+TheFrontRanger Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 I'm curious to know folks' thoughts on acceptable cache heights. I know there is a Tree Climbing attribute, but what about non-tree caches that are placed out of arm's reach for the 'average' cacher? Quote Link to comment
+Uncle Alaska Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 The sky is the limit? Quote Link to comment
+NanCycle Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 I'm curious to know folks' thoughts on acceptable cache heights. I know there is a Tree Climbing attribute, but what about non-tree caches that are placed out of arm's reach for the 'average' cacher? I've done caches where I've had to bring a reacher-grabber or even a ladder. I don't like the ones that are placed within reach of a 6-footer, assuming that everyone can reach them, but I do appreciate a heads-up if they are going to be too high for a 5-footer so I can bring the necessary equipment. Quote Link to comment
+Roman! Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 The sky is the limit? No it's not, there is a cache in space. Quote Link to comment
+narcissa Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 No such thing as "acceptable" height limit. Just make sure your cache rating takes it into account. Quote Link to comment
Keystone Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 There was a spirited discussion on a similar question about a month ago. Quote Link to comment
+L0ne.R Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 I'm curious to know folks' thoughts on acceptable cache heights. I know there is a Tree Climbing attribute, but what about non-tree caches that are placed out of arm's reach for the 'average' cacher? It would be fair and decent of cache hiders to take into consideration the height of the average adult woman, then apply the appropriate terrain rating. There are many adult women cachers who cache alone - it would be discriminatory if women were expected to cache with taller people (tall people are not required to cache with short people) or carry a ladder or reaching tool. If a tool like a ladder or stool or reaching device for a 5'4" woman would be required, the terrain rating should reflect it, at least a 3.5T. Also appropriate to include would be a tree climbing attribute, and an explanation in the the cache description that shorter adults will need a ladder or reaching tool. Quote Link to comment
+narcissa Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 I'm curious to know folks' thoughts on acceptable cache heights. I know there is a Tree Climbing attribute, but what about non-tree caches that are placed out of arm's reach for the 'average' cacher? It would be fair and decent of cache hiders to take into consideration the height of the average adult woman, then apply the appropriate terrain rating. There are many adult women cachers who cache alone - it would be discriminatory if women were expected to cache with taller people (tall people are not required to cache with short people) or carry a ladder or reaching tool. If a tool like a ladder or stool or reaching device for a 5'4" woman would be required, the terrain rating should reflect it, at least a 3.5T. Also appropriate to include would be a tree climbing attribute, and an explanation in the the cache description that shorter adults will need a ladder or reaching tool. This 5'4" woman who sometimes caches alone agrees! Quote Link to comment
+K13 Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 A cache which requires my 6'2"+ frame to bend down to ground level is just as discriminatory. Quote Link to comment
+bflentje Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 it would be discriminatory if women were expected to cache with taller people This right here is exactly what's wrong with today's civilization. Quote Link to comment
+TheFrontRanger Posted March 2, 2015 Author Share Posted March 2, 2015 Thanks for the info and suggestions. Maybe I'll include the following image when I submit the cache : Quote Link to comment
+Mudfrog Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 I agree that it is nice when a CO supplies info on a cache that may be harder to reach for some reason. But, this is not mandatory and should be left up to a CO. I just don't see anything unfair about caches hidden in ways some people can't get. A cache is good to go if it's rated correctly. Think about it this way. A CO purposely places a cache with good camo that is extremely hard to find. Should that cache owner add a hint and/or info to the cache page letting me know what to look for? Should i complain that he hid it too hard for someone like me who isn't as good at figuring out new cache hides that i've never come across before? We have to realize that there will be caches that we won't be able to find. This is a part of geocaching! Quote Link to comment
