Question about difficulty & terrain ratings

[+Dreamer of Pictures]

I wonder if geocaching has ever used or considered using cache-hunter ratings of site difficulty and terrain, instead of or in addition to cache-placer ratings.

 

Generally speaking, in our home area, we have found a considerable difference in actual degree of difficulty in caches rated at difficulty 1, and a considerable difference in terrain between caches rated at terrain 1.

 

My guess is that the experience and preferences of the cache-placers vary a lot. Some may think easy means say 10 minutes of off-path semi-bushwhacking, and others may think easy means on the edge of a paved path in a fully described and easily recognizable hiding place.

 

I am sure the same is true for cache-finders.

 

However, as time goes, and more folks find a given cache, and the finders post ratings for their own sense of difficulty and terrain for each found cache, then the average of those ratings might produce more uniformity in the ratings than what I have experienced thus far.

 

Dreamer of Pictures

[+Mopar]

This has been brought up lots of times, if your interested you can use the forum search feature.

Maybe if everyone used the

Geocache Rating System that is linked right next to where you enter the ratings for your cache, there would be less confusion.

My personal pet peeve are the 1 star terrain caches. According to the GCRS, a 1 star terrain must be wheelchair accessibly. I did one that was rated 1 terrain that you had to hike down a narrow trail, leap over a small washout/gully, then bushwack up the side of a hill, climbing over fallen trees. Try that in a wheelchair!

 

Tae-Kwon-Leap is not a path to a door, but a road leading forever towards the horizon.

[+Renegade Knight]

Ultimatly if you had user ratings what you would end up with is an average of everyone subjective ratings.

 

Not bad, but you have to know what you are looking at.

 

=====================

Wherever you go there you are.

[+briansnat]

Finders can (and should) post their opinion of the cache hider's ratings in their logs. As a cache owner I appreciate input if my terrain, or difficulty rating is off the mark.

 

I wish more people would use this website's ratings as a guide. I found a cache with a 1 star terrain rating last weekend that required a bushwhack down a steep, slippery and heavily forested hillside, a stream crossing (no bridge) and traversing a swampy area that sucked in my wife's sneaker (which she wore instead of hiking boots because of the rating).

 

It didn't remotely resemble the flat, paved, handicap accessable path that a 1 star rating is supposed to represent. I did make note of the fact in my log, but I doubt the owner will change it.

 

"Au pays des aveugles, les borgnes sont rois"

[+Geo-Ferrets]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dreamer of Pictures:

I wonder if geocaching has ever used or considered using cache-hunter ratings of site difficulty and terrain, instead of or in addition to cache-placer ratings.

---

 

Jeremy says he's got that on his wishlist for the mythic "new site". In the meantime, I've put together a system you can use to add rating feedback to your cache page.

Check it out.

[+HitsMan and Chris]

Geo-Ferrets, you should add a "Fun" rating to your system. I highly endorse the fun index, and include a fun rating in all my found log entries. Helps everyone separate the caches that shouldn't be missed from the ones that are not as creative.

[+southdeltan]

That's interesting. I've looked through several of the caches and I've found that some are dead on and some are off. I wonder if the theory that eventually the finder-rated ratings will all go to 2.5/2.5 (I think I saw that theory, I may be imagining things tho...).

 

One recommendation - list the number of votes. That's useful for gauging the accuracy of the ratings. If the rating is way off and only 1 person has voted - that says something. If way off and there are several dozen votes - that says something else.

 

I think I'll try that system out on my few caches.

 

southdeltan

 

"Man can counterfeit everything except silence". - William Faulkner

[+woodsters]

When placing our cache this past saturday, my son and I were talking about what the ratings of it should be. We both figured 2/3.5. When I went to log the cache in, I used the little rating system. One of the questions really didn't cover my situation as one answer was easier than mine and the next answer was harder than mine. I did them both way to try and figure out an average. One gave me a 2/3.25 and the other gave me a 2/4. We were pretty much right on with a 2/3.5 . I think that system, they have works fine. It doesn't cover all the situations, but you can work around it and use common sense and get a good rating for it.

 

Brian

 

As long as you're going to think anyway, think big. -Donald Trump

[+Eswau]

One thing that I have always wondered about is the tie in of distance to terrain. Using the rating system on geocaching.com (which is the Clay Jar link), if I walk down a flat paved walking trail for 1.5 miles the terrain rating is a 2. If that same flat paved trail is 2.5 miles long the terrain goes up to a 3 and if the same trail is over 10 miles long the terrain rating goes up to a 4. All could theoretically be handicapped accessible. In this case, shouldn't distance walked be more associated with difficulty instead of terrain?

