Terrain. Part 345.1.1

September 17, 2004

So there is no set guideline for setting the difficulty/terrain rating, just a gentle nudge over to clayjars for a nifty little applet to help you select the ones best suited for your cache. Would it be too much to ask a reviewer to give a cache hider a pointer or two when the terrain rating is obviously wrong? (Difficulty is basically subjective so I doubt there's anything to be done there until a few founds/DNF's are in).

Case in point. This is from new cache in my area:

Just like my other caches, this one is on top of a mountain, at an altitude of 6157 feet.

What do you think the D/T for this cache is? Is it a 1/3? or a 1/4? No sirree bub, it's a whopping 1/1. That's right, a 1/1. Give your head a shake and scratch your behind! Seriously, is there some way we could get the reviewers to ask the cache hiders to change these obviously misleading ratings? I would miss a hide such as this in my PQ's; I just happened to see this one because I've been spending way too much time indoors lately.

1.4k · September 17, 2004

How do you know there isn't a road all the way to the top? :blink:

September 17, 2004

People are different, skills are different, views are different, guidelines are not exact, nor is the terrain of good ol' Mother Earth. (oh ya, I'm a little different too I think)

24.7k · September 17, 2004

There is no way to speculate on a terraining unless you have been to the cache. On top of a mountain doesn't have to be any harder than in a parking lot

September 17, 2004

How do you know there isn't a road all the way to the top?

They don't generally make open pit mines wheelchair accessible. :huh:

You missed the point but thanks for dropping by. I'm not asking for excuses from the reviewers; just a little common sense.

38.2k · September 17, 2004

How do you know there isn't a road all the way to the top?

They don't generally make open pit mines wheelchair accessible.

You missed the point but thanks for dropping by. I'm not asking for excuses from the reviewers; just a little common sense.

I think a reviewer can at least question it. A quick look at Topozone will show that a cache is unlikely to be 1, or 5 star terrain.

People are different, skills are different, views are different, guidelines are not exact, nor is the terrain of good ol' Mother Earth.

Guidelines aren't exact, but I think most of us can agree that within reason what a 1/1 should look like and its unlikely that it would be at the top of a mountain. Skills shouldn't matter that much. There are several geocachers around here who think nothing of hiking 15+ miles in a day to find caches, often over rugged terrain. A 5 mile hike and 3,000 foot elevation gain is nothing to them, yet all their caches are rated appropriately.

Edited September 17, 2004 by briansnat

September 17, 2004

There is no way to speculate on a terraining unless you have been to the cache. On top of a mountain doesn't have to be any harder than in a parking lot

If you know the area you can speculate on the terrain; it's not rocket science. Isn't that the whole point of local reviewers? i.e they're local and they know what a 6000 ft mountain in the interior means?

If you're building parking lots on the top of mountains you have my condolences. No wonder our kids can't breathe.

5.6k · September 17, 2004

How do you know there isn't a road all the way to the top?

They don't generally make open pit mines wheelchair accessible.

You missed the point but thanks for dropping by. I'm not asking for excuses from the reviewers; just a little common sense.

Very nice people skills there. What do open pit mines have to do with roads to the top of mountains? Reviewer or not, not knowing what cache you are talking about, any question is valid.

2.3k · September 17, 2004

Ok the tone of this thread is going down hill fast. Unless it stays within the guidelines it will be closed.

6.4k · September 17, 2004

There is no way to speculate on a terraining unless you have been to the cache. On top of a mountain doesn't have to be any harder than in a parking lot

If you know the area you can speculate on the terrain; it's not rocket science. Isn't that the whole point of local reviewers? i.e they're local and they know what a 6000 ft mountain in the interior means?

If you're building parking lots on the top of mountains you have my condolences. No wonder our kids can't breathe.

Since you didn't point to the specific cache, how is anyone to know? Here is a parking lot at a 6,288ft summit, and here is a 14,110 ft summit that is wheelchair accessible as well. Since you provided no info other then the altitude, we have no way of knowing if this cache may in fact be wheelchair accessible.

24.7k · September 17, 2004

Reviewers should trust a persons assessment of terrain in general. There is no reason to assume it's wrong based on a 10 year old topo map. Yes you can speculate but it's just that, speculation. If the reviewer has specific knowledge of that exact spot then it would be reasonable for them to mention something. But the odds are against them having knowledge so precise that they can make that assertion.

It's just not practical. You are better off with a user terrain rating system where people who find the cache can input their own take on terrain.

2.1k · September 17, 2004

Reviewers should trust a persons assessment of terrain in general... ...You are better off with a user terrain rating system where people who find the cache can input their own take on terrain.

I agree but I think this example (6000' mountain top) is an extreme.

