T1 vs Wheelchair attribute

[+Gill & Tony]

I have a couple of caches which are wheelchair accessible up to the coordinates, but which cannot be retrieved by someone sitting in a wheelchair. When I first tried to submit them (a couple of years ago) I put them as T1.5 with the wheelchair attribute set, but this was rejected by my reviewer. I dropped the wheelchair attribute and they were published.

 

I'm just checking if this is still the policy (Wheelchair attribute only allowed for T1 caches) or has it changed.

[+noncentric]

According to this Help Center article, "Wheelchair Accessible: Caches with a terrain rating of 1 must have this attribute."

 

It doesn't say that caches with the Wheelchair Accessible attribute must have a Terrain of 1, or can only be T1, but hopefully a Reviewer will chime in. Personally, I've always equated T1 with Wheelchair Accessible.

Edited April 26, 2017 by noncentric

[+cerberus1]

By the Guidelines for Wheelchair Accessibility, it says that "One way to identify them is by using the Terrain rating. One star usually means that it is handicapped-accessible. Terrain is likely to be paved, is relatively flat and less than a 1/2 mile hike is required".

 

But it also says, "Another method is to look for the geocache attribute designating 'wheelchair accessible'".

 

There's also a link for the Handicaching site there, and you supposedly can rate your caches by it's system.

 

It seems (to me) that "wheelchair accessible" wouldn't work on your cache if it isn't actually accessible (wheeling up to it and actually accessing it not being the same).

[+Gill & Tony]

It seems to me that having two ways to say the same thing is redundant.

 

If I was a wheelchair-bound cacher then I would need to filter for caches which I could find and retrieve and T=1 serves that purpose.

 

If I had a wheelchair-bound friend who wanted to accompany me on a caching trip, then I would need to search for caches where I could take a wheelchair and leave it somewhere so my friend could watch me search for the cache. This, I suggest, could be achieved by the wheelchair attribute.

 

It is easy to imagine a boardwalk or paved path passing the foot of a cliff. The cache is half-way up the cliff and needs climbing gear to reach it. To me that would be T5 with the wheelchair attribute.

[+geodarts]

In its broadest sense, a wheelchair does not necessarily mean terrain one. Some chairs are designed for the back country and some wheelchair users push the boundaries of where they can go. And if friends offer assistance, even a mountain can be climbed.

 

Still, even if a case could be made that a trail rated higher than T1 is accessible for certain users, I assume the attribute exists to allow someone to filter for caches that would comply with standard guidelines for accessibility (although some accessible trails might be higher than T1). And I also assume that the wheelchair attribute means that it can be found without a friend doing the actual search. It does not mean that the identified caches are the only ones that can be found by someone using a wheelchair - but rather is a starting point. There might be a certain redundancy to using both T1 and the attribute, but that is not necessarily a bad thing.

Edited April 26, 2017 by geodarts

[+Gill & Tony]

I'm sorry if I wasn't as clear as I could have been.

 

I didn't mean to suggest that a trail rated higher than T1 be given the wheelchair attribute. I meant to suggest that the T1 rating be used to show caches where the trail is T1 AND the cache can be reached from the wheelchair, whereas the Wheelchair attribute be used when the trail is T1, but the cache cannot necessarily be reached from the chair.

 

I know just how determined some wheelchair users can be. We visited Iguassu Falls a few years ago and one chap, a paraplegic, had two mates with him and they maneuvered his wheelchair into places I would never have thought possible.

 

I'm not suggesting that trails like that be given the wheelchair attribute. What I am suggesting is that there be a way of distinguishing caches that can be reached and found by someone in a wheelchair from those where there is a designated accessible path to GZ, but the cache may not be reachable from the wheelchair.

[+geodarts]

I'm sorry if I wasn't as clear as I could have been.

 

I didn't mean to suggest that a trail rated higher than T1 be given the wheelchair attribute. I meant to suggest that the T1 rating be used to show caches where the trail is T1 AND the cache can be reached from the wheelchair, whereas the Wheelchair attribute be used when the trail is T1, but the cache cannot necessarily be reached from the chair.

