Jump to content

Suggestion: Please Read


dutchstar

Recommended Posts

I have a question about hides for disabled cachers. I fully support the wish and desire to cache, legs or no legs.

 

But, I have two legs, have always had two legs, and frankly am handicapped in my knowledge about what I can do to maximize the fun and variety of caches without making them unavailable you those with less able legs.

 

And, I find the geocaching rating system limiting on this front.

 

I suspect that disabled people range in physical ability, not unlike the rest of the world - from very limited (sidewalks only) to climbing mountains with just their hands to walk on.

 

I have a few, and have helped hide a few caches that are what I would think are wheelchair accessible to an able and adventurous wheelchair jockey, but not very accessible to a person that was uncomfortable on uneven terrain.

 

How can I make the level of accessibility clear (and searchable) without having to double-post my caches to handicaching.

 

Can we start a dialog about what makes a good "accessible" cache so we can try to do more of them.

 

Could we get a couple to three attributes added to the new geocaching attributes that would be different wheelchair accessibility ratings well enough defined so that I could use them affectively?

 

Lastly, what makes a really good cache for you as a disabled person? What makes a cache a favorite of yours?

Link to comment

There are all levels and varietys of handicaps, but I think the general consensus is that the cache be wheelchair accessable. That's why handicap facilites have a picture of a wheelchair on the door, rather than crutches or an oxygen tank.

 

The ADA Accessability Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities is a good resource if you're looking to design a handicap accessable cache.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment
The only guideline that I follow is that I would never list a cache as 1/1 unless it was wheelchair accessible. That just comes from using the Clayjar rating system thingy.

 

Regards,

Anthony

But, 1/1 suggests a paved or nearly equivalent surface. And, what about really hard, but easily accessible caches? There are plenty of people in wheelchairs that will head off of a paved path with pleasure. So, then the question becomes how rough of a path or how great a distance or how steep is still widely accessible?

 

Of couse, the one word my spellcheck keeps pointing out is "accessable" . . . you'd think a guy with two graduate degrees would be able to spell, but NOOOOOOO!

Link to comment
...How can I make the level of accessibility clear (and searchable) without having to double-post my caches to handicaching. ...

Until listing sites adopt the handicaching rating system, create their own, imrpove the existing system and adopt it, you flat out can't do that.

 

The handicaching forms are a good place for the dialog you want to have on what makes good accesable. These forums will give you more feedback, but those forums will make it easier to find in the future and not lost amongh the 100k topics here.

 

Edit: Spelling/typos left intact so the Puzzler doesn't feel alone. :D

Edited by Renegade Knight
Link to comment
:D Just a note about myself and most likely some others also. I have 2 very bad legs and I guess 85% to 90% of the caches I can't saftly look for. Please keep us disabled people in mind when placeing caches. Put one out that we can look for. Thanks!

:D There's quite a few caches I can't look for, but I don't ask people to cater to me.

 

Why don't you start hiding good, quality caches that are easy to find? Other cachers in the area will see that and might actually start hiding caches that are simpler, too.

 

 

For starters, how you make your cache clearly accessable is to rate it properly. In order to rate a cache a 1 in terrain, you have to be able to get there in a wheelchair. Use 1 1/2 if it's a grass path, but doable in a chair. I still say list them all on Handicaching anyway. It's a good service to do for someone.

 

Also, I'm not sure, but I think Jeremy might have made a handicapped icon for his little icon system.

Link to comment

:o I wasn't expecting this much of a reply! Yes, there are many types of disabilities and you can't address them all. It's just that there are many caches out there and not all that many that are rated easy terrane. SEE I CAN SPELL WRONG ALSO!!

 

I don't expect everyone to change for me or anyone else. It was just ment for something to keep in your minds. Maybe for every 5 caches put out put 1 that is in a great location but is easy to get at. Not easy to find.

 

If you saw me you probably would only notice a limp. But, if I catch my foot on something and fall it most likely will mean a trip to the hospital. My knees don't bend very far. Thanks to a little gook. I also can't walk very far. All this, and more, limit what I can look for.

 

Just keep putting out the caches and once in a while think of putting one in easy territory.

 

Thanks a lot guys! :lol:

Link to comment
Thanks to a little gook

 

I think you meant to say kook.

