Terrain rating too low?

[+NotThePainter]

My first hide , hidden almost 3 years ago, has recently recieved 2 complaints about the "rating" being too low.

 

The cache has difficulty 1.5 and a terrain of 2.5. The attributes include "not suitable for children" and "may require wading."

 

To reach the cache, you walk down a short (1/4 mile?) unpaved rails to trails path. At GZ you find an old railroad bridge crossing a creek.

 

The cache is tucked up under the timbers of the bridge. There are many ways to reach it, but the easiest is to wade about 5 to 10 feet through water than is probably less than 2 feet deep and then step up onto the timbers of the bridge. While holding on with one hand you reach up and retrieve the cache with the other.

 

The area has changed recently, there used to be a natural dam of sticks that you could walk across if you had good balance and then walk across the horizontal beam of the bridge. The dam is now gone. (The dam was not there when I placed the cache.) I think it is easier to wade, but of course you have to get wet.

 

Am I wronng in my terrain rating? It seems awfully easy for a 3. It is meant to give you a mild challenge. Most people who log it seem to like it. But 2 complaints in a row have got me second guessing.

 

Thanks!

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

I am a big fan of assigning worst-case and generous Terrain ratings, as I encounter many caches where the Terrain rating has been set too low. This does not bother me, as I prefer high-Terrain rating caches, but I am very much aware that many cachers are simply limited in terms of physical mobility, and thus are both unwilling and unable to tackle too-difficult terrain caches, and, if only for their sake, so that they may be appropriately forewarned, I like to see worst-case Terrain ratings assigned, much as the Clayjar guidelines suggest, anyway. Based upon what you have told us, and assuming that there is little climbing needed to reach the lower timbers of the bridge, and little climbing needed once on the understructure of the bridge, I would rate this a 3.5 Terrain. If there were significant vertical climbing, and/or if a fall from the highest point (needed to reach the cache) could result in serious injury or death, then you may wish to consider a Terrain rating of 4.0, at the least.

[+BlueDeuce]

Definite 2.5. 3? hmmm maybe. I'd have to be there to know for sure.

 

Just went and checked a local cache very similar to your. It's a 3 and there's no off trail route. I did have to walk through mud and then do a fairly serious climb. About 10 feet above the ground. (Hey you do it with muddy boots)

 

I'm not sure if a .5 rating increase would really make that much difference in your case.

[+cache_test_dummies]

Does the water appear to be easily wade-able? I mean, can you see the bottom, understand the depth, and it doesn't look like quicksand-muck? I don't mind getting wet, but if the appearance of the water didn't clearly seem to reflect an easy and safe wade when I got close, I would probably assume that the 2.5 terrain indicated an approach that didn't involve getting wet. Hard to say.

 

If I can get down that way, I'll make an attempt on your cache before winter gets here, and report back.

 

edit: that/the

Edited September 28, 2007 by cache_test_dummies

[+TrailGators]

If there was no water it would be a 1.5 because it's an easy 1/4 mile walk. The water adds some more difficulty (you have to take off your boots). So I think your 2.5 rating is right on target. Plus you have only received 2 complaints out of 88 finds. That is very low. To me a 3 star terrain cache typically involves a 5 mile hike with about 1000 feet of vertical gain. Your cache is a cake walk compared to that.

[+cache_test_dummies]

Did the FTFP mention that the terrain rating was questionable? *

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* I know g-o-cashers didn't, although he did mention getting wet. But I did promise to use the term "FTFP" more often, and I wanted to let you know that I keep my word.

[+briansnat]

Sounds about right to me, but hard to say without actually being there.

 

I get occasional complaints about my terrain ratings being too low, invariably from someone who is from out of state.

[+DeRock & The Psychic Cacher]

I've got some random thoughts for you. Some are conflicting.

 

I think you're being overly sensitive. The cache has 88 finds and only 3 DNFs in almost 3 years. You're worrying about 2 complaints in a row all of a sudden.

 

Has the area changed signifigantly lately for the worse? Seems like it's better to me with the holes being filled it.

 

Do you know the cachers who questioned the rating? What are their reputations (are they whiners?).

 

Just a quick oberservation - I think the difficulty is to low. Wear old clothes and bring gloves. Pick the high road and stay dry or the low road and get wet. You even call it a mild challange to retrieve.

 

I don't think it's a terrain issue but a PIA issue with these two complainers. Some folks just don't appreciate a cache that makes them work a little and think a little.

 

I'd give this one a 2.5 & 2.5 rating.

