Is It Or Is It Not

[+brian b]

So, here's my thinking on this whole "it's not about the numbers" business:

 

We all (most of us) claim that it isn't about the numbers. We offer this, because, well, maybe it is the polite thing to do -- the avoidance of a competition. We all play this game for different reasons; yet, inevitably, whenever someone reaches a "milestone," we offer our congratulations.

 

If we are offering such kudos for reaching a certain, predetermined set of numbers (usually something with a series of zeros behind it), aren't we praising that person for reaching that goal?

 

And if we are praising that person, and among the praise we have wishes and hints of numbers to come, then must we not agree that it HAS to be about the numbers?

 

Otherwise,

 

Well, to be honest,

 

why bother?

 

So then, to quantify: Why do I cache? I love going to places that someone, for some reason or another, found worthy of a placement. As my cousin and I get to the cache (and after we find it), we try to decide WHY the person decided to place the cache there. Nearly all the time, it is quite obvious why.

 

And I love putting that Find # in each of my logs.

[+Jerseytrex]

I know for us it is about both the hunt and the numbers. I mean we enjoy great hides even the ones that take us an hour to find or a whole day like GWho's Survival cache. But at the same time I can't wait to hit my 300 milestone. So why can't it be about both? Why just one or the other?

[avroair]

Definately about the numbers.

 

There are two aspects that turn people onto geocaching as more than a casual thing:

1. online logs

2. smiles (or numbers)

 

The first we get to share our story with others, we are wired to want to share our stories with others (some more so). It is the way we are. We share, we comiserate and we love to tell others about our deeds. Makes us feel good... been doing it since time began, only our little heroic adventures are not as epic as those other myths and legends.

 

The second we are also wired to get satisfaction. Something that makes us feel good we are rewarded for doing again, and again and again... the 'ego' is fullfilled.

 

So if anyone says it ain't about the numbers is either 1) lying 2) a newbie who hasn't learnt any better or 3) both.

 

I shall get off my soap box now. Please save your applause for the very end.

 

I have 869 finds. But I'm not counting -

[+Harry Dolphin]

Of course it's about the numbers! But it's also about having fun, seeing great places, and the exercise. They all contribute to making this a great sport! (Even arvoair's)

My brother is caching six days a week to overtake me. He's already beaten my brother and sister... That's why we went on our marathon last weekend. We found 16 caches in two days (and DNFed four of KwikSilvers. Hints, Nikki?)

Too early for your 300th, but our new cache is awaiting approval. With two green aliens in it! In Old Tappan. The decon box was Andy Bear's FTF prize from Project X: LGM. It's out there, just waiting for approval.

[+Jerseytrex]

Humans are highly addictive creatures. Food, drugs, money, sex, war, power, etc....

Caching is great for the mind and body. The numbers/smilies are simply another thing we humans love to covet. Like a guy who knows every stat to every World Series in the past 50 years. Ultimately who cares right? But it fills a need. Can't put our collective finger on it, but it is there in everyone. Each one of us cares deeply about something that bores others to tears. We don't know why it really matters.

Hell yeah, I like the numbers. We wont ever set any records like Floopy thats obvious. But its still fun to us.

[+Jerseytrex]

Of course it's about the numbers! But it's also about having fun, seeing great places, and the exercise. They all contribute to making this a great sport! (Even arvoair's)

My brother is caching six days a week to overtake me. He's already beaten my brother and sister... That's why we went on our marathon last weekend. We found 16 caches in two days (and DNFed four of KwikSilvers. Hints, Nikki?)

Too early for your 300th, but our new cache is awaiting approval. With two green aliens in it! In Old Tappan. The decon box was Andy Bear's FTF prize from Project X: LGM. It's out there, just waiting for approval.

Old Tappan huh? Hmmmmmm!

Thats right near where I work. There can be only one!

[+Team Rampant Lion]

It's not about the numbers.

 

But I got 41 during my visit to California last week. YAHOO!!

[avroair]

In the end it is goal oriented, and is good for achieving determined results, despite shortcuts like wearing hiking boots to a wedding!

 

And there is always a 12 Step program to get you through: 12 Steps to Geocaching

Edited May 10, 2005 by avroair

[+JMBella]

It's always been about the numbers for me. The number 1. As in the next ONE I find. Although I must admit right now it's about the next 19 I find.