 

I don't know DutchStar, but I suspect gook is exactly what he meant, and further suspect from that that our mutual disabilities started in the same part of the world.

 

Regardless, back on topic!

 

I am 51 years old, picked up a chronic infection after being wounded in '72, had a car wreck in '79 that kept me in the hospital for 3 years and then 42 bone grafts over the next 20 years, lost a leg in '98 and broke my neck in '02. Surgeons can't fix the neck due to the infection, so I just live with it. Unlike the leg, neck amputation isn't an attractive option.

 

I use a wheelchair at home and for shopping and such, and walk on crutches for everything else, including geocaching.

 

I started geocaching in August of '03 and am closing in on 1000 caches in 10 states...I think 820 or so logged and maybe 100 I didn't log, ranging from 1/1 lightpole micros to some of the toughest hides in the South.

 

A friend saw this thread and asked for my thoughts.

 

First, you can't define handicap accessable because you can't define handicap.

 

My best friend, while growing up, was a man my dad had grown up with - Sam Daidone. Born with 10" stubs for arms, with half a thumb on the inside of each stub, and with leg stubs about half-way to where his knees would have been, Sam could, to my mind, do everything but ride a bike. He and his wife raised 5 fine children, put them all though college, all great people who are now all professionaly employed.

 

Sam "walked" by bouncing along on his fanny, sorta like a rabbit. He hunted and fished all his life, and shot a buck deer every year. With his short stub arms holding it 1" from his nose he could shoot a pistol better than I ever could.

 

Sam owned a garage - he'd climb up on a stool beside the hood and direct kids he hired how to do something. One of the best mechanics around and he couldn't reach the engine!

 

Of the nearly 1000 caches I have seen he could have gotten to them all! He might not have been able to reach up to it when he got there, but by God he could get there!

 

Was Sam handicapped? Well heck yeah! But how do you rate a cache for a man like this?

 

On the other hand I have a cousin who hurt his back at work 10 years ago. He immediately took to the couch and crawled into a bottle of pain pills, and won't come out. While physically fully capable except for some pain, he became useless, does no chores, nada.

 

I talked to him about geocaching and he said he might try it if there were some that were easily accessable...he never did.

 

Is my cousin handicapped? Oh yeah - he's handicapped allright, and in the worst way...he has mentaly adopted his handicap, made it his own, takes full advantage of it to escape anything that requires effort or might cause pain.

 

How're you gonna rate a cache for a guy like this? Anything more than reaching out the car window is gonna be seen by him as difficult!

 

So, you're talking two things here - true handicap and mental attitude.

 

Someone like myself and Tee King (PyeWackett), willing to slide down out of the wheelchair and crawl on the ground to get to a cache, have more caching ability than others simply because we are willing, nay, determined, that there be few if any caches we can't get.

 

How are you going to rate a cache for us?

 

So, hope that gives some insight into the rating problem.

 

Now, what to do about it.

 

Geocachers as a whole can help by remembering that a 1/1 rating means wheelchair accessable. Not accessable until the last ten feet, not accessable except for a slight ditch - anyone can look at a site and determine if a wheelchair can roll from parking to cache. Simple. And immediately helpful to the handicapped community.

 

After that it gets a bit dicey - many wheelchair users can traverse rather rough ground - climb a curb in their chair or, if a tree lies across the path, we can transfer from chair to tree, lift the chair over the tree, get back in the chair and keep going. There's really no way you can rate this kind of obstacle - it's accessability becomes a factor of true handicap and mental attitude.

 

Handicaching.com has a great listing site for accessable caches, and they have gone to great lengths to devise a complex formula for rating caches. Very few folks use it - I don't, because it's just too complex and the world of handicap just too variable for any formulaic description.

 

Besides, it can't account for attitude and determination, which to my mind are the biggest determining factors in rating one's handicap.

 

Aside from hiding and rating a few 1/1 caches the geocaching community can help by making note of sure-fire show-stoppers. You'll know them when you see them - a rope swing that must be used to cross a creek is a show-stopper for even the least handicapped! Make a note or describe such obstacles and let the seeker decide.

 

We disabled folk can make the most difference, by hiding caches within our capability, thus expanding the number and accessability of caches to the handicapped.