 

I know just how determined some wheelchair users can be. We visited Iguassu Falls a few years ago and one chap, a paraplegic, had two mates with him and they maneuvered his wheelchair into places I would never have thought possible.

 

I'm not suggesting that trails like that be given the wheelchair attribute. What I am suggesting is that there be a way of distinguishing caches that can be reached and found by someone in a wheelchair from those where there is a designated accessible path to GZ, but the cache may not be reachable from the wheelchair.

 

I understand, but I would use the attribute for designated accessible areas - such as trails that are ADA compliant -- even if they are longer than T1's half mile limit. And I would use it only for caches that actually can be retrieved from a wheelchair. In other words, I think a 1.5 terrain with a wheelchair attribute should be allowed as your first post indicated.

 

Limiting the attribute to the T1 guideline seems arbitrary or condescending and using it if the cache cannot be retrieved by a solo wheelchair user seems confusing.

Edited April 26, 2017 by geodarts

[+Team Microdot]

I have had a reviewer insist that if I wanted to rate a cache T1 then the wheelchair attribute MUST also be present.

[+narcissa]

T1 and the wheelchair attribute should only be used if a solo geocacher in a wheelchair can easily reach and retrieve the cache.

 

There are just some things you can't account for in the terrain rating or with attributes.

 

Furthermore, using the wheelchair attribute to denote that "a wheelchair can easily get close to this cache but you'll need a second person to actually retrieve it" is really not helpful and will lead to frustration.

[+Gill & Tony]

I have had a reviewer insist that if I wanted to rate a cache T1 then the wheelchair attribute MUST also be present.

I had the opposite. Wheelchair attribute means terrain must be 1. By definition, T1 means the cache must be accessible from a wheelchair, so it is logical that the attribute must be present.

 

However, terrain greater than 1 does not imply that a wheelchair cannot reach GZ, merely that the cache might not be reachable from a wheelchair.

[+Gill & Tony]

Furthermore, using the wheelchair attribute to denote that "a wheelchair can easily get close to this cache but you'll need a second person to actually retrieve it" is really not helpful and will lead to frustration.

I disagree. The combination of T>1 and wheelchair attribute is helpful to folk who want to get to GZ, but not necessarily find the cache themselves. One of my caches is close to a great lookout and council have spent time and money to provide a fully accessible path to the lookout. T1.5 and wheelchair attribute sums up the situation perfectly.

[+JL_HSTRE]

What I have read in this thread is contrary to what I thought was the intent of T1 and Wheelchair Accessible. In my mind:

 

T1 = cache is on flat, level pavement, sidewalk, boardwalk, or other very hard packed surface close to trailhead/parking. A wheelchair could get to GZ but not necessarily get the cache (such as if it were hanging very low or high).

 

Wheelchair Accessible = can reached from a wheelchair, both getting to GZ and retrieving.

 

So most T1 would be Wheelchair Accessible and vice versa, not neither is 1:1. However, that is clearly not the intent.

 

Regardless of my (mis)interpretation I hope Groundspeak has asked the Handicaching community how they want to use that rating and attribute.

 

Placing a geocache that is a true T1 seems incredibly difficult.

[+narcissa]

Furthermore, using the wheelchair attribute to denote that "a wheelchair can easily get close to this cache but you'll need a second person to actually retrieve it" is really not helpful and will lead to frustration.

I disagree. The combination of T>1 and wheelchair attribute is helpful to folk who want to get to GZ, but not necessarily find the cache themselves. One of my caches is close to a great lookout and council have spent time and money to provide a fully accessible path to the lookout. T1.5 and wheelchair attribute sums up the situation perfectly.

 

Geocaching.com is for geocache listings. It's not intended to indicate the general difficulty of getting to a location. It's intended to convey what is involved in reaching and retrieving the cache.

 

Additionally, it's just rude to stick the wheelchair attribute on a cache if it can't actually be done by someone in a wheelchair.