From our travel caching in Washington, Oregon and California I find a common problem with people underrating their caches. We are usually on the go so we limit the long hikes to one or two per trip. We need the bulk to be in what we would consider the 1.5 to 2.5 terrain rating using the ClayJar program. It is amazing to me the extensive hiking and elevation gains we've faced with 1.5 to 2.0 terrain ratings.

1.5 is just above h/c accessibility. A 1.5 should not require a 1 mile rt walk even if it is on a paved bike path. A 2.0 should be a short hike perhaps with some elevation gain, poison oak, mud or bees and 20 minutes max hiking time. A 2.0 should not be a 1.5 mile one-way hike with a 300' elevation gain with added accessories such as poison oak, loose gravel and a 200' fall if you lose your footing.

Edited September 17, 2004 by Team Sagefox

September 17, 2004

In the SF bay area there are two caches like this. Nano on High (GCJF4V) is on top of Mt Diablo at 3850 ft. It is a 1 star terrain, You can drive up to the top and it is near the parking lot. The tip of the mountain is actually inside the visitor center at the top.

Another is Moons Over Mount Hammy (GCJGD4) which is rated 1.5 stars at an altidue of 4200 ft. It is at the Lick Observatory on top of Mt. Hamilton outside of San Jose, CA. The road up there is extremely twisty and it has only been found once on 4 months.

Edited September 17, 2004 by Wacka

7.2k · September 17, 2004

Case in point. This is from new cache in my area:

Just like my other caches, this one is on top of a mountain, at an altitude of 6157 feet.

Taking that information, I was able to find the cache I think you are talking about. According to the map there is a road that takes you to within @ 300 meters of the cache. The dreaded parking area might just be at the top of that mountain afterall. I would think you could park at the end of the road at least.

I'm curious about one thing though. With all the time you took to create and watch this topic, did you happen to take the time to send a friendly note to the cache owner since you are so concerned about the rating on this cache?

38.2k · September 17, 2004

Reviewers should trust a persons assessment of terrain in general

Trust but verify. If a reviewer sees a 4.5 star terrain rating for a cache in Central Park I think he should shoot a note to the cache owner and see what the story is. Same for a 1 star terrain cache on the top of a mountain. Even with a road in the vicinity, is this cache handicap accessable? Possibly, but not likely.

September 17, 2004

So there is no set guideline for setting the difficulty/terrain rating, just a gentle nudge over to clayjars for a nifty little applet to help you select the ones best suited for your cache. Would it be too much to ask a reviewer to give a cache hider a pointer or two when the terrain rating is obviously wrong? (Difficulty is basically subjective so I doubt there's anything to be done there until a few founds/DNF's are in).

Case in point. This is from new cache in my area:

Just like my other caches, this one is on top of a mountain, at an altitude of 6157 feet.

What do you think the D/T for this cache is? Is it a 1/3? or a 1/4? No sirree bub, it's a whopping 1/1. That's right, a 1/1. Give your head a shake and scratch your behind! Seriously, is there some way we could get the reviewers to ask the cache hiders to change these obviously misleading ratings? I would miss a hide such as this in my PQ's; I just happened to see this one because I've been spending way too much time indoors lately.

So of course you emailed the cache owner and asked him about this right? You're 100% sure that the discussion between the owner and reviewer your ranting about never happened? The cache definately isn't situated similar to one of the places Mopar mentioned?

Thorin

Edited September 17, 2004 by thorin

6.4k · September 17, 2004

Looking at the cache mtn-man posted, it could very have been a 1 terrain. I'm sure the "biggest open-pit copper mine in Canada" has a huge system of roads to move people, equipment, and supplies in and out of the area. As a matter of fact, it seems to be a popular tourist spot with free 2hr guided tours every day. So yea, not only are they building parking lots on top of mountains in BC, they are destroying them and polluting the surrounding areas. No wonder your kids cant breathe.

But anyway, I said it could have been. Without actually going there, I could be wrong, but it doesn't sound like "between some rocks under low hanging branches" is going to be wheelchair accessible. But it could be, and I found a cache in California a few months ago that basically fits that description and was pretty much wheelchair accessible. You could have found the cache in a wheelchair, I just don't think you could have retrieved it from one. That cache was rated a 1.5, but since you can drive a car to within 3ft of it, I could see someone making it a 1.

Going off topic for a sec, it's a shame that cache owner didn't play up the location on the cache page. At least according to this website, it's a fascinating operation, using GPS/GIS technology, real time map-making, and computer controlled dispatching to destroy the environment as efficiently and profitably as possible.

Edited September 17, 2004 by Mopar

1.4k · September 17, 2004

Seriously, is there some way we could get the reviewers to ask the cache hiders to change these obviously misleading ratings?

