Terrain Rating

[+geoSquid]

I know Clayjar has the little java thingy for guesstimating one's cache rating. I've tried to set down sort of a standardized guide, and hopefully take the guesswork out of it.

 

I've done this because I have noticed a pretty wide variation on how many stars caches get. Caches that would seem to be 4 star terrain to me are displayed as 2 star... lots of 1 star terrain caches are not wheelchair accessible, etc.

 

So I've put thoughts to paper and I wonder what people think. I've only done terrain so far (Difficulty rating is harder to conceptualize )

 

http://www3.sympatico.ca/pdcowan/zzz/Terrain.htm

[+Beta Test]

Talk about neat! Thats pretty cool. Thanks geoSquid!

[+The Leprechauns]

Is this system intended to be on a five-point scale? Because every one of my caches that I've run through the system to test it is coming in with a rating of 4 or 4.5. I ran some of the harder caches I've done through the system as well, and got ratings of 6 or higher.

 

If you mean to stick to the 5 point scale then there is an awful lot of "add .5 for this" and "add 1.0 for that." It adds up!

[+briansnat]

Not bad but it could use tweaking. Canoe caches, which should be 5 stars only come out to 4 , but certain other special equipment comes out to 6 stars which is off the scale.

 

Also a walk over very rugged terrain only comes out to 2.5 stars if there are no other factors to add in.

 

But why are we trying to re-invent the wheel here?

[+ShadowAce]

hehe according to that, the cache I did that required me being LongLine rescued via helicopter would be a 3.5 terrain.

 

Nice to see I almost died on a 3.5. hehehe

[+Mopar]

I came up with something too. It's slightly different then yours, but it seems to work.

 

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.

 

I even worked out the difficulty ratings. Try these:

 

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.

[Tahosa and Sons]

One little question, what does plants and grasses have to do with the lay of the land. Your talking about things that are on the land, not the lay of the land.

Closeness of contour lines etc. tells me what that lay of the land is.

[+Renegade Knight]

One little question, what does plants and grasses have to do with the lay of the land. Your talking about things that are on the land, not the lay of the land.

Closeness of contour lines etc. tells me what that lay of the land is.

Given the complaints about poison plants I'd say he's trying to factor it into the equation.

 

Maybe we are missing a rating.

Terrain. The lay of the land.

Find How hard it is to find once you are there.

Retrieval. How hard it is to get once you find it.

 

So in plain sight on an grassy island in a sea of poison oak may be a one to find but a 3 to retrieve becuase of poison oak and the ground hornets nest right next to the cache.

 

geoSquid,

 

I like what you are trying to accomplish. ClayJars app needs tweaked every time I use to to match the ratings that Mopar has posted. Most people though don't seem to even use ClayJar's system. I think they just go by feel. I've seen complaints on my cache that they should be a 1 when there is no way you are going to get a wheelchair to them. Check out the rating system at Handicaching.com Your thoughts on a rating system might do some good.

[+Robespierre]

Caches that would seem to be 4 star terrain to me are displayed as 2 star..

I'm not sure we want to make either extreme the standard...either an Olympic Athlete, or a 65 year-old peg leg.

 

I'm remembering one of Ranger510's micros. I think about 500' down a riverbank, but the flooding was very bad this summer when I went, and the river piled many things around that bridge and on the bank. Walking was so difficult that I chose a different way out, and got lost in a corn field of very tall stuff. Seasonal changes, I'm sure.

 

I think what I would like, rather than change the system, is to provide an additional note used only to rate a cache which may qualify as "extreme", in either direction. So that a 1/1 cache might have an additional rating to indicate just how accomodating it is, similar to what you provided above. A 4/4 cache might also have an additional rating to indicate just how difficult in a more specific way.

[+Runaround]

Mopar's system isn't a bad starting point. The thing I've noticed is that the terrain can vary widely based on where you live. The only thing most cachers seem to agree on is that a 1-star means handicap accessible.

 

I've seen caches in areas of the country that are mostly flat with one small hill or one small stream to hop. Any terrain feature in that area seems to qualify for at least a 3-star. Likewise, in the more rugged and hilly parts of the country, I've had my butt kicked on a 2-star that would be a 50-star in Iowa.

[+briansnat]

I really like Mopar's rating system. It's brilliant. It's concise and easy to use and flexible. My question is, what took us so long to come up with such a system.

 

My vote is for the Mopar Cache Rating System

[koz]

moi aussi!

[+The Leprechauns]

Revolutionary in its clarity and simplicity, the Mopar Cache Rating System has the added advantage of *matching* the ratings that I've already assigned to each of my hidden caches. How cool is THAT?

[CoyoteRed]

I, too, think Mopar's ( Yeah, I know, tongue-in-cheek ) system is pretty darn good except for a few things.

 

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

 

Please note that just because it requires an odd piece of gear doesn't automatically make it a 5 star. It takes such a specialized piece of gear that you need the "knowledge or experience" (very nearly the same thing as it refers to this) to use it.

 

A hydro shouldn't automatically be a 5 star if you can get someone to take you there.