 

Outside of a venue like this where I am directly asked for my opinion I rarely mention being handicapped, and don't believe it fair to ask the able-bodied to change their hiding habits in any intrinsic way, other than asking that the 1/1 rating be reserved for the truly wheelchair accessable cache. Our approvers can help with this by asking hiders if 1/1s are truly wheelchair accessable.

 

I do thank, from the bottom of my heart, all who take handicap access into consideration when hiding and/or describing caches.

 

For those of you who haven't thought about the issue, take a moment to contemplate your hide's accessability and make some common-sense notes in your description about it.

 

Thanx all!

Ed

Edited by TheAlabamaRambler
Link to comment

[nitpick]

Why is it always a 1/1 cache that is wheelchair accessible? Isn't it the terrain that limits, not the difficulty of the hide? A well camo'd cache next to a paved trail may be a 2.5/1 or 3/1 or 4/1, but still be accessed by a wheelchair. Shouldn't it be ?/1 are wheelchair accessible?

[/nitpick]

Link to comment

 

I use a wheelchair at home and for shopping and such, and walk on crutches for everything else, including geocaching.

I have to say this, since you came in this thread.

 

I first 'discovered' you at GW2. I don't believe I talked to you, or if I did, I just said hello. But seeing that you had so many finds with half the leg power I do was seriously inspirational to me. I have never complained of physical issues while on a cache hunt since. Thank You.

 

 

Now to end all this mushy sentimental stuff....

I still say check out Handicaching. And I still say list your caches there. Yeah, it's slightly more complicated than just pushing a few buttons, but it's a massively valuable service that you can provide to fellow cachers.

Link to comment

We'd like to use the new "wheelchair accessible" cache attribute appropriately and could use some guidance. We have a couple of caches hidden along a paved bicycle path that is in reasonably good condition so we would consider the path to by "wheelchair accessible." However, the caches themselves are five to six feet off the ground, would is out of reach of someone in a sitting position. If there is something to hold on to that would allow the cacher to pull themselves up to a standing position for the cache grab, would it still be considered "wheelchair accessible?" In advance, thanks for the feedback.

Link to comment
...Handicaching.com has a great listing site for accessable caches, and they have gone to great lengths to devise a complex formula for rating caches. Very few folks use it - I don't, because it's just too complex and the world of handicap just too variable for any formulaic description....

That's good information. If you do have thoughts on how to do a better job with ratings that work and are not complex I would like to hear your thoughts on it. The entire point is to make terrain ratings that make individual assessments possible.

 

It's not an easy task.

Link to comment

My mother was in a wheelchair. Because of this I became more aware of terrain and also the layout of businesses. I even stopped going to my fav restaurant because my mother couldn't join me there without being carried up the steps.

 

From what I've seen many of the micros are acessible and I will be placing one in memory of my mother when I find a spot that I think she would have enjoyed the view. I will now be double posting on the handicaching site to help those who's obstacles are greater than my own when on a cache hunt.

Link to comment
We'd like to use the new "wheelchair accessible" cache attribute appropriately and could use some guidance. We have a couple of caches hidden along a paved bicycle path that is in reasonably good condition so we would consider the path to by "wheelchair accessible." However, the caches themselves are five to six feet off the ground, would is out of reach of someone in a sitting position. If there is something to hold on to that would allow the cacher to pull themselves up to a standing position for the cache grab, would it still be considered "wheelchair accessible?" In advance, thanks for the feedback.

My question exactly - thanks for the answer in advance as well.

 

There is my dilemma in trying to hide "handi-caches", if its not to be muggled, it usually has to be hidden in such a way as to be out of sight. Unfortunately, I have found VERY FEW spots which fit the bill, unless the individual IS able/willing to leave their chair, or has someone who can reach up high for them.

 

For instance, one of my caches is hidden inside a large bell at a public bus stop in plain view of traffic. Its a reach up to get it for even some shorter statured people. A person in a wheelchair can pull directly beneath it, but unless able to stand upright, can't get it.

 

My other dilemma - is it enough to hunt micros, 'cause I haven't yet found a way to hide a full size cache in plain site for a handicache so it won't be muggled.