 

Wish I was traveling to your neck of the woods some time soon. Sounds like the kind of cache I would like!

 

Wandering off topic. Am I reading your profile right? No more FTFs before being published?

 

Deane

AKA: DeRock & the Psychic Cacher - Grattan MI

[+NotThePainter]

The step up to the bottom horizontal of the bridge is just that, a single step up. If there was a second rung, and there isn't, you would hit your head on the bottom of the bridge. This is not a death defying climb.

 

Check out this photo.

 

 

The horizontal beam can be seen to the troll's right. This isn't the one you step up on, that is closer to the center of the creek. And the water is incredibly low in this shot. You can see the dam behind the troll, that is gone now. Seem the horizontal beam at the top? That is the height the cache is at.

 

It is an easy slope to downward through very light brush to get to the creek.

 

The water changes in depth a lot, depending on the rain. At its lowest you can just walk in and it won't cover your boots, at it's deepest, it is about 2 feet, below the knees for sure.

 

Hey cache_test, you made me laugh, helps with the Sox game, thanks!

 

The area has changed for the better but you pretty much have to get wet to get it now. Before the area was repaired you could walk across the natural dam. This was, in my opinion, harder, but drier. So the bulk of the finders have done the cache without wading. (Interestingly, some earlier finders, when the dam wasn't in place, chose to climb down from the top! Others built bridges out of dead trees.)

 

The cache itself is pretty much out in the open, just sitting on the top horizontal timber.

 

And yes, I probably am being too sensitive... Thanks for listening.

[+NotThePainter]

Wandering off topic. Am I reading your profile right? No more FTFs before being published?

I hope I'm not beating a dead horse, but I don't understand... I never tried to find caches before they were published. At one time I was frustrated by that however. But that really belongs in the other topic.

 

Paul

[+BlueDeuce]

The horizontal beam can be seen to the troll's right. This isn't the one you step up on, that is closer to the center of the creek.

 

Oh goodness, double the height and shimmy up the angled timber with muddy boots. That would be a 3.

[+BlueDeuce]

[+cache_test_dummies]

Sorry. I don't care how difficult the climb, in order to log a find on this cache, you must be wearing a troll mask.

 

edit: And wearing shorts. Even if there is snow.

Edited September 28, 2007 by cache_test_dummies

[+BlueDeuce]

Sorry. I don't care how difficult the climb, in order to log a find on this cache, you must be wearing a troll mask.

 

edit: And wearing shorts. Even if there is snow.

 

yeah, but there's this really cool bar and grill nearby that sells great greasy burgers and has (seriously) hundreds of one dollar bills stuck to the ceiling. If you are willing to walk in there you should get credit for finding the cache. You can even walk out to the bridge with your beer.

 

 

 

Edited September 28, 2007 by BlueDeuce

[+Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking]

Im someone with physical limitations, who is often frustrated by underrated terrain caches. If you are concerned about other cachers like me, then posting on your cache page is often better than changing the terrain rating on your cache. This tells us what to expect and can help us in figuring out if its suitable for us or not. Im currently looking at a few hiking type cache pages in my area, now that the weather is cooling off. The terrain ratings are almost useless to me. I look at maps and read the cache page to get an idea of whether or not I can reasonably get this cache.

 

Granted I live in a much different area than your cache, but it seems like 2.5 is appropriate. I know that its likely to push at the limits of my physical abilities.

[+StarBrand]

2.5 sounds about right without me actually being there. 3 Seems like it would be a bit much. I would warn strongly about the wet potential but not change the rating.

[+H2OBob]

I've used the Clayjar rating page, and got a 2/4, however, like Vinny, I tend to go for the worst case scenario. I rated the trail "somewhat overgrown", because it probably is, near the stream, even though the main path in is good. I also rated it for "some elevation changes" for the climb up and down the stream bank. I think your rating is a pretty good compromise. I think the people that complained may have been there when the water was high, or maybe they were old guys like me, that like the paved trails.

 

I wouldn't worry about it too much. No two people are going to rate it the same, and if you try to satisfy some, the others will complain. We've got to realize that ratings are subjective opinions, and they will vary. Remember, it's your cache. Do it your way!

[+TrailGators]

The step up to the bottom horizontal of the bridge is just that, a single step up. If there was a second rung, and there isn't, you would hit your head on the bottom of the bridge. This is not a death defying climb.

 

Check out this photo.

 

 

The horizontal beam can be seen to the troll's right.

A troll! You never mentioned a troll being down there! That changes everything!

