Do “difficulty” And “terrain” Ratings Get Confused

[+Pharisee]

What exactly constitutes a 5/5 cache…? Should a cache that has 5 stars for difficulty automatically have a 5 start rating for terrain… ?

 

I’ll elucidate… I’ve always believed that any cache that needs ‘special equipment’ in order to retrieve it should rate 5 stars but is that 5 stars for ‘difficulty’ or 5 stars for ‘terrain’ or both…. and is that the only time a cache should be rated 5 for anything…?

 

First example… A hypothetical ‘Traditional’ cache is hidden on an island 20 yards out in a lake. It’s been given a 5/5 rating. There are no puzzles to solve and once on the island the cache is very easily found. The water is, say… 3 to 4 feet deep but murky with it. Boats are available but only at certain times of the day and only in the summer season. The surrounding land is flat, easily accessible and wheelchair friendly. Special equipment, i.e. a boat, is useful but not absolutely necessary as you could wade or swim out to the island so is the 5/5 rating justified?

 

Second example… A hypothetical “Puzzle / Mystery” cache has been placed and involves a considerable amount of skill / luck / ingenuity in order to derive the co-ordinates of the actual cache. The cache its self is simply hidden on an easily accessible footpath. The cache has also been rated 5/5.

If the cache had been a straight forward ‘traditional’ hidden in the same location, it would probably rate no more than a 2/2. Again, do you consider a 5/5 rating justified.

 

If not… how would you rate these two caches…?

[+Pengy&Tigger]

I don't know about anyone else, but I generally think of the difficulty as being either the difficulty in deriving the co-ords or finding the cache itself once at the location. The difficulty in getting there is covered by terrain, I think.

 

For the boat one, I would probably rate the difficulty at maybe be 2 with the terrain a 5.

 

For the puzzle one, it depends how hard the puzzle is, maybe between 3 and 5. The terrain I'd probably give a 2.

 

T

[+Simply Paul]

My feeling is difficulty refers to the time and effort needed to reach and find the cache. Thus a mystery cache would usually have a higher rating than a traditional hidden in the same spot, in the same way. Again, a cunning hide in a fake rock or similar would make the difficulty mark higher. A cache which requires luck, much travel or research to find it also deserves a higher figure.

 

The terrain figure specifically relates to the physical process of getting to a cache. Is it a long way over rough rocks and up cliffs or a quick stroll from parking over flat grass? An island you can wade to is going to make for a cold, wet cache experience but it's a whole lot easier to get to than a cache on top of a mountain. I'd score your theoretical caches thus:

 

Island Life: Difficulty 3 / Terrain 4

Puzzlemania: Difficulty 4 / Terrain 2

 

It's worth adding I think people rate caches relative to their surroundings. If a location is as hard to reach as any in a 100 mile radius, doesn't it deserve a 5 rating for terrain? And if the terrain is that 'bad', doesn't that make it a very difficult cache to do and thus deserve a 5 for that too? I can see that argument, although I think a 5/5 should be as demanding an experience as I can imagine considering doing in order to 'just find one more cache'.

[SlytherinAlex]

What exactly constitutes a 5/5 cache…? Should a cache that has 5 stars for difficulty automatically have a 5 start rating for terrain… ?

 

I’ll elucidate… I’ve always believed that any cache that needs ‘special equipment’ in order to retrieve it should rate 5 stars but is that 5 stars for ‘difficulty’ or 5 stars for ‘terrain’ or both…. and is that the only time a cache should be rated 5 for anything…?

 

First example… A hypothetical ‘Traditional’ cache is hidden on an island 20 yards out in a lake. It’s been given a 5/5 rating. There are no puzzles to solve and once on the island the cache is very easily found. The water is, say… 3 to 4 feet deep but murky with it. Boats are available but only at certain times of the day and only in the summer season. The surrounding land is flat, easily accessible and wheelchair friendly. Special equipment, i.e. a boat, is useful but not absolutely necessary as you could wade or swim out to the island so is the 5/5 rating justified?

 

Second example… A hypothetical “Puzzle / Mystery” cache has been placed and involves a considerable amount of skill / luck / ingenuity in order to derive the co-ordinates of the actual cache. The cache its self is simply hidden on an easily accessible footpath. The cache has also been rated 5/5.