[+MartyBartfast]

 

T1 = cache is on flat, level pavement, sidewalk, boardwalk, or other very hard packed surface close to trailhead/parking. A wheelchair could get to GZ but not necessarily get the cache (such as if it were hanging very low or high).

 

Wheelchair Accessible = can reached from a wheelchair, both getting to GZ and retrieving.

 

 

That's exactly how I see it. There's no reason why you couldn't have a wheelchair accessible T1.5/T2 if it's >0.5 miles along a level paved path and reachable from the chair, or even a T2.5 wheelchair accessible if it's "Terrain may have small elevation changes or moderate overgrowth" but still doable for a person propelling their own chair and reachable when they get to it.

[+Team Microdot]

 

T1 = cache is on flat, level pavement, sidewalk, boardwalk, or other very hard packed surface close to trailhead/parking. A wheelchair could get to GZ but not necessarily get the cache (such as if it were hanging very low or high).

 

Wheelchair Accessible = can reached from a wheelchair, both getting to GZ and retrieving.

 

 

That's exactly how I see it. There's no reason why you couldn't have a wheelchair accessible T1.5/T2 if it's >0.5 miles along a level paved path and reachable from the chair, or even a T2.5 wheelchair accessible if it's "Terrain may have small elevation changes or moderate overgrowth" but still doable for a person propelling their own chair and reachable when they get to it.

 

That's exactly how I've always seen it too.

 

I was a bit shocked to be told I couldn't have a cache published as a T1 unless it also had the wheelchair attribute.

[+igator210]

I've walked a lot paths that might have some obstacle that a wheelchair couldn't navigate, but someone on crutches could easily navigate. Usually this involves something for drainage.

 

T1 and wheelchair accessible shouldn't go hand in hand.

 

What if: you get to parking lot, and it is surrounded by a 3 inch curb. From the parking lot there is a nice level paved trail. There is no way someone in a wheelchair can get to the path on their own, but someone on crutches or a walker could.

 

Does this automatically make it a T1.5?

[+narcissa]

I've walked a lot paths that might have some obstacle that a wheelchair couldn't navigate, but someone on crutches could easily navigate. Usually this involves something for drainage.

 

T1 and wheelchair accessible shouldn't go hand in hand.

 

What if: you get to parking lot, and it is surrounded by a 3 inch curb. From the parking lot there is a nice level paved trail. There is no way someone in a wheelchair can get to the path on their own, but someone on crutches or a walker could.

 

Does this automatically make it a T1.5?

 

Yes.

[+narcissa]

If a cache is up a tree, the terrain rating accounts for climbing the tree, even if the tree is next to a sidewalk.

 

The terrain rating must account for the actual retrieval of the cache. If someone in a wheelchair can't reasonably reach the cache on their own without leaving the wheelchair, it shouldn't be terrain 1 and it shouldn't have the attribute.

 

As soon as you start adding conditions, e.g. it's wheelchair accessible if you bring a friend, or it's wheelchair accessible if you are able to stand and reach for limited amounts of time, it's not really fair to use the attribute.

 

If you want people to know that the cache is on a nice trail, and the trail is wheelchair accessible, indicate that in the description. The terrain rating and attributes are for rating the cache, not advertising the trail.

Edited April 26, 2017 by narcissa

[+The Jester]

If a cache is up a tree, the terrain rating accounts for climbing the tree, even if the tree is next to a sidewalk.

 

The terrain rating must account for the actual retrieval of the cache. If someone in a wheelchair can't reasonably reach the cache on their own without leaving the wheelchair, it shouldn't be terrain 1 and it shouldn't have the attribute.

 

As soon as you start adding conditions, e.g. it's wheelchair accessible if you bring a friend, or it's wheelchair accessible if you are able to stand and reach for limited amounts of time, it's not really fair to use the attribute.

 

If you want people to know that the cache is on a nice trail, and the trail is wheelchair accessible, indicate that in the description. The terrain rating and attributes are for rating the cache, not advertising the trail.

What about a cache that is ground based, right next to a level, paved trail? It's terrain 1, but unreachable from a wheelchair. Does that really change the terrain? I was at the N. Wales Mega last summer and there were many caches that were at the edge of the trail (there was a board along the edge of the pavement, and fake stakes were a common hide) - how does that really affect the terrain?