Link to comment
Outside of a venue like this where I am directly asked for my opinion I rarely mention being handicapped

 

Ed, you are handicapped?!?!?!?! :grin: :grin:

 

Seriously though, someone like Ed can really throw-off the bell curve on rating caches for handicap accessibility.

 

TAR has really shown to a lot of us the amazing power of having a positive mental attitude and working with what you've got.

 

I have never used handicaching.com, maybe I should start using it. Do any of the new cache attributes include a wheelchair icon?

Link to comment

:grin: It looks like my suggestion has had a positive kick back. Yes, I did me Gook, or Mr. Charles. In the Army hospital I saw people do unbelieveable things when missing limbs etc. The power of the mind has no limit. Sometimes the body does. Such is life!

 

1,000 finds! WOW! I have 3!!! Santa gave me a GPS for Christmas. Such a nice guy. Now I know how he gets around when it dark out! He must have good batteries :-)

Link to comment
Why is it always a 1/1 cache that is wheelchair accessible? Isn't it the terrain that limits, not the difficulty of the hide? A well camo'd cache next to a paved trail may be a 2.5/1 or 3/1 or 4/1, but still be accessed by a wheelchair. Shouldn't it be ?/1 are wheelchair accessible?

 

You are correct, which is why a 1/1 is supposedly handicap accessible, as would be a 5/1. The difficulty rating has no tie in to wheelchair accessability, only the terrain rating.

 

A cache could conceivably require a very difficult puzzle to solve, or be extremely well camoflaged and still be handicap accessible, which would make it something other than a 1/1.

 

I think TAR's post is an excellent one and he has been saying what I've been trying to say whenever these handicap geocaching threads come up and far better than I ever could.

Link to comment

I still have a question about ?/1 vs. ?/1.5 or even ?/2 being handicap accessible.

 

I'd like to put a wheelchair accessible attribute on a some of my caches.

 

Some of my caches are completely reachable from a sitting position, but one has to go either a couple of meters off a sidewalk onto grass or roll down a well groomed gravel path that may have some elevation gain (although no steeper than a typical wheelchair ramp).

 

So, although these are not the flat paved paths as defined for a ?/1 cache, I would think they are accessible to most wheelchair bound people.

 

Do I list them as wheelchair accessible?

Link to comment
Handicaching.com has a great listing site for accessable caches, and they have gone to great lengths to devise a complex formula for rating caches.

I just visited the website and tested the tools. The rating system works using a set of pulldown menus, so it's relatively easy to rate a cache along with space for additional comments. There are links to windows with html already written for inserting the Handicap Geocaching emblems on one's cache page. There are also instructions for how to insert a link to the website from your cache page to the website so people can look at the details of your rating.

 

I just rated Plugged Near the Bike Path and it took me only five minutes to rate the cache and edit the cache page with the new information complete with links. I then rated Black & White & Read All Over and it took about three minutes since I was able to block copy the html from my first rated cache into this cache page and only had to change the waypoint since the rating worked out to be the same.

 

Give it a try!!!

Edited by Ladybug Kids
Link to comment

:unsure:It seems that my choice of words has offended the administrator of this forum. I'm sure that the Admin. doesn't even know that the word means "foreigner". I don't think anyone was offended by my choice of words but if anyone was I apologize.

 

Maybe if I had said...thanks to the little Vietnam man for shooting me...that would have been better.

 

Enough said. I will not bring up anything about it again.

Link to comment
still have a question about ?/1 vs. ?/1.5 or even ?/2 being handicap accessible.

 

By definition an ?/1.5 or a ?/2 would not be handicap accessible. I would think that if a wheelchair can easily negotiate the terrain, then it would be 1 star terrain and the handicap attribute could be used. The definition for 1 star terrain states "is relatively flat". To me that could include a slight incline.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment
By definition an ?/1.5 or a ?/2 would not be handicap accessible.  I would think that if a wheelchair can easily negotiate the terrain, then it would be  1 star terrain and the handicap attribute could be used.  The definition for 1 star terrain states "is relatively flat". To me that could include a slight incline.

But, according to Clayjar's rating system which is reference from the geocaching.com hide rating field description, the definition of a ?/1 is much more restrictive.