 

***** Extreme. A serious mental or physical challenge. Requires specialized knowledge, skills, or equipment to find cache.

 

I feel strongly this should be changed to reflect the same or similar wording as the terrain counterpart to prevent 1 star caches being listed as a 5 star because it needs a common tool to retrieve.

 

Other that this, I think this system is pretty good as it is.

[+CompuCash]

not bad - I like it - nice job - bet it took a while too -

 

so how can we standardize on this?

Do you have a web site you can put this on?

 

I do see a bit of a problem here tho -

 

<cache page>

 

clayjar rated = x/y

Coyote rated = x1/y1

Handicache rated = x2/y2

Personally rated = x3/y3

 

</cache page>

 

see what I mean?

tho I can certainly see all 4 ratings on one or more of my own cache pages -

HEY! lets you pick the rating you like!

[BassoonPilot]

Edited September 27, 2004 by BassoonPilot

[+The Leprechauns]

Unless one were to make an analogy to spelunking, I would think that BassoonPilot's question goes more to the difficulty rating ("extreme mental challenge" and "special skills or knowledge required"). Perhaps he should try the cache himself and offer an opinion based on personal experience.

[BassoonPilot]

Edited September 27, 2004 by BassoonPilot

[+tirediron]

Nice to see that so many people are keeping an open mind.... As I recall, Microsoft didn't get their any first releases of Windoze right either. There is definitely the need for some major tweaking in GeoSquids submission IMHO, but at least he/she has made an effort at fixing something that a lot of people agree needs some work (The rating system).

 

Who knows, maybe with a further refinement, aspects of this can be incorporated into the existing system for an improved one. Why not offer some constructive criticism instead of sarcasm?

 

On that note, the things that I would comment on are:

 

1. I think you need to review the continuity of your system. You say a boat only adds '3' to the value, bringing it up to possibly only a 4 star cache, but SCUBA gear adds '5', making it a six star cache.

 

2. An approach that requires more than two adults to overcome obstacles I believe might be a little under rated.

 

Perhaps it might be more appropriate to approach this from the view of providing greater detail to the already existing broad categories. I think you have some good points with some of your divisions. Hey, even if it doesn't come to anything, at least you can say you tried!

[+The Leprechauns]

Unless one were to make an analogy to spelunking, I would think that BassoonPilot's question goes more to the difficulty rating ("extreme mental challenge" and "special skills or knowledge required").    Perhaps he should try the cache himself and offer an opinion based on personal experience. 

Nope, I'm not interested in developing the "special skills or knowledge required."

It is always wise for all geocachers to recognize their own limitations, and to decide *not* to attempt caches that exceed their personal abilities. Such is the benefit of a well-constructed geocache rating system.

[CoyoteRed]

Some contructive critism...

 

I think the approach taken is not the best especially from the "ability" aspect. What is considered a child and what is considered an adult? What about a "teen" who would probably be more agile than most adults. But then again, not all children are the same, neither are adults.

 

I think the rating should be more like the CJ system where it is less subjective and measures the terrain without using ability as that measure.

 

Piggybacking my issues with the CJ system. Using a mode of transportation as a measuring stick doesn't fit. Requiring a OHV shouldn't come into play because a person could hike in. Requiring a boat shouldn't come into play because a person could hitch a ride with a local fisherman.

 

Let's consider the OHV issue. Say the trip is 10 miles in on a jeep trail. You could exclude special gear and use the CJ system of over a 10 mile hike and likely an over night stay, and could up with less than 5 stars. Then actually using a OHV to go in would be easier than doing it the hard way. Only, it is rated the other way around.

 

Say the cache is on an island. Do you need to own a boat? Not really. You could have a friend who does take you across. There is a local cache on an island, but you can access it via ferry. Should that warrant 5 stars? So what's the difference between a commercial ferry and bumming a ride?

 

I think the CJ system is a good start. It just needs some tweaking along with better instructions. (I don't particularly agree with 50 feet of bushwacking warrants 4 stars, either.)

[+Robespierre]

Nope, I'm not interested in developing the "special skills or knowledge required."

darn!

 

I'm thinking that I've seen Mopar's system somewhere.....

[+geoSquid]

All very good points raised. I should have added that >5 stars = 5 stars.

 

My plan is to synthesize all the comments and tweak it. One thing that seems clear, there probably isn't a checklist that could rate any conceivable cache fairly.

 

This has been interesting so far! thanks!

 

---

 

I went to handicaching.com. The rating there is interesting and captures some of the stuff that I'm after too.

 

One thing I've noticed is how terrain/difficulty can change with seasons. Nothing really captures that in any rating system I've seen. My hardest cache, GCJKZ9, is probably terrain 2 in the winter and spring. But by mid summer there's thick grass 5 feet to 6 feet tall obscuring the thorn trees, nettles, pits and potholes, and it's like that until the winter kills the grass. And I mean jungle-quality thick. It's hard to believe the cache is actually in an urban area.

Edited September 28, 2004 by geoSquid