terrain ratings

[wondergirl]

Hi, I'm pretty new at this, and went out today looking for my 3rd cache. It was rated with 2 stars in terms of terrain difficulty. And it was easy to get to in terms of the trail leading to the cache, but the last 50 or 60 feet were a really steep climb. Like, I had to use my hands on the ground to keep from falling down the hill, and had to kind of slide on my butt the way back down. So I guess my question is, is there some kind of guideline for the terrain ratings other than 5 is the hardest and 1 the easiest? I guess it's all relative in the long run, but after doing this 2 today, I probably wouldn't even try a 3 let alone a 5! Thanks!

 

wondergirl

[+welch]

there's a rating device that can be used to determine the number of stars a cache should be rated at. its linked to the creating a cache stuff. if you think a cache if marked wrong maybe you should drop the cach's owner a line about the possiable problem.

[White Rabbit]

We've found that a rating of 1 usually means that there's an obvious trial leading to it. A 2 is basically probably a dirt path leading near the area with some climbing/steep terrain. 3 or more means much worse terrain, no real trails leading to it, steep inclines/declines, or just plain hard to get too. We've tried one cache that had a star rating of 5 which was somewhere on the top slopes of Mt. St. Helens. We couldn't find it because the weather hindered our progress, but the terrain was well worth a 5. So basically, expect a heck of a hike with anything over 3 stars.

[OFF RODE]

Try this

rate a cache

Or actually this is better (forgot about Markwells site

Markwells FAQs

"You've got to be very careful if you don't know where you're going, because you might not get there." Yogi Berra

JeepNAz@aol.com

 

[This message was edited by JeepNAz on April 01, 2002 at 01:24 PM.]

[+KD7MXI]

the rankings realy dont matter to me because peaple quite often pute 5 stars on 2 star geocache sites

 

i even whent to a few that had one star that should have had 5 stars

 

n40 44.259 w114 3.370

use the land or lose it to developers forever

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

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CacheAcrossAmerica

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest_cache.asp?u=KD7MXI

http://www.cachunuts.com

[+Markwell]

But the idea with Clayjar's guidelines (that were created through a consensus of cacher's opinions) is that we have some attempt at standardization. While not all inclusive and not nearly as widely accepted as I would like, these guidelines are a pretty good starting spot.

 

Just ignoring them puts us into a complete chaotic state.

 

Bottom line: if you know about the guidelines, please try to use them.

 

Markwell

My Geocaching Page

[wondergirl]

Jeep - thanks for the links. Using that system, I think the site I went to today would be around 3.5. I've noted in my log that I thought the last bit was pretty darn steep. Of course if the person placing the cache isn't using those standards, then it's anyone's guess and hopefull the logs will give more clues. But I agree with Markwell that if you know the standards, you should use them. Thanks for all the replies.

 

wondergirl

[jfitzpat]

Keep in mind that approach can also make a big difference. I can think of several caches near here that can be reached via trail from several directions. From one direction, the trail may be very rough, or the incline very steep. But, coming from a different direction, it might be a leisurely stroll.

 

-jjf

[+Team Roman Geoskis]

Agree with jf on the route you take, also the time of year and the weather will have a lot to do with the rating. I've found that 1's, 4's and 5's are pretty easy to rate, but the 2's and 3's can sometimes get mixed.

 

NOW WHERE DID I LEAVE THOSE SKIS?

[OFF RODE]

Glad that helped some....

Also keep in mind that what might be a 2 for a 24 year old in excellent hiking shape might be a 4 for a 55 year old couch potato who has decided to get back in shape. ( disclaimer...Im neither of those ).

Ive found that many times the info in the description helps determine difficulty and what is writen in the logs also is an indicator. Because I am rather prone to 4X4 accessable type caches I tend to expect a rather difficult terrain rating....

 

"You've got to be very careful if you don't know where you're going, because you might not get there." Yogi Berra

JeepNAz@aol.com

[wondergirl]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jfitzpat:

Keep in mind that approach can also make a big difference. I can think of several caches near here that can be reached via trail from several directions. From one direction, the trail may be very rough, or the incline very steep. But, coming from a different direction, it might be a leisurely stroll.

 

-jjf

---

 

Heh, yeah, I discovered this the hard way on my first cache...

 

wondergirl

[wondergirl]

quote:

---

Originally posted by JeepNAz:

Glad that helped some....