+J Grouchy Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 it would be discriminatory if women were expected to cache with taller people This right here is exactly what's wrong with today's civilization. Yeah, you know...I don't get the "discriminatory" comment. What about a cache that is high enough for someone that's 5'4" tall, but too high for someone with dwarfism? Isn't that discrimination against 'little people'? Way I see it, if it's possible for someone that isn't abnormally tall to reach up and grab it without assistance, I'm not going to rate it higher. I don't feel it's justified to rate a D1.5 cache as a D2 just because my wife might need to jump up to reach it. Quote Link to comment
+Manville Possum Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 We recently found a small magnetic bottle cap cache about 20 up a lamp post. Our family account maintains a nano on a lamp post about 12 feet up. Quote Link to comment
+L0ne.R Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 it would be discriminatory if women were expected to cache with taller people This right here is exactly what's wrong with today's civilization. Yeah, you know...I don't get the "discriminatory" comment. What about a cache that is high enough for someone that's 5'4" tall, but too high for someone with dwarfism? Isn't that discrimination against 'little people'? I'm talking average. (I'm below average for an adult woman.) I'm only suggesting that we consider the average 50% of the adult population. Quote Link to comment
+L0ne.R Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 Way I see it, if it's possible for someone that isn't abnormally tall to reach up and grab it without assistance This suggests that the standard should be an average adult male. Correct? Quote Link to comment
+narcissa Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 Way I see it, if it's possible for someone that isn't abnormally tall to reach up and grab it without assistance This suggests that the standard should be an average adult male. Correct? It should be so that anyone within one standard deviation of the mean should be able to reach it without climbing or using special equipment. Quote Link to comment
+J Grouchy Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 Way I see it, if it's possible for someone that isn't abnormally tall to reach up and grab it without assistance This suggests that the standard should be an average adult male. Correct? I'm not suggesting ANY standard...only that unless it requires Andre the Giant or Robert Wadlow to reach it, I'm not going to worry too much about the terrain or difficulty ratings when considering the height of its placement. Quote Link to comment
+L0ne.R Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 Way I see it, if it's possible for someone that isn't abnormally tall to reach up and grab it without assistance This suggests that the standard should be an average adult male. Correct? It should be so that anyone within one standard deviation of the mean should be able to reach it without climbing or using special equipment. If my math is right, for Canadian caches the average combination of adult male (5'9") and adult female (5'4") would be 5'6 1/2". So if someone 5'6.5" cannot reach the cache without climbing or using a tool (stool, log, ladder, tongs, etc), the terrain at the very least should be T3.5 and, at the very least (IMO), an explanation in the description that a reaching tool may be required. Quote Link to comment
+Roman! Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 (edited) Problem solved: Edited March 2, 2015 by Roman! Quote Link to comment
+L0ne.R Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 Way I see it, if it's possible for someone that isn't abnormally tall to reach up and grab it without assistance This suggests that the standard should be an average adult male. Correct? I'm not suggesting ANY standard...only that unless it requires Andre the Giant or Robert Wadlow to reach it, I'm not going to worry too much about the terrain or difficulty ratings when considering the height of its placement. I've been burned by the too low terrain ratings tall people place on their caches. Often a tall person will rate a cache 7 feet up a tree as a 2.5T. Also, often there will be no mention of the height issue in the description or it's buried in the hint (fgergpu). Quote Link to comment
+L0ne.R Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 Problem solved: Set an example. Go caching in those and tell me how it goes. Take photos for proof. Quote Link to comment
+gpsblake Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 Don't laugh, how about an attribute for caches for those who are "vertically challenged"?? Quote Link to comment
+niraD Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 Problem solved:Sure, until you break your ankle. Then you've got a much bigger problem... And then there are the caches with the hint "eye level", that I have to look up to see. And I'm 6'3" (1.90m). Quote Link to comment