[+Jerseytrex]

"Step 9: You now think you are ready to help others with their caches and offer suggestions anytime you finish a cache. You carry your GPS everywhere you go, vacations etc. to bag caches in other states and countries. You also discover locationless caches and binge on those for a month... anything to boost your numbers! You stop trying to convince your friends that geocaching is trendy and all the cool people are doing (even though they are)"

 

I believe that Nikki has arrived at this stage. I think I will probably skip over this one myself.

"Look! It's a house made of toothpicks! Thats a Cache!"

I hear this every weekend now.

Happy Hunting!

[+Team Bam Bam]

I'm confused and I could really use some help. About 6 months ago the 'in' thing was to state emphatically that it is not, in fact, about the numbers. Has the tide turned? Is it now acceptable (hip, even) to admit that it is? I need to know so I can craft future forum posts to allign myself with what the cool kids are doing.

[+Team DEMP]

Is there any sport or hobby that doesn't keep score?

 

When you play sports (golf, baseball, softball, football, hockey, bowling, etc) you keep score. When my kids go skiing, they keep track of the number of runs.

 

For hobbys of all kinds, people keep score. If you collect beer cans, you know how many beer cans. If you collect clocks, you know how many clocks you have.

 

Everything we do is based on counting - number of days of vacation, the salary you make, the number of days left until the weekend, the number of miles you need to drive to get some place, and on and on.

 

So, we keep track of the number of caches we find, as we hike and keep tracks to determine the distance we hiked, Sounds normal to me.

[+splicingdan]

The found number here on GC.com means SQUAT.

 

But......

If some value were to be placed on that number based on the difficulty and terrain rating system, then we'd truly have a competitive game here that would be ego satisfying.

[mortonfox]

Numbers schnumbers.

[+briansnat]

For me its always been about the cool places I get to see and the time spent outdoors. I was never much for numbers (my find count after 3 1/2 years of this bears witness to that).

 

That being said, I'm not totally obilvious to numbers. As I approach an important milestone like my 147th, 247th or 347th find, I do feel a certain sense of accomplishment when I reach it.

[+Team DEMP]

The found number here on GC.com means SQUAT.

 

But......

If some value were to be placed on that number based on the difficulty and terrain rating system, then we'd truly have a competitive game here that would be ego satisfying.

The found number has a meaning. You might not put as much weight behind the number and what it represents, but just as I'm 6 foot tall and someone else might be 5' 10", there's a comparison that can be made. But, if I'm 165 and that person is 430, my height alone isn't an indication of me as a whole.

 

So, if all my caches were 1/1 and all yours were 4/4, sure, our numbers side by side are meaningless if you're looking at the "value" of the caches the number represents, but the total number of caches compared to another has a valid meaning, at least to me.

 

Now if everyone kept their finds in GSAK, it would be easy to export and write a macro that came up with some "value" for the number of caches found based on the D/T value.

Edited May 10, 2005 by Team DEMP

[+Team DEMP]

And then of course, just the D/T isn't a complete representation of the value of a cache.

 

As an example, my daughter remembers a particular easy cache because it was our first FTF on it. It wasn't difficult, but she still remembers it.

 

Or a sneaky cache that BrianSnat had because it was interesting and we actually met Brian for the first time while we were looking for it.

 

Those caches are memorable to my daughter (and for me because she was so excited about them) just as much as me finding a single cache after a 8 mi hike.

 

So, when someone figures out a way to rate the above caches consistently across all caches/cachers, let me know. Until then, we have number of finds which represents some effort/addiction/enjoyment we get with this hobby.

[+bushwackin' schmo]

It's not about the numbers, It's all about the icons! You are not cool 'till you got the full house!

[+The Frantic Cachers]

For me its about the numbers. My number represents the amount of time I was able to get out with my family. As small as it may be, each and every little find meant alot. So yes, the numbers are important because each one is a memorable experience that I won't forget. And those few times i went out by myself was that "alone" time that we all need once in a while. Just sucks that my numbers can't be higher.

[+geobernd]

For me it's about both...

First and formost (in most cases) the hike - the landscape - the experience. Then numbers come in pretty quick... It somehow feels better to finish a long hiking day with 5+ finds compared to 1 or 2. And imagine hiking quite some distance and then having to log a DNF and not another cache to go to...