Also keep in mind that what might be a 2 for a 24 year old in excellent hiking shape might be a 4 for a 55 year old couch potato who has decided to get back in shape. ( disclaimer...Im neither of those ).

---

 

Good point. I'm neither of those, either, but I can see how some uber athlete might be able to jog up the same incline that had me crawling.

 

wondergirl

[+Alan2]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jfitzpat:

Keep in mind that approach can also make a big difference. I can think of several caches near here that can be reached via trail from several directions. From one direction, the trail may be very rough, or the incline very steep. But, coming from a different direction, it might be a leisurely stroll.

 

-jjf

---

 

That happened to me and my poodle. We hiked up a steep hill following the bearing instead of going the "long-short" way which would have been staying on the trail. By the time we got to the top through a steep incline and lots of brambles, my dog and I looked and panted at each other to see who was going to suffer cardiac arrest first!

 

One comment about a rating of 1. That should be reserved for caches you can get to with a wheelchair so disabled cachers can be flagged. Other than that, a cache should be rated at least a 1 1/2 regardless how easy it is otherwise. This follows the rating system chart.

 

Alan

[+gnbrotz]

I mention in my cache descriptions that I use the GCRS and also link to it so people can refer to it if they are not familiar with it.

 

Greg

N 39°54.705'

W 77°33.137'

[+RAD Dad]

I don't know, from the sound of the cache site that started this thread, I'd call it a two. After all it was an easy path till the last 50-60, then it was a steep climb. Those last 50-60 feet would indeed bump it up from a one to a two, but not to a three, unless you needed specialized gear to make that last stretch, or special skills. As has also been pointed out, the aproach you take can make a big differnce. I was just at a cache this weekend and I was going up some steep dense terain, with some trees down over the paths, but I was following the GPS, of course once I got to the cache, the easiest route was quite apparent....though I actually enjoyed the tougher route. So far as these steep inclines go, try taking along a walking stick, very helful. I run into these kinds of things a lot when going flyfishing, going down very steep banks to get to the water, without the stick, the climb up and down can be trechorous, even though it's just a short distance, but the staff makes a big difference.

 

ummmm....not sure what to say here....so ummm, well errrr, uhhhh, well I guess that's it.

[+Renegade Knight]

I tend to use the guide but it seems to rate everything but a sidewalk as above a 1. Dirt trail even if a wheel chair can use it is 1.5 minimum.

[+KD7MXI]

looks good

 

n40 44.259 w114 3.370

use the land or lose it to developers forever

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

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CacheAcrossAmerica

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest_cache.asp?u=KD7MXI

http://www.cachunuts.com

[+CharlieP]

There are a couple of reasons terrain ratings may be misleading:

 

1) Ratings are subjective to some extent, what is easy for a 22 year old in great shape is not necessarily easy for a child or an overweight 55 year old man.

 

2) There is often more than one way to approach a cache, and the rating may be based on the easiest way, which may *not* be the most obvious way, or the shortest route.

 

That second factor can turn a 1 or 2 rated cache quickly into a 4. A good rule to follow is that if the cache is rated below a three and you find yourself in a situation that seems extreme, you need to ask yourself: is there a better way to get to this cache? It is also a good idea to read the logs and see what kind of comments are made about the terrain. In some cases, using a topo map of the area can help you avoid a bad route. Those who shun the trail and insist on taking a bee-line route to the cache should not complain about terrain ratings.

 

FWIW,

CharlieP

[+Glenn]

quote:

---

Originally posted by CharlieP:

There are a couple of reasons terrain ratings may be misleading:

 

1) Ratings are subjective to some extent, what is easy for a 22 year old in great shape is not necessarily easy for a child or an overweight 55 year old man.

 

2) There is often more than one way to approach a cache, and the rating may be based on the easiest way, which may *not* be the most obvious way, or the shortest route.

 

That second factor can turn a 1 or 2 rated cache quickly into a 4. A good rule to follow is that if the cache is rated below a three and you find yourself in a situation that seems extreme, you need to ask yourself: is there a better way to get to this cache? It is also a good idea to read the logs and see what kind of comments are made about the terrain. In some cases, using a topo map of the area can help you avoid a bad route. Those who shun the trail and insist on taking a bee-line route to the cache should not complain about terrain ratings.

 

FWIW,

CharlieP

---

 

So true. I have a cache that if approached by the shortest path possible you will be doing a lot of hard climbing. However, if you follow the trails it is little longer (by about 1 or 1.5 miles) but the climb is a lot easier.