To answer this question from the beginning of the thread, quite often the reviewers do question an obviously incorrect terrain rating. I often change boat-required caches to a 5, and I question many 1/1s. However anything in between is difficult to second-guess based on a map alone. In the case of the cache in question here, it appears that the rating is correct, based on the road and the overlook, so I bet the reviewer approved it without question.

5.9k · September 17, 2004

Give your head a shake and scratch your behind!

dadgum, I shook my behind and scratched my head.

I haven't done a hide in a while but is 1/1 the default? If it is, then it would be a simple fix, take away the default. If no diff/terr is selected when the page is submitted, then it kicks you back and gives you an error message. At least it would force a hider to chose something. Chances are good that the hider will select something appropriate.

1.4k · September 17, 2004

I just checked and there is no default. And there's even a link to the rating system right there. Yet I see many caches mis-rated.

When I'm out caching, I periodically see a cache that is grossly mis-rated. I don't worry about those that are a star off, but some just aren't in the same ballpark as what I would rate it. When I'm logging, I typically send the hider an email and it usually gets corrected. If not I'll go ahead and use my reviewer account to nudge it.

5.9k · September 17, 2004

What I see most often on the long haul hike caches is the melding of the difficulty and terrain ratings. For example, a cache is at the top of the 6157’ mountain, twelve miles roundtrip, placed under the only rock big enough to hide the container. What is the rating? Possibly a 1.5/4.5 depending on the length of the hike to get there. I frequently see caches like this rated 4.5/4.5 or higher. The difficulty shouldn’t have anything to do with the length or exertion of the hike, it should only tell how hard it will be to find the cache once you get there.

September 17, 2004

No parking lots up here shameless plug

September 17, 2004

I face rating a cache I wish to place. There are so many different ways to get there that unless I detail a specific way, all the options alone would add another half star to the difficulty (or would that be to the terrain?).

Add to that the fact that the hike difficulty will depend on the time of day, year, and amount of recent rain. This one's another mile away from two nearby caches that are just off of trails. It's probably twice as far off trail (if you decide to use a trail) as the nearby caches, one rated 2/2.5 and the other 2.5/2.

So am I looking at a 2.5/3 ?

Does it even matter? As far as I can tell, there's no current ranking of your average cache find difficulty/terrain; unless the description was vastly misleading and log notes showed complaints about under-rated, my guess is as good as yours.

However, if a mountain summit were 20 miles from the nearest town, and a non-summit area in or near a town had a similar car to trail to off-trail, to rock climb, to leap into a chasm difficulty, I'd kick up the summit one a half-star.

So without even going to or knowing more about the cache in question, I'd say 1.5 for terrain. Even the Pike's Peak which has handicapped access and a road and a (dirt) parking lot still lacks a bit of oxygen. the 20 yard walk from car to cache at that altitude deserves an extra star, or at least a note to say "Bring your own oxygen."

September 18, 2004

Does it even matter? As far as I can tell, there's no current ranking of your average cache find difficulty/terrain; unless the description was vastly misleading and log notes showed complaints about under-rated, my guess is as good as yours.

It does matter when one runs a PQ based on a minimum terrain level, eg in my case the only PQ I've ever had a use for was the one that listed all the T>=3. (And the travel bug PQ - but that's another story :blink: ).

It's unfortunate that this thread had to turn into a cache specific thread; that was not my intent. It's unfortunate too that the chip on Co Admin's shoulder is preventing me from posting. Again, that's another story.

2.3k · September 18, 2004

7.2k · September 19, 2004

It's unfortunate too that the chip on Co Admin's shoulder is preventing me from posting. Again, that's another story.

Actually, I think you should look at your own shoulder for the chip.

It is quite obvious that you are allowed to post or the post I quoted would not be here.

Read the forum guidelines. Follow them and you will have no issues. If you continue to violate them you may in fact find that you are prevented from posting.

Some things to keep in mind when posting:

Respect: Respect the guidelines for forum usage, and site usage. Respect Groundspeak, its employees, volunteers, yourself, fellow community members, and guests on these boards. Whether a community member has one post or 5,000 posts, they deserve the same respect.

Personal Attacks and Flames will not be tolerated. If you want to praise or criticize, give examples as to why it is good or bad, general attacks on a person or idea will not be tolerated.

2.7k · September 19, 2004

Clayjars system is just a way of describing the possible ways that difficulty and terrain can be judged. They are interpreted in different ways by different cachers, and from my perspective a T of 3 on the Clayjar system usually gets kiked up a notch due to the altitude of CO. Lots of my caches start out around 6,000 to 7,000 ft. and go up from there for gains of 1,400 ft. to 3,000 ft.

When I put several caches on the same hill the T's usually are around a 4 star, but some are farther up, so the 4 star is just an average. The D's on most of my back country caches are usually in the 4 star range also, just because of the overall problems that can be encountered in the high country. One should think of safety when they travel out here, and for those who don't think its all that difficult, well we have body bags to take you back down the hill.