+larryc43230 Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 And then there are the caches with the hint "eye level", that I have to look up to see. And I'm 6'3" (1.90m). Yeah, I do a serious eye roll every time I read a cache hint that says "eye level". Whose eyes? I'm almost six feet tall, and I've learned to look a bit down when I read that. The best hint I've seen about the height of a cache read something like "Eye level, if you're about 5' 6". --Larry Quote Link to comment
knowschad Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 And then there are the caches with the hint "eye level", that I have to look up to see. And I'm 6'3" (1.90m). Whose eyes? I'm almost six feet tall, and I've learned to look a bit down when I read that. --Larry Especially when the hider is an average height woman. Quote Link to comment
+narcissa Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 Problem solved:Sure, until you break your ankle. Then you've got a much bigger problem... And then there are the caches with the hint "eye level", that I have to look up to see. And I'm 6'3" (1.90m). "Eye level" is a complex calculation that has to factor in the cache owner's height, the cacher's height, the snow depth at time of hiding, and the snow depth at time of finding. Quote Link to comment
+J Grouchy Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 Way I see it, if it's possible for someone that isn't abnormally tall to reach up and grab it without assistance This suggests that the standard should be an average adult male. Correct? It should be so that anyone within one standard deviation of the mean should be able to reach it without climbing or using special equipment. If my math is right, for Canadian caches the average combination of adult male (5'9") and adult female (5'4") would be 5'6 1/2". So if someone 5'6.5" cannot reach the cache without climbing or using a tool (stool, log, ladder, tongs, etc), the terrain at the very least should be T3.5 and, at the very least (IMO), an explanation in the description that a reaching tool may be required. T3.5 just for having to step on a rock to reach the cache? That's absurd! Quote Link to comment
+L0ne.R Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 (edited) Way I see it, if it's possible for someone that isn't abnormally tall to reach up and grab it without assistance This suggests that the standard should be an average adult male. Correct? It should be so that anyone within one standard deviation of the mean should be able to reach it without climbing or using special equipment. If my math is right, for Canadian caches the average combination of adult male (5'9") and adult female (5'4") would be 5'6 1/2". So if someone 5'6.5" cannot reach the cache without climbing or using a tool (stool, log, ladder, tongs, etc), the terrain at the very least should be T3.5 and, at the very least (IMO), an explanation in the description that a reaching tool may be required. T3.5 just for having to step on a rock to reach the cache? That's absurd! Would it hurt to over-rate it than to under-rate it? Being short (under 5"4") I deliberately choose T ratings 3 and under, for one reason to avoid climbing and the disappointment of a cache being just out of reach with no rock or log to step up on. The 3.5 rating isn't even a coveted grid filler. So why not opt for the T3.5 instead of a T3 for a cache 7 feet up a tree with no easy step up for shorter adults to use? That way shorter people have a heads up, or can avoid it if they filter for T3 and under. Edited March 3, 2015 by L0ne.R Quote Link to comment
+Claystalker Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 I can't believe this is actually being discussed. Quote Link to comment
+L0ne.R Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 (edited) I can't believe this is actually being discussed. Yeah me too. Especially the push-back at helping the average adult woman geocacher with proper T ratings. It would help the average adult woman and harm no one (not even grid fillers). Edited March 3, 2015 by L0ne.R Quote Link to comment
+K13 Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 "Proper T ratings" for a short woman is not proper T rating for a tall person. The idea that cache T ratings should be set to match one cacher's height is absurd. Quote Link to comment
Andronicus Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 Well, since I am exactly average hight for a North American male, I just use myself as my yardstick for T ratings. Quote Link to comment
+J Grouchy Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 I can't believe this is actually being discussed. Yeah me too. Especially the push-back at helping the average adult woman geocacher with proper T ratings, that would help the average adult woman and harm no one (not even grid fillers). I can't believe I should be expected to "help the average" anything by bumping up the T rating to account for folks that may not be able to reach as high as me...or that the implication is that not doing so might "harm" someone. Quote Link to comment
