Difficulty / Terrain Grading Guidelines?

[Guest zeta]

I'm writing to ask if there are any more guidelines for the terrain and difficulty levels assigned to caches. I read the web where it says the levels are 1 (easiest) to 5 (climbing gear), but except for 5 where special gear is needed, there are no guidelines for describing the cache.

 

My wife and I went on our first hunt today, and we chose a 1/1, expecting an easy walk. Even though we didn't get to the cache (experience is summarized in a different post), she ended up waiting for me in a clearing while I explored a few trails trying to get to the top of a large hill.

 

If there aren't any guidelines, perhaps something as simple as:

 

* 1 - walking shoes ok, well defined trail, gradual elevation changes, less than half a mile

* 2 - easy to follow trail, some sudden/sharp elevation changes, less than a mile

* 3 - somewhat overgrown trail, sudden/sharp elevation changes, steep hills

* 4 - hard to follow/overgrown trail, some climbing (no gear necessar), less than 5 miles

* 5 - climbing/rapelling gear needed, more than 5 miles

 

These are just an idea. For example, suppose it takes a half mile hike on a good trail and includes a steep hill, it might get a terrain rating of 3.

 

The idea is that with a defined guideline, the ratings for levels would have a clearer and more consistant meaning for everyone.

 

What do you think?

[Guest Mike_Teague]

One thing to consider when rating a cache... There is usually (always?) more than 1 way to get to one... The way the cacher got there when he/she placed it might be a "1", but when someone goes searching for it, they might come from a different diretion, and it could be a "5".. Or vice versa.

[Guest andysolo]

does)-so i guess the rating might mostly concern terrian, and perhaps, the difficulty in finding the cache once there?

take care

andy

 

[This message has been edited by andysolo (edited 12-30-2000).]

[Guest zeta]

They were just ideas. It's a bit hard to nail down exactly what's involved in getting to a cache since there are so many different possible ways to get to most of them.

 

Here's a wild idea or thought. I know it sounds kind of complicated, but bear with me for a second.

 

What about a weighted averaging system. The person that hides the cache sets what he or she feels is the difficulty and terrain ratings. Their ratings would make up say 50%.

 

Then each person that finds the cache and logs it could rate the difficulty level as well. Their log entry would have their individual ratings, plus it would get averaged with everyone else's ratings, averaged with the site creator's ratings to create the "rating" for the site.

 

It's probably too complicated, and one of the things that makes this so much fun is the decieving simplicity at times. Perhaps this might cloud things a bit.

 

Any thoughts?

[Guest andysolo]

you know, thats a really good idea actually.

i don't know how well it would work at this point, maybe when more people start geocaching. i have a feeling that many people only sign the logbook at the actual cache, i.e. they don't bother to sign "virtual log" online, so they might never come back to give an opinion about the terrain/difficulty rating.. but still, it might be a good feature just to add to the virtual log somehow?

 

it seems logical.even if theres nothing official like an average, i bet if someone did the online log thing, and they felt the cache was not a 1/1 but a 4/4, they would mention it.