 

E

 

Always remember that you are unique. Just like everybody else.

[+briansnat]

quote:

---

One thing that I have always wondered about is the tie in of distance to terrain. Using the rating system on geocaching.com (which is the Clay Jar link), if I walk down a flat paved walking trail for 1.5 miles the terrain rating is a 2. If that same flat paved trail is 2.5 miles long the terrain goes up to a 3 and if the same trail is over 10 miles long the terrain rating goes up to a 4. All could theoretically be handicapped accessible. In this case, shouldn't distance walked be more associated with difficulty instead of terrain?

---

 

I don't use the rating Clayjar's program spits out, because it often doesn't seem to jibe with the rating descriptions. It seems to overrate the terrain by about a star. I just go by the published description of each rating and use the one that best fits my cache.

 

Still, 10 miles on a paved path can be a tough walk, or especially hard for someone in a wheelchair. I agree that 4 stars seem to be a bit high in this case, but as I said, the program seems to rate the terrain about 1 star too high.

 

"You can't make a man by standing a sheep on his hind legs. But by standing a flock of sheep in that position, you can make a crowd of men" - Max Beerbohm

[+Geofool]

I use Clayjar's rating system as a guideline and them tweak the rating if it looks a little off.

 

GF

 

********************************************

Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

 

[+Eswau]

quote:

---

Still, 10 miles on a paved path can be a tough walk, or especially hard for someone in a wheelchair.

---

 

That's my point, wouldn't that make it a more difficult rating, not a higher terrian rating?

 

E

 

Always remember that you are unique. Just like everybody else.

[+ClayJar]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eswau:

In this case, shouldn't distance walked be more associated with difficulty instead of terrain?

---

This comes down to the working definitions of "difficulty" and "terrain". The somewhat over-simplified definitions are:

 

Terrain: What it takes to get from the beginning to the coordinates. (This basically covers from the time you get out of your car to the time you put the GPS receiver in your pocket and switch to The Force.)

 

Difficulty: What it takes to find/open/log the cache once you've arrived at the coordinates. (This covers hunting for the container, finding lock combinations, or whatever else is not part of getting from car to cache.)

 

The question about where puzzles fall, difficulty or terrain, has been asked before as well. The consensus is that since solving puzzles (or the like) to get the coordinates is not directly involved in getting to those coordinates, it's difficulty. (Reading the coordinates is obviously not part of the cache's terrain, and writing the coordinates in roman numerals would obviously not change the cache's terrain. It follows that writing the coordinates in an even more complex language, i.e. a puzzle, would not be capable of impacting the cache's terrain.)

 

[[[ ClayJar Networks ]]]

Home of Watcher downloads, Official Geocaching Chat, and the Geocache Rating System

[Tahosa and Sons]

I've found the current system close enough to be of assistance. With the altitude and size of our little hills here in CO, I may up it a star or a half a star, when it comes to terrain.

 

The difficulty rating depends on what the hide comprises of. If I put them a good ways from the road, I usually put, but not always the coordinates for the cache. If it involves some compass calculations the stars go up.

 

The 5 star for terrain when you use a 4x4 to gain access to the cache area is a misnomer, after the ride it can be a 2 to 3 star rating.

 

And the D&T's can depend entirely on the searchers smarts and fitness. I still get a giggle out of one cache I put out there, I believe its a 3.5 star, up the hill, thru the woods, and the finder wasn't sure if his coordinates were right, there was no trail on the map. Now what does coordinates have to do with the illusion of a trail?

 

Tahosa - Dweller of Mountain Tops.

[+Xitron]

While not even at 30 finds yet I have seen some degree of differences in the way caches are rated. We did our first 3 and 3 and it was a workout for us. When we were planning another outing we decided to do one "hard one" and a few easy ones. The supposed hard one was along a bike path then down a trail that was flat and level. We were the first to find it, and I believe it was because of its rating alot of people didn't attempt it. My friend noted it in the logs in hopes the owner would lower it to what we considered a 1.5 1.5. A wheel chair could not get there, but just about anyone else could. I know we all have our opinions on what is difficult so I think it would be a good idea to include what the cache finders think the difficulty of the cache was. If I had seen flat and level we still would have done the cache but would have planned a harder one as well. Just my 2 cents.

 

I see your lips moving but all I hear is blah blah blah