If the cache had been a straight forward ‘traditional’ hidden in the same location, it would probably rate no more than a 2/2. Again, do you consider a 5/5 rating justified.

 

If not… how would you rate these two caches…?

I have to agree with you.

 

Most of my puzzle caches are 5/1 or 4/1. I do have one that is 5/5 because it's a bugger to solve and you also need special equipment. Having said that, you need the special equipment to solve the puzzle, not to retrieve the cache, so who knows.

 

I think that using the Terrain setting of 5 to show special equipment needed is wrong. Terrain should be 1 to 5 according to how hard it is to get to the cache, if special equipment is needed an "S" should be added or something like that.

[+wildlifewriter]

Dealing only with your first example - the key seems to lie in the specific wording. (Us writers worry about such things, having little better to do.)

 

The rating guidance system refers to special equipment being "required" to reach the cache. Not useful, or helpful but simply: required.

 

It doesn't seem to me that this leaves room for equipment which is optional. There are a number of mountain caches near home which I cannot reach - being too old, tired, sick and lazy to do so. I could log them by using 'useful and helpful' special equipment (a helicopter), but this shouldn't affect the cache difficulty rating.

 

[+Happy Humphrey]

I think Terrain=5* means that even if you know exactly where the cache is placed, there is some major physical barrier which prevents access to the immediate area of the cache. So it could be half-way up a cliff with scary scrambling needed to get there, or in the middle of a swamp, or up a tree, or down a well(!). I don't think it should include the logistics, or the time it takes to get there, which should be included in the difficulty rating.

 

My logic is that there are geocachers of different ages, fitness and agility and this rating is to simply make it clear how challenging physically the hardest section of the approach will be: for some people, 5* terrain is just not sensible even though they may be prepared to spend all day on the search.

 

Difficulty means the sum total of everything else, such as minimum time required to find the location, difficulty of the puzzle, logistics in arranging to get to the area.

 

The only 5/5 I've set meets these guidelines, anyway, and I haven't attempted anyone else's yet!

 

HH

[+Team Ullium]

I think the difficulty should only apply to either working out the coordinates of the cache and/or finding the cache at the coordinate location.

 

I feel that aspects like a longish walk (say something like ten miles), even over reasonable ground is still an obstacle in reaching the cache and should be considered in setting the terrain ... as well as the more obvious difficulties in reaching a cache!

 

Just my take on the subject...though if I had my way there would be no caches placed which could be considered an overt risk to life and limb! My reasoning being that all caches should be achievable by all but the most physically challenged.

 

Ullium.

[+snaik]

Best to use Clayjars Rating System which is recommended by Geocaching.com then all Caches will have a Geocachingl standard.

[Leoness]

As my husband is in the Army, I'm sure it won't be long before we're living back in Germany again.

 

As my German isn't very good, I should think nearly EVERY cache will be a level 5 difficulty for me!!!

[+Happy Humphrey]

Snaik,

I always use the Clayjar system as a guide, and it works well, bearing in mind that this is not an exact science!

HH

[+MarcB]

I have wondered about this; does the Gold Alchemy quest cache count as a 5/5?

MarcB

[Deego]

I can see the benefits of a rating system. But its the last thing I look at. (if at all). think the text is more important and any difficulty's can be explained properly.

[+Team Maddie UK]

Marc,

 

With everything that you need to do to get to gold, I would leave it at a 5/5.

Terrain wise, the number of miles and hills you might have a special equipment reommended more than necessary (a wheelchair). The hides are all good and definitely some of them (in the summer with tree cover) warrant a 5. And never forget the bog and Ian. Those 2 obstacles warrant a 4-5 on their own. Just my opinion and I am sticking to it!

Lynn

[markandlynn]

I have wondered about this; does the Gold Alchemy quest cache count as a 5/5?

MarcB

That was my first though when i read the thread. But if you take into account the miles of driving then the terrain is correct. Specialist equipment is required to travel between all of the caches so 5 terrain works for me. And of course the fact that you have so many other caches to find raises the difficulty.