+dprovan Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 I can't believe I should be expected to "help the average" anything by bumping up the T rating to account for folks that may not be able to reach as high as me...or that the implication is that not doing so might "harm" someone. OK, I can see that because of the phrasing, but wouldn't you say it makes sense to set the terrain rating taking into account average heights rather than basing the rating on just your own height? Quote Link to comment
knowschad Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 Well, since I am exactly average hight for a North American male, I just use myself as my yardstick for T ratings. I'm kind of low T, myself. Quote Link to comment
knowschad Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 We recently found a small magnetic bottle cap cache about 20 up a lamp post. Our family account maintains a nano on a lamp post about 12 feet up. Brilliant place to hide a bottle cap cache. Quote Link to comment
+J Grouchy Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 I can't believe I should be expected to "help the average" anything by bumping up the T rating to account for folks that may not be able to reach as high as me...or that the implication is that not doing so might "harm" someone. OK, I can see that because of the phrasing, but wouldn't you say it makes sense to set the terrain rating taking into account average heights rather than basing the rating on just your own height? No...I don't think it does make sense. There will always be someone shorter. I don't feel that taking every height - or even average height - into account in the ratings is appropriate. If I was sticking a magnet 20 feet up a pole...that's one thing. I have at least two caches that I have placed at my own arm's reach (I'm 6'-2" tall) and rated T1.5. Only one log ever even suggested it ought to be a T2. The suggestion earlier in this thread that it ought to be a T3.5 is completely unreasonable. Quote Link to comment
knowschad Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 Suggested modification to the Clayjar terrain rating section: What is the terrain elevation like? How hard is the steepest part of the cache? Basically flat Only slight elevation changes. Easy to do in a wheelchair, stroller, bike, etc.Some elevation changes Changes are slight enough that someone could ride a bike up such a slope.Steep elevation changes Change is steep. Probably could not ride a bike up this slope, but could push it up.Severe elevation changes The only way up the slope is to use your hands. Going down may require the use of your backside. How tall is the cacher that is trying to find your cache? Under 5' 5'-5' 6" 5'6"-6' Over 6' Quote Link to comment
+Bubbles&Bonkers Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 (edited) Suggested modification to the Clayjar terrain rating section: What is the terrain elevation like? How hard is the steepest part of the cache? Basically flat Only slight elevation changes. Easy to do in a wheelchair, stroller, bike, etc.Some elevation changes Changes are slight enough that someone could ride a bike up such a slope.Steep elevation changes Change is steep. Probably could not ride a bike up this slope, but could push it up.Severe elevation changes The only way up the slope is to use your hands. Going down may require the use of your backside. How tall is the cacher that is trying to find your cache? Under 5' 5'-5' 6" 5'6"-6' Over 6' Discrimination!! What about those of us who fall in the 5'1-5'4 category? Hm? Huh? ETA: my bad -- We ARE in your chart. Whew. Thought I was gonna have to file a civil suit. Edited March 4, 2015 by Bubbles&Bonkers Quote Link to comment
+cheech gang Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 (edited) Suggested modification to the Clayjar terrain rating section: What is the terrain elevation like? How hard is the steepest part of the cache? Basically flat Only slight elevation changes. Easy to do in a wheelchair, stroller, bike, etc.Some elevation changes Changes are slight enough that someone could ride a bike up such a slope.Steep elevation changes Change is steep. Probably could not ride a bike up this slope, but could push it up.Severe elevation changes The only way up the slope is to use your hands. Going down may require the use of your backside. How tall is the cacher that is trying to find your cache? Under 5' 5'-5' 6" 5'6"-6' Over 6' Add: Does the cacher trying to find your cache have a sore shoulder? Edited March 4, 2015 by cheech gang Quote Link to comment
knowschad Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 (edited) Discrimination!! What about those of us who fall in the 5'1-5'4 category? Hm? Huh? Just looks wrong. Look closer. Edited March 4, 2015 by knowschad Quote Link to comment