[+BlueDeuce]

A troll! You never mentioned a troll being down there! That changes everything!

 

I don't understand, you don't bring a goat when you bridge cache? Great, another flipping troll bridge newbie posting in the forums.

Edited September 28, 2007 by BlueDeuce

[Neos2]

Would you say the terrain is suitable for small children? If it isn't, then it probably ought to be a three.

 

It's got potential high water, lots of PI and bugs, loose footing on the slope (or on caught debris), tar on the bridge that requires gloves. I'm only 5'3"--so a couple of feet of water is over my knees, and if it's running fast, that's enough to knock me off my feet, easily.

 

I looked through the old logs and saw that many people "found it challenging" and a more than a few folks have suggested that it could have been rated higher (some more subtley than others). There were lots of seasonal mentions of poison ivy and loose footing on the slope down to the water.

 

I look at rating my caches this way: If I rate it too hard, wimps like me can feel good about going after a tougher cache and strong young things can feel disdainful about how easy it was, but at least they'll all be prepared for something a bit tougher than a casual stroll and a hide in a log pile. It does no harm to slightly overrate a cache. When I ran the Clayjar, I got a 1/3 for the cache (but I don't know if it's really that easy to retrieve and replace the hide, so the difficulty may be too low--hard to judge that without seeing it!)

 

Any cache that an average adult can't do in work casual clothing just before meeting a friend for lunch probably deserves at least a three.

[+TrailGators]

A troll! You never mentioned a troll being down there! That changes everything!

 

I don't understand, you don't bring a goat when you bridge cache? Great, another flipping troll bridge newbie posting in the forums.

I'm a Capricorn, so I don't need to bring a goat...

[+BlueDeuce]

 

Edit: Okay, back on topic.

Edited September 28, 2007 by BlueDeuce

[+TrailGators]

A troll! You never mentioned a troll being down there! That changes everything!

 

I don't understand, you don't bring a goat when you bridge cache? Great, another flipping troll bridge newbie posting in the forums.

I'm a Capricorn, so I don't need to bring a goat...

 

I stand corrected! My mistake. You must get a lot of cache invites.

 

Edit: Okay, back on topic.

Ah ha! So that is why people are asking me along....

 

After seeing the photos of that cache, it could even be rated a 2. It's slow moving/easy to wade water. So 2.5 is definitely OK, but 3 is too high. I would definitely warn people about getting their feet wet (and about the troll ).

[+BigWhiteTruck]

Remember, the ratings end at 5.

People complaining about the ratings being too low need to wonder why this cache:

and this cache:

have the same terrain rating. . .

[+Ambrosia]

The terrain seems fine, if not a bit high. But we seem to rate terrain a bit lower in our corner of the world than other places do. We're from the rugged NW.

[+edscott]

Maybe because of my other outdoor pursuits, I find terrain ratings in my local area are often too high. However, when caching in other areas.. most recent examples are in the Brevard / Dupont SF areas in North Carolina.. they seem to agree with my personal standards. I think the ratings caches get.. and the expectations of ratings by the finders... are greatly influenced by the personal outdoor experience of both the hider and the finder. The rating system is quite subjective so it will produce a wide range of results.

[+nekom]

I generally use that little widget and answer the questions as accurately as I can, and nobody has ever complained about terrain ratings on any of my caches. Of course, it's all subjective.

[+the hermit crabs]

Am I wrong in my terrain rating? It seems awfully easy for a 3. It is meant to give you a mild challenge. Most people who log it seem to like it. But 2 complaints in a row have got me second guessing.

I think 2.5 is fine. It will be easier for some people, harder for others, depending on their height and on the time of year they visit the cache.

 

The area has changed recently, there used to be a natural dam of sticks that you could walk across if you had good balance and then walk across the horizontal beam of the bridge. The dam is now gone. (The dam was not there when I placed the cache.) I think it is easier to wade, but of course you have to get wet.

For me, crossing the natural dam was much easier than wading would have been, since I found it in March -- the water was icy cold at the time, and probably deeper than when the cache was placed in the fall.

[+DanOCan]

Without having done the cache or been to the area I would agree 2.5 seems fair. That puts it right in the middle of the "kid friendly" / "not kid friendly" range.

 

I use the Clayjar system as do most people in our area so it seems to work. On our last vacation I felt many of the caches we did were rated with a Terrain that was too high so regional differences seem to come into play a lot as well.

 

Looks like a fun cache; I wish I was closer so I could do it.

