask yourself, is the equipment required to get to the cache a piece of equipment normally carried by the average cacher? If the answer is no, then it is special equipment. Until GC.com changes the method to flag special equipment caches, we should all use the guidelines as established.

 

You said it better in one short paragraph than I did in almost a dozen posts!

I tend to agree. The current rating system is designed to flag the need for specialized equipment and also highlight the "epic" cache hunt.

 

Also, remember, a rating is designed for the average cacher. Mileage will vary between couch potatoes and triathletes.