I don't do drive by's - with rare exceptions... I want to park my car - know I can go for 4-8 hours - make a nice loop hike.... If that hike only has 1-2 caches - so be it \...

But that's the beauty of this: It's different for everyone...

 

And regardless of all I have said above - I am looking forward to hitting 300 (is that denial? )

[+webscouter.]

For me it is about the lack of numbers. Only 148 caches left in my 100 mile circle.

[+jonboy]

I started out being quite obsessed about the numbers, but the caches always need some interesting terrain if I was going to drive any distance to find them. Now I find I am even less interested in non-wilderness type of caches than ever. Also for me, I want to spend most of my day walking, not scrabbling around in the leaves looking for a needle in a hay stack. I look for a series of caches, in a wilderness setting, so that I can visit an interesting area, have a nice hike, and yes, roll up a few smilies, but if those smilies entail nothing more than walking a hundred yards from the car, I could care less.

[+nikcap]

I don't understand. How is it not be about the numbers?

Whatelse would you enter into your GPS? I think the game that doesn't numbers is call letterboxing.

[+macatac1961]

Definitely about the numbers... 136 DNF's, 30% chance of rain, $2000 in silly electronic equipment, 175,000 miles on my first new vehicle and another $30 in gas and lunch to go figure out what Joefrog hid in Queens.

[+lakelady]

As I am approaching 300 it is definitely about the numbers. But then again it is definitely about the hike and getting outside. Heck, its just a whole lot of fun no matter what your goal is. My favorite though is a good circuit hike with a bunch of caches along the way.

[+HartClimbs]

Just a heads up - I'm not logging online anymore but by my calculations (hmmm, let me see...carry the two...divide by 16...square root of -1....got it!) I've found 18,234.3 caches so far (the .3 cache calculation may be a rounding error).

 

I look at geocaching more like fishing or hiking. Doesn't matter if I catch 5 or 7 fishes, or cover 12 or 20 miles, it's a great day outdoors. OF course, your mileage may vary - and the beauty is, it's really up to the individual what's important to them.

 

Some people spend all day counting their money, others might spend all day counting their "finds", others might count their blessings. I'm a VERY competitive person - but never found geocaching a competitive sport. Everyone's different.

 

So numbers don't matter to me at least...... unless of course they do.

[Orly]

Couple of observations from a "non Caching Spouse"

1. Spouse was recommended to get exercise several years ago and went into a exercise program, due to accident had to give that particular program up, started walking instead.

2. Started Geocaching to add interest to walks, said it was boring to walk the same route.

3. Started Visiting a variety of places.

4. Started taking son on walks with him, which is a good thing.

5. Says he enjoys the puzzle aspect, (Which Med people say keeps minds young)

6. Usually finds unusual places to see if we are traveling.

 

It is not just about the numbers for him. It is a hobby, but he did tell me that he sees an element of obsessiveness in some of the players and says he needs to guide against that. He also tells me that he thinks that there is a fad element present and that he thinks it will be all over and done with within a relatively short period of time, he says like CB radios.

 

But for now he is having some fun without analyzing the whole reason and getting out for some recreation. It is his thing and tell the truth it is not going to become my thing.

[avroair]

It's not about the numbers, It's all about the icons! You are not cool 'till you got the full house!

Then keep looking cause there are now: German Geocoins, Colorado Geocoins, Geowoodstock Geocoins... My cache is lame geocoins! Pretty soon there is going to be 20 kinds of coins each with a different icon line.

[+splicingdan]

The found number here on GC.com means SQUAT.

 

But......

If some value were to be placed on that number based on the difficulty and terrain rating system, then we'd truly have a competitive game here that would be ego satisfying.

The found number has a meaning. You might not put as much weight behind the number and what it represents, but just as I'm 6 foot tall and someone else might be 5' 10", there's a comparison that can be made. But, if I'm 165 and that person is 430, my height alone isn't an indication of me as a whole.

 

Good analogy.

 

I see as someone holding up a sign that says "look at me, I have xxx finds and I can't wait until I hit xxxx"

I'm saying, how can the number mean something when events and CITOs count exactly the same as a 5/5 cache.

 

The number has little relevance to one's caching experiences - the one thing that it's supposed to represent.

Edited May 10, 2005 by splicingdan

[+BlackBuck]

That would make a nice feature if you could average out your diffeculty/terrain ratings on your finds,just to make things a little more intresting.Maybe the next gsak upgrade could have that feature?