[+cache_test_dummies]

I went out to hunt this cache today.

 

As I mentioned in my log, my goal was to attempt a retrieve and replace (two different trips) without getting my feet wet. Given the tricky maneuvering that my approach required, under the conditions I encountered, I'd say the 2.5 terrain rating is fine. Certainly not too high, in my opinion. The water was less than a foot deep, and you could tell that the bottom was stable and solid. So wading would have made the retrieval and return even easier. For me, the biggest difficult in the dry approach was during the two times (once during retrieval, once during the return) when I had to maneuver while holding the cache in one hand. My hiking stick and a log left behind by a previous person helped.

 

Oh, and I didn't see a troll - he must have the weekend off.

 

Here's a picture of the route I took. I worked my way across the little log, then climbed onto the bridge supports, working my way laterally across the horizontal beam you can see just above the water. I retrieved the cache, worked my way back to the log (one handed), then crossed the log again. After signing the log, I repeated the process to return the cache to its original spot.

 

 

Here's a slightly different view:

 

[+NotThePainter]

I went out to hunt this cache today.

Awesome, thanks for the update. I love the tiny log that a previous cacher obviously left behind. Lets just hope it doesn't start forming a natural dadgum again...

[+froldt]

This sounds like a great cache, wish it were located closer to home! One thing that I've noticed in few travels... people from different regions have a vastly different idea of terrain difficulty. What one person thinks is just a stroll through the woods seems to be bushwacking through a jungle for another. If you check, you might find that the 3 complaints you have received are simply from people who are less accustomed to such "challenges."

[+Glenn]

I went out to hunt this cache today.

 

As I mentioned in my log, my goal was to attempt a retrieve and replace (two different trips) without getting my feet wet. Given the tricky maneuvering that my approach required, under the conditions I encountered, I'd say the 2.5 terrain rating is fine. Certainly not too high, in my opinion. The water was less than a foot deep, and you could tell that the bottom was stable and solid. So wading would have made the retrieval and return even easier. For me, the biggest difficult in the dry approach was during the two times (once during retrieval, once during the return) when I had to maneuver while holding the cache in one hand. My hiking stick and a log left behind by a previous person helped.

 

Oh, and I didn't see a troll - he must have the weekend off.

 

Here's a picture of the route I took. I worked my way across the little log, then climbed onto the bridge supports, working my way laterally across the horizontal beam you can see just above the water. I retrieved the cache, worked my way back to the log (one handed), then crossed the log again. After signing the log, I repeated the process to return the cache to its original spot.

 

 

Here's a slightly different view:

 

 

I have to agree. From these photos the cache looks like it should have a terrain rating of at least 2 and as much as 3.

 

How did I come to this conclusion? I used ClayJar's Geocache Rating System. If you ever forget the link you can always find when submitting a cache. It is the link that says "Try this system to rate your cache." right there on the cache submit form!

 

How I answered the questions:

• Is specialized equipment required?
  No
  
• Is an overnight stay likely?
  No
  
• What is the length of the hike?
  Less than 1/2 mile
  
• What is the trail like?
  Well marked/defined hardpack
  
• Is the path bushy or overgrown?
  Not at all
  
• What is the terrain elevation like?
  Steep elevation changes
  

I've noticed that a lot of people don't take the last few feet leading up to a cache in to consideration. I base the "Steep elevation changes" off the fact that the slope in the first photo looks like one "Probably could not ride a bike up this slope, but could push it up." Which is the amplifying information given in the rating system to choose this option. This gives me a terrain rating of 3. However if you feel that the "Changes are slight enough that someone could ride a bike up such a slope." then that lowers the terrain rating to 2.25.

 

Use the ClayJar Cache Rating System! http://www.clayjar.com/gcrs/

[+imchasingshadows]

I, too, have some physical limitations and I think you are right on with your rating! By putting a little explanation in your narrative, you give everyone a heads-up without having to "water down" the terrain difficulty meaning. If I see a "3," I expect a serious physical challenge (for me) and may not even try the cache. But, if I see a 2 or 2.5, I'll look for an explanation in the narrative and give it a try.

Thanks for being sensitive to peoples' abilities, but, gosh, your cache looks SO doable!

 

I use a wheelchair sometimes, so I have great respect for the handicaching.com site and its scale for ratings.

I, also, believe that there is a little "wiggle room" between that scale and what a healthy, hearty, cacher expects from the GC rating.

 

Well, I went way over my 2 cents worth, so I guess you got my 10 cents today!