 

When I select the following two options, it gives me not a ?/1, but a ?/2.25.

 

What is the trail like:

Well marked/defined hardpack

Well packed dirt. You could ride a standard bicycle or push a stroller on this trail without too much effort.

 

What is the terrain elevation like:

Some elevation changes

Changes are slight enough that someone could ride a bike up such a slope.

 

Maybe Clayjar's rating system needs some retuning in this regard because these two descriptions are definitely within the bounds of typically "accessible".

 

A ?/1 cache requires "Asphalt, concrete, or boardwalks" surfaces according to clayjar.

 

We could even go a step further and suggest that well drained grass (i.e., not muddy and soft) is perfectly accessible to most wheelchairs and that would raise the terrain level even higher than 2.25 by clay jar's guidelines, even if the distance is only three meters off a paved trail.

Link to comment

While it's true that there are resources for rating the terrain of a cache, I personally find them to be subjective, as are various handicaps in general (Tar, you did a superb job in explaining the subtle nuances). Because of this, I wrote How to "Disable" a Cache. I attempted to write it from not only the viewpoint of a "wheelchair pilot", but also from the position of cachers who face other physical limitations.

 

No offense, Dutchstar, but I would never expect cachers to place one accessible cache out of five hides. I appreciate the cachers who take our needs into consideration, but, ultimately, they're going to place the type of caches in which they themselves would attempt; there's not a thing wrong with that, and I prefer it that way. Some of my own caches are geared towards the "able-bodied", and though they were difficult (read nearly impossible) for me to hide, I placed them to give back to the cachers who have helped me both realize AND overcome some of my own limitations.

Edited by Pyewacket
Link to comment
By definition an ?/1.5 or a ?/2 would not be handicap accessible.  I would think that if a wheelchair can easily negotiate the terrain, then it would be  1 star terrain and the handicap attribute could be used.  The definition for 1 star terrain states "is relatively flat". To me that could include a slight incline.

But, according to Clayjar's rating system which is reference from the geocaching.com hide rating field description, the definition of a ?/1 is much more restrictive.

 

When I select the following two options, it gives me not a ?/1, but a ?/2.25.

 

What is the trail like:

Well marked/defined hardpack

Well packed dirt. You could ride a standard bicycle or push a stroller on this trail without too much effort.

 

What is the terrain elevation like:

Some elevation changes

Changes are slight enough that someone could ride a bike up such a slope.

 

Maybe Clayjar's rating system needs some retuning in this regard because these two descriptions are definitely within the bounds of typically "accessible".

 

A ?/1 cache requires "Asphalt, concrete, or boardwalks" surfaces according to clayjar.

 

We could even go a step further and suggest that well drained grass (i.e., not muddy and soft) is perfectly accessible to most wheelchairs and that would raise the terrain level even higher than 2.25 by clay jar's guidelines, even if the distance is only three meters off a paved trail.

That IS the definition from Clayjar's site. The full definition for a 1 is:

* Handicapped accessible. (Terrain is likely to be paved, is relatively flat, and less than a 1/2 mile hike is required.).

 

Note likely to be paved and relatively flat. Use your common sense. If you think a wheelchair can easily negotiate the trail, its a 1. This would include a flat, hard packed trail, but probably not include a flat, wet grassy area or a flat trail that has fallen trees across it. It could include a slight incline, but probably not a steeper one.

 

A person here once mentioned the shopping cart test. If you can easily push a shopping cart on the trail without lifting it, its a 1. I think that's a good guide.

Link to comment
No offense, Dutchstar, but I would never expect cachers to place one accessible cache out of five hides. I appreciate the cachers who take our needs into consideration, but, ultimately, they're going to place the type of caches in which they themselves would attempt; there's not a thing wrong with that, and I prefer it that way. Some of my own caches are geared towards the "able-bodied", and though they were difficult (read nearly impossible) for me to hide, I placed them to give back to the cachers who have helped me both realize AND overcome some of my own limitations.

I agree, I have 2 hides that are wheelchair accessable! I'm not saying that they should all be, but it is something that needs to be taken into consideration. <_<

Link to comment

i live in an area where one of our prominent cachers is missing a leg. we don't go out of our way to make any percentage of caches available to her, but by golly, we rate the terrain carefully! this will explain why so many of our description pages specifically mention probabilitu of wheelchair access. on a first look one might think we were unusually concerned with wheelchair friendliness.