[+GPS_David]

I'm just going by the numbers as it seems important to you guys. I figured you guys would want to know my 50th was "The Cache of the Dead Bum". I hope to have 100 by the end of July and 200 by my 1 year anniversary.

 

I know it's important to you guys... not me :-)

 

Dave

[+Perfect Tommy]

That would make a nice feature if you could average out your diffeculty/terrain ratings on your finds,...

 

This would be interesting but it presupposes that people accurately rate the difficulty and terrain ratings for their caches. When I use the Clayjar system, I usually find myseld knocking off a star so the cache rating more closely reflects my own experience as to what a 1/1 is as opposed to a 3/3 and also to conform the rating to match the D/T of similar type caches in the area. I'm sure we've all encountered caches that were either overrated or underrated whether in difficulty or terrain.

 

On topic, it is all about the numbers. Otherwise, there would only be about a third of the people participating in this activity - it would be more akin to letterboxing which, to my knowledge, does not maintain stats or rankings.

 

As one of the early 'cachers in the area (4 years in July), I admit that numbers were important (hell, I remember the days when Stayfloopy was in double-digits) and a lot tougher to come by. Nowadays you can't swing a dead cat around at an Event without hitting a kilocacher. <Dr. Phil>Sure numbers matter and you should take pride in your numbers but don't geocache just for the numbers - do it for yourself. </Dr. Phil>

[+ODragon]

Everyone plays differently I guess. To me, it's an order thing:

 

First it's about FTFs, then icons, then doing all the caches on my first page, then doing all the caches by someone who does caches I enjoy and so on until I get to the end where I think the last thing is numbers.

[+Squealy]

I think it goes in a cycle.

 

At first you're totally excited about the experience and finding the cache. You get a little more into the numbers as you reach your 100th find. Then, 300th and 500th.

 

For a while, I really didn't care but as I got closer to the 1000 mark I was definitely all about the numbers. As the weather gets nicer now and having hit my 1000th, I am definitely about getting out there and getting to cool locations and hiking (despite the fact that I am going on a numbers run Saturday) and hopefully soon overnight and extended backpacking letting the caches fall where they may.

 

I have definitely slowed since I hit my 1000th but have an urge to bang out a large number - hence the cycle theory.

 

I like Mark's idea of setting personal goals, etc b/c the fact is unless I win the lotto, I know I am not catching those who are waaaaay ahead of me - unless, I spend a week in Nashville or something.

 

In the end - f' it. Do whatever makes you happy. After all it is your HOBBY (It is SO not a sport or a game because we all win).

[+Team DEMP]

That would make a nice feature if you could average out your diffeculty/terrain ratings on your finds,just to make things a little more intresting.Maybe the next gsak upgrade could have that feature?

You can do it quickly today assuming you have Excel or a similar program.

 

In GSAK, set the filter to only show Found caches.

Click on File / Print and select Grid View.

Click the Preview button.

In the HTML page that is then displayed, highlight all the data except the title and right click / copy.

Launch Excel and right click / paste.

Then delete all the columns other then Terrain / Difficuly.

Scroll to the bottom and in the row at the end enter in =AVERAGE(A1:Axxx) and =AVERAGE(B1:Bxxx) as the formulas and it should show the average.

 

You can also see the number of each caches, etc.

 

Here's what I quickly show which I think is lower then I would expect, but it's likely more due to hitting 1-2 value caches with my 2 daughters.

Average Difficulty: 1.83

Average Terrain: 2.02

 

Throwing together a quick Pivot Table on that same data:

Number of Caches by Difficulty:

1.0: 111

1.5: 104

2.0: 153

2.5: 72

3.0: 38

3.5: 3

4.0: 6

4.5: 1

5.0: 0

 

Number of Caches by Terrain:

1.0: 107

1.5: 111

2.0: 88

2.5: 65

3.0: 65

3.5: 22

4.0: 18

4.5: 1

5.0: 1

 

David

Edited May 10, 2005 by Team DEMP

[+BMSquared]

Has the tide turned? Is it now acceptable (hip, even) to admit that it is? I need to know so I can craft future forum posts to allign myself with what the cool kids are doing.

Hip people don't blast the Wiggles Greatest hits while heading out caching. Just a fine point. By the way snookems, you forgot to have your dictionary handy. ALIGN only has one L.