38.2k · September 19, 2004

I face rating a cache I wish to place. There are so many different ways to get there that unless I detail a specific way, all the options alone would add another half star to the difficulty (or would that be to the terrain?).

Add to that the fact that the hike difficulty will depend on the time of day, year, and amount of recent rain.

Rate the cache using the most likely route searchers will take and the most frequent conditions that the searcher will encounter. You can note in the text that conditions may change the rating.

September 19, 2004

The only mis-rating I get a little annoyed about is the most common: the terrain=1 rating. With only a little hanging around gc.com, even without having visited the clayjar site, I got the impression that a cache rated terrain=1 should be nominally wheelchair accessible, and I can't count the times where I've gone looking for thusly rated caches and found them to be no-way accessible from a chair. I still -do- most of these caches, as I'm willing to slide out of my chair and butt-scuttle for hours, get massive wedgies doing so, and provide extended mooning events for countless thousands of ticks, ants, slugs, nettles, & earthworms.

Still, I wish the terrain=1 rating were reserved for caches that are actually accessible -from- a chair. The terrain ratings from 1.5 to 4.5 have the potential, in my view, to be more subjective, but terrain=1 seems pretty straightforward.

../Mosaica-of-the-marvellously-exfoliated-bum

September 21, 2004

Lead Dog and I recently placed a cache in which we gave specific instructions to park at a gate, hike up the paved road to the turnaround, then follow the trail to the lake. I guess we should have provided coordinates for the parking, or displayed a map or something, because two separate groups started from gosh knows where and had to negotiate a steep ravine. But gosh darn it, we don't want to make it too easy... So for them the terrain rating was a star and a half higher...

1.9k · September 22, 2004

what if we were FORCED TO USE a thing LIKE clayjars for the rating BUT allow us to alter the score it gives us by 1/2 UP TO 1 star either way?!?

would that be an idea worth looking at?!?

7.2k · September 22, 2004

Case in point. This is from new cache in my area:

Just like my other caches, this one is on top of a mountain, at an altitude of 6157 feet.

Taking that information, I was able to find the cache I think you are talking about. According to the map there is a road that takes you to within @ 300 meters of the cache. The dreaded parking area might just be at the top of that mountain afterall. I would think you could park at the end of the road at least.

I'm curious about one thing though. With all the time you took to create and watch this topic, did you happen to take the time to send a friendly note to the cache owner since you are so concerned about the rating on this cache?

He he, gotta' love irony in life.

After emailing the cache owner out of curiosity, they have emailed back. They said that they made an error on the coordinates by one degree. That did indeed change the map a bit. Feel free to examine the cache map again. A simple email to the cache owner shows that the cache is in fact a handicap accessible cache in the owners opinion. I'm not saying that the reviewers are never wrong, but you should not make assumptions without facts.

September 22, 2004

I'm curious about one thing though. With all the time you took to create and watch this topic, did you happen to take the time to send a friendly note to the cache owner since you are so concerned about the rating on this cache?

I'm guessing the answer is a resounding NO. Since the question was asked earlier and the OP chose to ignore it. Which is further reinforced by the info you gathered.

Thorin

September 22, 2004

I'm curious about one thing though. With all the time you took to create and watch this topic, did you happen to take the time to send a friendly note to the cache owner since you are so concerned about the rating on this cache?
I'm guessing the answer is a resounding NO. Since the question was asked earlier and the OP chose to ignore it. Which is further reinforced by the info you gathered.

Thorin

The OP is not responding because he is currently prevented from posting by TPTB.

1.5k · September 22, 2004

I'm curious about one thing though. With all the time you took to create and watch this topic, did you happen to take the time to send a friendly note to the cache owner since you are so concerned about the rating on this cache?
I'm guessing the answer is a resounding NO. Since the question was asked earlier and the OP chose to ignore it. Which is further reinforced by the info you gathered.

Thorin

A simple, effective solution that would have negated all this angst? Shame on you!

September 22, 2004

I'm curious about one thing though. With all the time you took to create and watch this topic, did you happen to take the time to send a friendly note to the cache owner since you are so concerned about the rating on this cache?
I'm guessing the answer is a resounding NO. Since the question was asked earlier and the OP chose to ignore it. Which is further reinforced by the info you gathered.

Thorin

The OP is not responding because he is currently prevented from posting by TPTB.

Ya I heard that as well. Now he's PMing people inviting them over to gocaching.com

Anyway supposedly he did email the owner. And he couldn't answer our questions about doing so becaues he was banned. Though he did manage to answer other questions which were asked after the email question and before he was banned.

With the OP gone to gocaching.com and the posts that have been contributed it seems this thread is basically done.

Thorin

Terrain. Part 345.1.1

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment