Definitions of difficulty/terrain ratings

August 24, 2001

Details like those don't lend themselves to a ratings thingy like this. (If you try to take into account every detail that could be there, it would become far too cumbersome to use effectively.) Obviously, you would definitely want to note important details in the description.

For example, there seems to be a whole set of caches around my area that have been done by people on bikes. In the description, it notes that they recommend you use a bike to get there, but you can walk it if you want. I can think of no way to put something like that into a ratings calculator, but that's why there are descriptions.

August 24, 2001

quote:
Originally posted by ClayJar:
Details like those don't lend themselves to a ratings thingy like this. (If you try to take into account every detail that could be there, it would become far too cumbersome to use effectively.) Obviously, you would definitely want to note important details in the description.

For example, there seems to be a whole set of caches around my area that have been done by people on bikes. In the description, it notes that they recommend you use a bike to get there, but you can walk it if you want. I can think of no way to put something like that into a ratings calculator, but that's why there are descriptions.

How did I know that you have a few caches that require a bike or can you use one in your area when you made this rating system? Just a notion.

The caches in this area you really can't use a bike. They require hiking to some falls, crossing a creek, or hike a ravine. nothing you could use a bike or a wheeled aid. But require the use of balance with hands out touching nothing. I would suggest this in the What is the terrain elevation like? description

------------------

Bought a eTrex Legend on 7/24/01

I was part of or placed these Caches

http://www.geocaching.com/rating.htm

August 24, 2001

quote:
Originally posted by Bob_and_Genny:
The rating system can be implemented in JavaScript pretty easy:

http://www.bobshome.org/geocaching/rating.html

Bob

Bob: as soon as I click one of the buttons, I get a javascript error. I went ahead and finished clicking everything I needed to, and the ratings came up ok. But there was still a javascript error note at the bottom.

Check line 80: DifficultyRating is not defined.

------------------

> Martin

Magellan 330 (1.56/WAAS enabled!)

Don't have time to program and record your shows while geocaching? Get a TiVo !

August 24, 2001

Bob (from Bob_and_Genny):

I tried it (11:49 CDT 8/24/01) and had no problem. It's pretty slick, too. Nothing against ClayJar's - and I'll use that until Jeremy gets something up and running on the main site, but on yours the answer was right there very quickly. Nice job.

August 24, 2001

The Difficultyrating was misspelled in java. I fixed the spelling and put it on the site so you can see it without the error -

Question - Are both forms basically using the same math/rating system?

Jeremy

August 24, 2001

It does appear to have use the same math as my original GCRS application which all the rest of these are based on.

I'm happy to see some real progress being made here! This is a much needed thing in my opinion.

Thanks to all of you that have contributed!

brokenwing

August 24, 2001

try. I still feel descriptions of the terrain should be used in the cache posting.

I hope this explains what was intended. If you still feel there is a real need to add to this, I'm sure all of us would welcome suggestions. Can you better describe what and where you think changes are needed?

Thanks,

brokenwing

August 24, 2001

I just want to post some references to the old posts about this subject for those that may have joined us recently:

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/ubb/Forum2/HTML/000295.html

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/ubb/Forum2/HTML/000331.html

A particurlarly good, but long thread:

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/ubb/Forum2/HTML/000456.html

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/ubb/Forum2/HTML/000506.html

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/ubb/Forum2/HTML/000652.html

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000322.html

Thanks,

brokenwing

August 24, 2001

Thanks Broken Wing for giving me the opportunity to respond with what I think would be a good description with mountain conditions we have around in this area of So California ......

Other trail types

Could be gravel, sand, mud, rocks etc. May be an animal trail. If you're riding a bike, it had better be a mountain bike which you might have to carry in parts.

Trail? What trail?

There is no real trail. Wheels are out. May be following a stream bed, very rocky or be a ledge where balance comes into play.

Steep elevation chages

Change is steep or rocky steps. Probably could not ride a bike up this slope, but could push it up or carry it up.

I mean these are minor changes but I was in the first place just adding my opinion since I was having a hard time rating my caches. The rating system is awesome but since this is still a new game and it will go under more editing i'm sure

------------------

Bought a eTrex Legend on 7/24/01

I was part of or placed these Caches

[This message has been edited by HomeChicken (edited 24 August 2001).]

August 24, 2001

Here are my concerns:

quote:
Originally posted by HomeChicken:
Thanks Broken Wing for giving me the opertunity to respond with what I think would be a good description with mountain conditions we have around in this area of So California ......

Other trail types

Could be gravel, sand, mud, rocks etc. May be an animal trail. If you're riding a bike, it had better be a mountain bike which you might have to carry in parts.

This fundamentally changes the rating of the trail. Some people do bike while on cache hunts and would like to know if it will be 'doable' on the bike. In my opinion, a 3 terrain should be 'doable' on a mountain bike. If we change this to add rocks at level 3 instead of level 4 where it is now, then this is no longer so.

quote:
Trail? What trail?

There is no real trail. Wheels are out. May be following a stream bed, very rocky or be a ledge where balance comes into play.

I'm still a little unclear on the ledge thing. Why does it need it's own rating under the trail conditions? Is this a ledge you climb? Maybe it falls under elevation?

quote:
Steep elevation chages

Change is steep or rocky steps. Probably could not ride a bike up this slope, but could push it up or carry it up.

Please explain. Rocky steps don't seem to be elevation related. I'd consider them a terrain feature.

Thanks for the input.

Brokenwing

August 24, 2001

quote:
This fundamentally changes the rating of the trail. Some people do bike while on cache hunts and would like to know if it will be 'doable' on the bike. In my opinion, a 3 terrain should be 'doable' on a mountain bike. If we change this to add rocks at level 3 instead of level 4 where it is now, then this is no longer so.

There should be a middle doable on a bike. where as you might have to carry the bike a small ways. real heavy duty bikers know this and sometimes have to carry their bike and would not mind thats the fun.

quote:
I'm still a little unclear on the ledge thing. Why does it need it's own rating under the trail conditions? Is this a ledge you climb? Maybe it falls under elevation?

I'm trying to imply a balance factor here or even a fear of hights. you are not fearful on a elevation change

quote:
Please explain. Rocky steps don't seem to be elevation related. I'd consider them a terrain feature

lets say a area where there are falls where there are bolders you must climb or step on to make that elevation change.

you could be right and also I could be right.

------------------

Bought a eTrex Legend on 7/24/01

I was part of or placed these Caches

August 24, 2001

quote:
Originally posted by HomeChicken:
you could be right and also I could be right.

It's really not about being right, I just want to ensure the rating system is simple, usable, and easy to understand.

quote:
Originally posted by HomeChicken:
There should be a middle doable on a bike. where as you might have to carry the bike a small ways. real heavy duty bikers know this and sometimes have to carry their bike and would not mind thats the fun.

There is a middle doable. Remember that there are .5's in the rating system also. This is where the human factor comes in. If you have a cache that one could ride a bike to, but might have to carry the bike part way, it could be rated 3.5. That's a judgement call based on the actual conditions. I'd say, continuing our example, that if it's mostly riding with some carrying, maybe it gets the 3.5. If, however I have to carry as much as I ride, it gets a 4 based on the rating system as it stands.

That's what the .5 are for, afterall. It's for those conditions that fall inbetween the descriptions. There are obviously going to be some variances in this, since we can't possibly account for everything ahead of time.

quote:
Originally posted by HomeChicken:
I'm trying to imply a balance factor here or even a fear of hights. you are not fearful on a elevation change

I guess that depends on the elevation change! Seriously, if the only way to negotiate that terrain is through balancing on a ledge or high rock of some kind that is not a part of a steep elevation change, just rate it a 4+ and get on with it. That seems like such an uncommon terrain feature when caching, that I don't think it warrants mention on it's own.

I think we have to make some judgement calls based on the intent of the system. The examples are just that, examples. They are not meant to be all encompassing.

Thanks,

brokenwing

August 24, 2001

Okay I lose!

You win again Broken Wing.

What your saying is use your brains when using this rating system and add the .5 when I think it is suppose to do it for you. I've done a good job rating my own caches and will continue to do so.

Also Thanx,

HomeChicken

------------------

Bought a eTrex Legend on 7/24/01

I was part of or placed these Caches

http://www.bobshome.org/geocaching/rating1.html

August 24, 2001

Wow, I don't look at this thread for a few hours and it explodes with activity!

quote:
Originally posted by jeremy:
The Difficultyrating was misspelled in java. I fixed the spelling and put it on the site so you can see it without the error -

http://www.geocaching.com/rating.htm

Question - Are both forms basically using the same math/rating system?

Jeremy

Jeremy,

Thanks for fixing that typo. Did you fix all the other spelling errors too The calculations are based on what Bokenwing did earlier and what ClayJar implemented in CGI. There shouldn't be any differences in the ratings using either one (If I did it correctly).

quote:
HomeChicken wrote:
Thanks Broken Wing for giving me the opportunity to respond with what I think would be a good description with mountain conditions we have around in this area of So California ......

It should be pretty easy to make changes to the Javascript and check the results. I played with the wording a little when I created my page, but left the rating system the same. Here's a version that adds another level to the terrain but doesn't quite work right yet.

One of the good things about the existing rating system is that a lot of discussion went into defining it (based on the previous threads I read). Adding more examples of for each level though would be good.

Bob

August 24, 2001

Cool someone that listens to suggestions! I'll book mark your site and direct everyone that asks there since the page it does change with the sport!

Check out my Signature

------------------

Bought a eTrex Legend on 7/24/01

I was part of or placed these Caches

Need to rate your own Cache?

August 24, 2001

quote:
Originally posted by jeremy:

Question - Are both forms basically using the same math/rating system?

Jeremy

Thats a good question! They both look and read close to the same.

------------------

Bought a eTrex Legend on 7/24/01

I was part of or placed these Caches

Need to rate your own Cache?

August 24, 2001

Bob I would put maybe the "needs balance" next to "Narrow with steep drop-offs"

All this really encourages me to make my own ratings page because I hate to tell bob how to write his page..but that is the whole problem everyone has their own limits.

I feel I've gone a little to far already, sorry everyone!

------------------

Bought a eTrex Legend on 7/24/01

I was part of or placed these Caches

Need to rate your own Cache?

August 24, 2001

The whole idea of the discussions was to come up with a uniform set of suggested descriptions for ratings. Now we're going to have splinter rating systems. Not good.

August 24, 2001

quote:
Originally posted by Markwell:
The whole idea of the discussions was to come up with a uniform set of suggested descriptions for ratings. Now we're going to have splinter rating systems. Not good.

I have to agree with Markwell. Without a standard we are no better off than we are now. Surely we can all come to some sort of consensus here.

HomeChicken, If I'm off base with my thoughts, tell me. Don't just decide that you are going to come up with something you like better. The whole point of all of this is to define a standard. This has been discussed for a couple of months here on the boards and the GCRS was the result of that.

We put all this stuff here in a public forum so that everyone has an opportunity to contribute. You have every right to voice your opinion, just as I do. I'm not opposed to your ideas, just please prove to the rest of us that have worked hard on this that changes are legitimately needed. Frankly, so far, I don't think you've done that. If we change this every time someone thinks it needs something new, we'll never get a standard.

The real question is, can you live with it the way it is, or is there a fundamental flaw that the rest of us have missed?

Bob, I don't know if this is what you are referring to, but one major problem I see with your new system is that it allows ratings over 5. As 5 is the maximum that can be entered on a cache posting, this seems to me like a major flaw. I would ask for the reasons outlined above, to please not define a new system until it is approved here. The only result of that is a fractured standard that serves no one.

All you lurkers out there, let's hear your opinion. This is your chance to have your voice heard. Once a rating system is posted officially, It will be very difficult to change.

Thanks,

brokenwing

edited for spelling...

[This message has been edited by brokenwing (edited 24 August 2001).]

August 24, 2001

quote:
The bike examples were used because I thought it was something that mostly everyone could relate to

Broken Wing,

I think the rating is very vague and what I tried to say is the suggestions I made would narrow things down better with the some implications of rocks because thats what I think is something that mostly everyone could relate with.

------------------

Bought a eTrex Legend on 7/24/01

I was part of or placed these Caches

Need to rate your own Cache?

http://www.geocaching.com/rating.htm

August 24, 2001

quote:
Originally posted by HomeChicken:
Broken Wing,

I think the rating is very vague and what I tried to say is the suggestions I made would narrow things down better with the some implications of rocks because thats what I think is something that mostly everyone could relate with.

I certainly don't have a problem with being more descriptive. What I objected to was that a rocky trail already is listed, it's described as a level 4 item. What you proposed is that it be moved to level 3. That's what I had a problem with. If I misinterpreted this, please let me know.

Thanks,

brokenwing

August 24, 2001

4.75, or 5 for an overnight cache, depending on the other answers, it will always say it's a 4.

Not a hard thing to fix, I'd imagine, but it is a significant difference should you end up going on an overnight cache over 10 miles long with no trail, very heavy overgrowth, and severe elevation changes. (Note, by the way, that if you were going to attempt this theoretical cache, you would probably want to be using extra equipment, like you would for a rock-climbing or scuba cache.)

--

Now, about the ratings in general. I think that our long discussions amongst many cachers on these boards have given us a very good system (and I'm not just saying that because I worked on the second implementation of that system). At this point, I'd say that small clarifications are still acceptable (they will most definitely be deeply discussed first), but fundamental changes would require a very good reason.

We are all humans, and I absolutely expect people to adjust the computed ratings when necessary. When it comes to adjusting the algorithm for computing that rating, however, I absolutely require a well-reasoned and thorough explanation for the change. If a case can be made for a fundamental change to the ratings calculation algorithm, it will be considered by everyone involved, and if it is agreed upon, it will be implemented, but if it is not, it should not be. (Note: I have had a few of my own ideas shot down in these disussions, and I honestly believe we all came to the best result because of it.)

(Man, that sounded way too harsh. Please don't be mad at me. I'm a geek, and we're inherently opinionated... look at Linus Torvalds for example. Oh, and as for being more descriptive, I'm all for that.)

[This message has been edited by ClayJar (edited 24 August 2001).]

August 24, 2001

Just another point here. The original standard did not have the additional examples in it that I added when I wrote the GCRS. I added those because I thought it would help clarify the ratings. Although I think brevity is important here, we can make each description a page long if we need to, as long as the original standard is maintained. As originally posted:

TERRAIN:

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

2 = 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.)

3 = 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.

4 = 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. )

5 = requires specialized equipment and knowledge/experience. (Boat, 4WD, rock climbing, SCUBA, etc.)

DIFFICULTY:

1 = Easy. In plain sight or can be found in a few minutes of searching.

2 = Average. The average cache hunter would be able to find this in less than 30 minutes of hunting.

3 = Challenging. An experienced cache hunter will find this challenging, and it could take up a good portion of an afternoon.

4 = Difficult. A real challenge for the experienced cache hunter ? may require special skills or knowledge, or in-depth preparation to find. May require multiple days / trips to complete.

5 = Extreme. A serious mental or physical challenge. Requires specialized knowledge, skills, or equipment to find cache.

Some parts are intentionally a little vague because it is up to the poster to figure out where the cache fits. There is no way to cover every possible cache condition. Remember there are also the .5's that are not addressed above. Those give the poster flexibility to tweak the system as needed.

Let's not get too hung up on any additional descriptions, that may, or may not have been in the programs. The important thing is not whether the program descriptions work for you, but do the programs rate caches according to the standard posted above?

In reality, I hardly use the programs at all. They are just a sideline to the rating system. I just compare the cache to the system above and rate it. It does not need to be any more complicated than that. The key is simplicity. My intention when I developed the original program was first to show that it was possible, and second to help those that felt they needed the help, to rate a cache.

By the way, good catch on the math, ClayJar. That would make a difference.

Thanks,

brokenwing

[This message has been edited by brokenwing (edited 24 August 2001).]

August 24, 2001

quote:
I certainly don't have a problem with being more descriptive. What I objected to was that a rocky trail already is listed, it's described as a level 4 item. What you proposed is that it be moved to level 3. That's what I had a problem with. If I misinterpreted this, please let me know

Okay then I agree the rocky trail is listed as number 4. But isn't 3 in the middle? then the bike is doable but you must pick it up a small amount because of roots, rocks, small stream

ie. look at the picture on my Urban Jungle cache under "be careful"

you would rate that as doable on a bike? or do you think that should be a class 4 hike? class three yes class four no.

This is what I posted earlier that should be edited:

Could be gravel, sand, mud, rocks etc. May be an animal trail. If you're riding a bike, it had better be a mountain bike which you might have to carry in parts

Probably could not ride a bike up this slope, but could push it up or carry it up

these what would this tell you as a cacher?? very small elevation changes or obsticles

I almost give up!!!!

no one??? HELP?

------------------

Bought a eTrex Legend on 7/24/01

I was part of or placed these Caches

Need to rate your own Cache?

August 24, 2001

s three yes class four no.

This is hard to say without seeing the rest of the hike. If the rest is similar to the picture, I'd definitely call it a 4.

Forget about the programs for a minute and look at the original system. Where do you think your cache fits? Based simply on the picture and the rating system as it stands, this cache should likely be a 4. It could easily be more or less, though and that's up to you to decide based on what you know about the route.

My interpretation here is that you object to this particular cache being called a 4. Is that the issue? If so, why do you object?

Thanks,

brokenwing

By the way, I think you are doing an excenent job of letting people know what to expect on your caches. Lots of folks could learn from what you've done. I especially like the pictures and good trail descriptions.

August 24, 2001

s three yes class four no.

This is hard to say without seeing the rest of the hike. If the rest is similar to the picture, I'd definitely call it a 4.

Forget about the programs for a minute and look at the original system. Where do you think your cache fits? Based simply on the picture and the rating system as it stands, this cache should likely be a 4. It could easily be more or less, though and that's up to you to decide based on what you know about the route.

My interpretation here is that you object to this particular cache being called a 4. Is that the issue? If so, why do you object?

Thanks,

brokenwing

By the way, I think you are doing an excenent job of letting people know what to expect on your caches. Lots of folks could learn from what you've done. I especially like the pictures and good trail descriptions.

August 24, 2001

Okay Broken I totally loss my train of thought and what I was arguing. I see what you mean about the rocky trail being a class four. but in the Urban Jungle cache you seen with the picture the hike was only about 100 feet through something like a jungle with a trail that is natural made with the hardest part being the crossing. I have gone on caches that they were rocky here and there but not down a stream or completely rocky and there fore I would call them a 3 but would warn them that it would be rocky and might have to carry their bike or whatever.

I still think the class three should include small obstacles other wise I think class two and three are to close together

Wow what a day and you sure made me think!

------------------

Bought a eTrex Legend on 7/24/01

I was part of or placed these Caches

Need to rate your own Cache?