+Bubbles&Bonkers Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 Suggested modification to the Clayjar terrain rating section: What is the terrain elevation like? How hard is the steepest part of the cache? Basically flat Only slight elevation changes. Easy to do in a wheelchair, stroller, bike, etc.Some elevation changes Changes are slight enough that someone could ride a bike up such a slope.Steep elevation changes Change is steep. Probably could not ride a bike up this slope, but could push it up.Severe elevation changes The only way up the slope is to use your hands. Going down may require the use of your backside. How tall is the cacher that is trying to find your cache? Under 5' 5'-5' 6" 5'6"-6' Over 6' Add: Does the cacher trying to find your cache have a sore shoulder? Yes, I do, actually! The left one. Quote Link to comment
knowschad Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 Add: Does the cacher trying to find your cache have a sore shoulder? Yes, I do, actually! The left one. Need a backrub? Quote Link to comment
+cheech gang Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 Suggested modification to the Clayjar terrain rating section: What is the terrain elevation like? How hard is the steepest part of the cache? Basically flat Only slight elevation changes. Easy to do in a wheelchair, stroller, bike, etc.Some elevation changes Changes are slight enough that someone could ride a bike up such a slope.Steep elevation changes Change is steep. Probably could not ride a bike up this slope, but could push it up.Severe elevation changes The only way up the slope is to use your hands. Going down may require the use of your backside. How tall is the cacher that is trying to find your cache? Under 5' 5'-5' 6" 5'6"-6' Over 6' Add: Does the cacher trying to find your cache have a sore shoulder? Yes, I do, actually! The left one. Revised: Does the cacher trying to find your cache have a sore shoulder? If the answer is NO then do not change the rating. If answer is YES then you must make a determination as to which predominate arm will be used by the cacher during their retrieval attempt. If it appears that the affected arm will not be employed then assume there is no need to revise the rating. If the affected arm will be used as the primary means of retrieval then you must consider revising the rating accordingly. If you are unable to make a rating determination with these hand holding instructions then it is assumed that you are not fit to be a responsible cache owner. Perhaps you should take up knitting instead. Quote Link to comment
+narcissa Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 In actuality, the determining factor is how often finders complain about the height. Quote Link to comment
+dprovan Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 No...I don't think it does make sense. There will always be someone shorter. I don't feel that taking every height - or even average height - into account in the ratings is appropriate. OK, so if you think you should only take your own height into account, that implies that the terrain rating should be different for exactly the same cache depending on whether the CO is 5', 6', or 7'? If a shorter person adopted your cache, should they change the rating? I have at least two caches that I have placed at my own arm's reach (I'm 6'-2" tall) and rated T1.5. Only one log ever even suggested it ought to be a T2. This statement implies I think there's something wrong about such a rating, but I'm just discussing the best way to make the terrain rating most informative to everyone, including people that don't know how tall you are. The suggestion earlier in this thread that it ought to be a T3.5 is completely unreasonable. Agreed, although at some point -- 8' tall with unnaturally long arms, for example -- we get into an area where a tool would be required for everyone except the CO, at which point we might go past the point where a half point bump is sufficient. Quote Link to comment
+J Grouchy Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 OK, so if you think you should only take your own height into account, that implies that the terrain rating should be different for exactly the same cache depending on whether the CO is 5', 6', or 7'? If a shorter person adopted your cache, should they change the rating? Not my cache, not my problem. I can't govern how someone else rates their own cache. This statement implies I think there's something wrong about such a rating, but I'm just discussing the best way to make the terrain rating most informative to everyone, including people that don't know how tall you are. To be fair, in both cases, the hiding spot is obvious...or at least very quickly deduced. I don't count standing on the balls of one's feet or hopping up 4 inches to grab the cache as warranting any terrain rating bumps...even half a star. Agreed, although at some point -- 8' tall with unnaturally long arms, for example -- we get into an area where a tool would be required for everyone except the CO, at which point we might go past the point where a half point bump is sufficient. Well...as I stated previously, there is obviously a limit. I'm 6'2"...not some Guinness World Record breaking giant. A sufficient percentage of the population can reach as high as me that I don't feel it's worthy of a rating bump. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.