 

For me, its not about the numbers, its about the formula BMSquared=(Team Bam Bam) +1. See, not the number, but the formula. The smack talk it triggers is great.

[avroair]

Has the tide turned? Is it now acceptable (hip, even) to admit that it is? I need to know so I can craft future forum posts to allign myself with what the cool kids are doing. 

Hip people don't blast the Wiggles Greatest hits while heading out caching. Just a fine point. By the way snookems, you forgot to have your dictionary handy. ALIGN only has one L.

 

For me, its not about the numbers, its about the formula BMSquared=(Team Bam Bam) +1. See, not the number, but the formula. The smack talk it triggers is great.

The way I see it BM2+2 = TBB (you forgot TBB #4).

 

Everyone has their own goals for caching, which involves number one way or another... the only numbers I hate are the ones that lead me 70 feet off!

[+GPS_David]

Has the tide turned? Is it now acceptable (hip, even) to admit that it is? I need to know so I can craft future forum posts to allign myself with what the cool kids are doing. 

Hip people don't blast the Wiggles Greatest hits while heading out caching. Just a fine point. By the way snookems, you forgot to have your dictionary handy. ALIGN only has one L.

 

For me, its not about the numbers, its about the formula BMSquared=(Team Bam Bam) +1. See, not the number, but the formula. The smack talk it triggers is great.

Umm... I'm just not hip

 

If the Wiggles don't go in the car, if the DVD player isn't ready with "Hot Potato", then my son will not go with me.

 

Can we change the not hip part to Barney or something?

 

Dave

[+BMSquared]

The way I see it BM2+2 = TBB (you forgot TBB #4).

Sorry let me rephrase that:

BM2 Score = TBB Score +1. Does that make it better?

[+HartClimbs]

That would make a nice feature if you could average out your diffeculty/terrain ratings on your finds,just to make things a little more intresting.Maybe the next gsak upgrade could have that feature?

You can do it quickly today assuming you have Excel or a similar program.

 

In GSAK, set the filter to only show Found caches.

Click on File / Print and select Grid View.

Click the Preview button.

In the HTML page that is then displayed, highlight all the data except the title and right click / copy.

Launch Excel and right click / paste.

Then delete all the columns other then Terrain / Difficuly.

Scroll to the bottom and in the row at the end enter in =AVERAGE(A1:Axxx) and =AVERAGE(B1:Bxxx) as the formulas and it should show the average.

 

You can also see the number of each caches, etc.

 

Here's what I quickly show which I think is lower then I would expect, but it's likely more due to hitting 1-2 value caches with my 2 daughters.

Average Difficulty: 1.83

Average Terrain: 2.02

 

Throwing together a quick Pivot Table on that same data:

Number of Caches by Difficulty:

1.0: 111

1.5: 104

2.0: 153

2.5: 72

3.0: 38

3.5: 3

4.0: 6

4.5: 1

5.0: 0

 

Number of Caches by Terrain:

1.0: 107

1.5: 111

2.0: 88

2.5: 65

3.0: 65

3.5: 22

4.0: 18

4.5: 1

5.0: 1

 

David

Problem with this is - people tend to over-rate their caches for terrain.

 

Steeps Over Greenbrook is like a 4 or 4.5 star terrain cache. Pleaaaaaase.

 

Maybe I've spent too much time out hiking and enjoy the walk too much, but while I've found (or not found) some very DIFFICULT caches, very few have been very challenging terrain-wise from my perspective.

 

It's really subjective though as every individual's different - but I think terrain tends to get overrated in general. (considering there are caches that are overnight hikes in the tetons that are only 3's & 4's for terrain). Just one man's opinion.

 

Of course, ask me in 40 years, or if I put on 200lbs and my perspecitve might change.

[+briansnat]

Very few have been very challenging terrain-wise from my perspective.

 

I agree that many caches are overrated, but there are also some that are underrated so it probably balances out.

 

There really isn't much in the way of true 4.5 star terrain in NJ. The ones I've found that were rated 4 or higher were mostly wishful thinking on the part of the hider.

 

On the other hand some caches are rated lower than they should be. I know most of the Cache Ninja ones I've found could have stood another star or two for the terrain and there are others.

 

Here'e one that I think provides some challenge, but I believe its rated appropriately. I'm sure however that some finders may disagree and think it should be higher - or lower.