 

as for the moderation of language, i was offended by the use of an ethnic slur. i'm sorry you were combat wounded. the ethnicity of the enemy isn't really an issue. they're all people out there. what boggles my mind is that you could be sure nobody was offended.

Link to comment
That IS the definition from Clayjar's site. The full definition for a 1 is:

*  Handicapped accessible. (Terrain is likely to be paved, is relatively flat, and less than a 1/2 mile hike is required.)

Brian,

 

I believe the confusion here is that we are coming at this from two different directions.

 

You are saying that a ?/1 is, by definition, handicapped accessible.

I agree that a ?/1 is obviously handicapped accessible, by definition.

 

The problem being that, according to clayjar's criterion, a ?/2 or even higher may also be handicapped accessible, since a wheelchair is perfectly capable of rolling or being pushed along "Well marked/defined hardpack, Well packed dirt. You could ride a standard bicycle or push a stroller on this trail without too much effort."

 

In fact, to quote you "If you can easily push a shopping cart on the trail without lifting it, its a 1. I think that's a good guide. "

 

But, having pushed plenty of strollers, I would suggest that a stroller and shopping cart are pretty similar and according to clayjar if the trail is hardpack but smooth enough for a "standard bicycle or stroller", it is no longer a ?/1, but more of a ?/2.

 

So, should I just throw out clayjar's version of what makes a ?/2 a ?/2, downgrade all my ?/2 caches that are, in my opinion handicapped accessible to a ?/1, and then rewrite my own definition of what a ?/2 or ?/3 might be?

Link to comment

My two cents on this. A 1 terrain rating from Clayjar would be biased towards a wheelchair and that would be determined by the Department of Justice ADA guidelines. It's a fairly strict view of the world. It means you could, while in your chair and not getting out of it, get to the cache spot, get the cache, sign the log, and replace it.

 

It does nothing for those who are willing to push beyond ADA guidelines and wheel through grass, get out of the chair, or who don't need a chair. For them a better terrain rating (as flask says they do in her area) is the the way to go. By knowing the lay of the land any cacher can make a more informed decision on seeking a cache. That better rating though is beyond the Clayjar system. It's part of why handicaching.com exists.

Link to comment
That IS the definition from Clayjar's site. The full definition for a 1 is:

*  Handicapped accessible. (Terrain is likely to be paved, is relatively flat, and less than a 1/2 mile hike is required.)

Brian,

 

I believe the confusion here is that we are coming at this from two different directions.

 

You are saying that a ?/1 is, by definition, handicapped accessible.

I agree that a ?/1 is obviously handicapped accessible, by definition...SNIP.....So, should I just throw out clayjar's version of what makes a ?/2 a ?/2, downgrade all my ?/2 caches that are, in my opinion handicapped accessible to a ?/1, and then rewrite my own definition of what a ?/2 or ?/3 might be?

Here are Clayjar's definitons. You'll see that there is no allowance for a 2 star terrain cache to be handicap accessible, so there is no need to throw out his definitions. You are using his rating program, which has major flaws and usually rates a cache 1/2 to 1 star higher than his definition suggests. Just go by his definition and you'll be fine. No need to write your own.

 

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.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

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.

This is way better than that clayjar rating program that is linked to in the geocaching hide-a-cache web page.

 

Are these rating guidelines posted somewhere that I should be embarrassed not to have seen them instead of the rating program I have been referring to? :o;)

 

Any chance we can get this list posted more prominently than the "flawed" rating program?

 

Thanks!

Link to comment

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.

This is way better than that clayjar rating program that is linked to in the geocaching hide-a-cache web page.

 

Are these rating guidelines posted somewhere that I should be embarrassed not to have seen them instead of the rating program I have been referring to? :o;)

 

Any chance we can get this list posted more prominently than the "flawed" rating program?

 

Thanks!

Once you cruise through the rating program you get to see your ratings and the summar that BrianSnat just posted. Normally I rate my cache then compair the rating to the standard and make adjustments. I don't know where that's posted so that you can just see it without answering the questions first on ClayJar's site.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...