 

- Lone Rangers

[Balimbras]

I searched a cache over the weekend with a 2/2 rating.

 

** Possible spoiler here **

 

The cache was easy enough to spot, the terrain was certainly a 2, easy to walk, not far off a gravel path, no steep inclines, etc.

 

However, the cache itself was located in a position that required climbing up about 10 feet, to a position situated over a steep 10 to 20 foot dropoff. A fall from that location would have been deadly.

 

How do you rate a cache where the site is easy to get to, the cache is easy to find, but retrieval carries a large risk factor?

 

Incidentally, I logged this one as 'found', took pictures of it, even tho' I was too chicken to climb up and fetch it.

[+Alan2]

I had a pretty simple cache that except for the final few feet would have been a 1 or 1 1/2 Terrain but I rated it a 2 1/2.

 

The last leg was on shoreline rocks piled up a 10 foot slope. It could be dangerous when dry; treacherous when wet. I posted the following in the non-encrypted section.

 

THE LAST FEW FEET CAN BE DANGEROUS. WATCH YOUR STEP.

ADULTS ONLY FOR FINAL LEG OTHERWISE OK FOR KIDS.

 

I don't want to be responsible for someone getting hurt because they aren't reading the spoilers that are encrypted. I believe we should forewarn hunters to potentially dangerous situations especialy when the Terrain is not otherwise worthy of a 3, 4 or 5. It should be up-front not hidden in the "cheat" section.

[+Glenn]

If you can't get to the cache itself in a wheelchair then the overall terrain rating should be no lower than 2.

 

A terrain rating of 1 means that someone in a wheelchain can find the cache.

 

A terrain rating of 1 1/2 means that someone on crutches can easily find the cache.

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan2:

I had a pretty simple cache that except for the final few feet would have been a 1 or 1 1/2 Terrain but I rated it a 2 1/2.

 

The last leg was on shoreline rocks piled up a 10 foot slope. It could be dangerous when dry; treacherous when wet. I posted the following in the non-encrypted section.

 

THE LAST FEW FEET CAN BE DANGEROUS. WATCH YOUR STEP.

ADULTS ONLY FOR FINAL LEG OTHERWISE OK FOR KIDS.

 

I don't want to be responsible for someone getting hurt because they aren't reading the spoilers that are encrypted. I believe we should forewarn hunters to potentially dangerous situations especialy when the Terrain is not otherwise worthy of a 3, 4 or 5. It should be up-front not hidden in the "cheat" section.

---

 

- Lone Rangers

[LazyLeopard]

quote:

---

How do you rate a cache where the site is easy to get to, the cache is easy to find, but retrieval carries a large risk factor?

---

Bump the "Difficulty" rating up a bit, perhaps? Sounds like that one should have been (say) 4 on the difficulty rating because of the climbing needed...

 

Purrs... LazyLeopard http://www.lazyleopard.org.uk

[+Gliderguy]

I have one cache out that I rated a 4 terrain. It doesnt require anything but hands and feet. There is probably 1/2 mile of terrain not possible to use crutches on, but it got the 4 rating for the length and total altitude gain, and final altitude of the cache at 9000 feet MSL.

 

Sometimes quantity is also a factor, even if the average difficulty is reasonable. 2500 feet is a large altitude gain for the general population, especially if the starting point is already at 6500ft.

 

Most people report taking 5 hours travel time plus whatever time spent at the cache. One mountain runner did the round trip in 3 hours. He was the only person who classified it as a "half day outing"

 

I follow the rating system, and my cache ranked a 4.5 or so. I felt that was a bit much. Maybe it would be a 4.5 if it took 8-9 hours roundtrip.

I like the 1 for wheelchair, 1.5 for crutchable, a 2 should have at least one interesting feature or take an hour or more to get to. It should be possible for an experienced mountain biker to traverse in at least one direction (up or downhill, whichever is easier.) a 3 should take 2+ hours and/or have some terrain feature that makes you stop for a second and say "how am I getting up/over there?" This feature should also not be crossible by mountain bike unless you are a trials rider or proffessional downhill racer or equivilant. A 4 should maybe just be a longer version of a 3, but maybe be the crossover point where a mountain bike will be useless for saving time. The 5 should be a multi day affair (requiring camping equipment) or have some other specialized equipment requirement to reach.

[+Gliderguy]

Actually lets do this by the HOMER SIMPSON MEDICAL scale.

Rate the terrain by how many zeros would be on Homer Simpson's medical bill after he attempted this cache...