Edited May 11, 2005 by briansnat

[+Harry Dolphin]

Oh, no! Not another boulder field! Where do you find these things, Brian?!?

[avroair]

I made up my mind.

 

NO, it's not about the numbers, ---- it's about the EVENTS!!!

 

[+Team Rampant Lion]

Very few have been very challenging terrain-wise from my perspective.

 

I agree that many caches are overrated, but there are also some that are underrated so it probably balances out.

 

There really isn't much in the way of true 4.5 star terrain in NJ. The ones I've found that were rated 4 or higher were mostly wishful thinking on the part of the hider.

Ok, I'll admit it. I tend to be a terrain over-rater from a hiker perspective. I am attending Over-Raters Anonymous and enrolled in the 10 step program. Here's what they told me:

 

1). Just because you placed the cache in two feet of snow does not mean that everyone else will go look for it in two feet of snow.

 

2). You cannot assume that cache seekers will be carrying 3 50 cal, fully loaded ammo cans when searching for your hide as you were when you hid them.

 

3). Adding stars to terrain difficulty due to wildlife encounters (bears, poisonous snakes, etc...) is not appropriate.

 

4). Adding stars because you have bad knees is also not appropriate.

 

5). Your big dog appearing to have a heart attack as a result of the hike is not an adequate measure of terrain difficulty since your big dog appears that way even when asked to move out from in front of the TV.

 

6). A 4 star terrain rating should really include an assumption of physical injury (at least a good blister) and a 5 star terrain difficulty should suggest the death of at least one member of the search party.

 

Some of you have helped me more appropriately rate my caches and I thank you. I'll stay with the program and hopefully get better.

[avroair]

Very few have been very challenging terrain-wise from my perspective.

 

I agree that many caches are overrated, but there are also some that are underrated so it probably balances out.

 

There really isn't much in the way of true 4.5 star terrain in NJ. The ones I've found that were rated 4 or higher were mostly wishful thinking on the part of the hider.

Ok, I'll admit it. I tend to be a terrain over-rater from a hiker perspective. I am attending Over-Raters Anonymous and enrolled in the 10 step program. Here's what they told me:

 

1). Just because you placed the cache in two feet of snow does not mean that everyone else will go look for it in two feet of snow.

 

2). You cannot assume that cache seekers will be carrying 3 50 cal, fully loaded ammo cans when searching for your hide as you were when you hid them.

 

3). Adding stars to terrain difficulty due to wildlife encounters (bears, poisonous snakes, etc...) is not appropriate.

 

4). Adding stars because you have bad knees is also not appropriate.

 

5). Your big dog appearing to have a heart attack as a result of the hike is not an adequate measure of terrain difficulty since your big dog appears that way even when asked to move out from in front of the TV.

 

6). A 4 star terrain rating should really include an assumption of physical injury (at least a good blister) and a 5 star terrain difficulty should suggest the death of at least one member of the search party.

 

Some of you have helped me more appropriately rate my caches and I thank you. I'll stay with the program and hopefully get better.

I think most people rate their caches a little on the high side. It is a natural tendency when you place a cache. I take suggestions from finders and lower or higher them accordingly.

 

It is important to note that just placing a cache and waiting for people to go and find it is also foolhardy and will require more maintenance in the long run. Some caches have higher seasonal terrain ratings --- there are many in the Pine Barrens that could be a 2 then jump to a 4! Brian's "A Walk in the Park" can do from a 1.5 to a 5!!! Actively recognizing that the terrain may need altering is all part of maintaining the cache.

 

Just my 2 cents...

[+briansnat]

Brian's "A Walk in the Park" can do from a 1.5 to a 5!!!

 

I don't think its ever a 1.5.

[+JoiseyGirl]

Numbers there are numbers? I just like the smiley faces and the fresh air and definately the events.

Edited May 13, 2005 by JoiseyGirl

[+Team Rampant Lion]

It is important to note that just placing a cache and waiting for people to go and find it is also foolhardy and will require more maintenance in the long run.

I'm not sure I understand what your saying here (and don't like being called foolhardy ).

 

I place my caches with purpose and then watch to see if anyone gets eaten!

[avroair]

Brian's "A Walk in the Park" can do from a 1.5 to a 5!!!

 

I don't think its ever a 1.5.

I know one fellow who rated it a 1.5 - saw it from the parking lot and touched it with a 10 foot pole!