[+narcissa]

If a cache is up a tree, the terrain rating accounts for climbing the tree, even if the tree is next to a sidewalk.

 

The terrain rating must account for the actual retrieval of the cache. If someone in a wheelchair can't reasonably reach the cache on their own without leaving the wheelchair, it shouldn't be terrain 1 and it shouldn't have the attribute.

 

As soon as you start adding conditions, e.g. it's wheelchair accessible if you bring a friend, or it's wheelchair accessible if you are able to stand and reach for limited amounts of time, it's not really fair to use the attribute.

 

If you want people to know that the cache is on a nice trail, and the trail is wheelchair accessible, indicate that in the description. The terrain rating and attributes are for rating the cache, not advertising the trail.

What about a cache that is ground based, right next to a level, paved trail? It's terrain 1, but unreachable from a wheelchair. Does that really change the terrain? I was at the N. Wales Mega last summer and there were many caches that were at the edge of the trail (there was a board along the edge of the pavement, and fake stakes were a common hide) - how does that really affect the terrain?

 

If it can't be accessed from the wheelchair then it shouldn't be terrain 1. As far as I am aware, terrain 1 has always been attached to the caveat that it must be accessible from the wheelchair. Any sort of barrier that prevents a person in a wheelchair from reasonably reaching it should change it to a terrain 1.5. This is just a convention that was created, at some point, to make it easier for people in wheelchairs to determine if a cache is truly accessible to them. Why nitpick that?

 

It's like the convention to make island caches terrain 5. Sure, it might be easy once you get to the island with a boat. Sure, you might be able to walk to the cache across ice in the winter. But it's convention that when a typical cacher will require special equipment to reach the cache, you make it a terrain 5.

[+Mudfrog]

 

T1 = cache is on flat, level pavement, sidewalk, boardwalk, or other very hard packed surface close to trailhead/parking. A wheelchair could get to GZ but not necessarily get the cache (such as if it were hanging very low or high).

 

Wheelchair Accessible = can reached from a wheelchair, both getting to GZ and retrieving.

 

 

That's exactly how I see it. There's no reason why you couldn't have a wheelchair accessible T1.5/T2 if it's >0.5 miles along a level paved path and reachable from the chair, or even a T2.5 wheelchair accessible if it's "Terrain may have small elevation changes or moderate overgrowth" but still doable for a person propelling their own chair and reachable when they get to it.

 

That's exactly how I've always seen it too.

 

I was a bit shocked to be told I couldn't have a cache published as a T1 unless it also had the wheelchair attribute.

 

A reviewer may suggest to a person to use an attribute but i don't believe their use is mandatory. I'm thinking your reviewer may have been wrong in that case. I've seen many a T1 cache without a wheelchair accessible attribute.

[+hzoi]

This really isn't that hard.

 

If a cache is accessible by a person in a wheelchair, it is T1. If it is not, it isn't T1.

 

Whether one wants to use the wheelchair attribute is a side issue -- and I hope I am somehow just not understanding the nuance behind Gill & Tony's reasoning, as I completely fail to understand why using the wheelchair attribute to denote when a cache is not accessible by a person in a wheelchair makes any sense whatsoever.

[+Harry Dolphin]

If it can't be accessed from the wheelchair then it shouldn't be terrain 1. As far as I am aware, terrain 1 has always been attached to the caveat that it must be accessible from the wheelchair. Any sort of barrier that prevents a person in a wheelchair from reasonably reaching it should change it to a terrain 1.5. This is just a convention that was created, at some point, to make it easier for people in wheelchairs to determine if a cache is truly accessible to them. Why nitpick that?

 

It's like the convention to make island caches terrain 5. Sure, it might be easy once you get to the island with a boat. Sure, you might be able to walk to the cache across ice in the winter. But it's convention that when a typical cacher will require special equipment to reach the cache, you make it a terrain 5.

 

As far as I know, the requirement that a T1 cache must be wheelchair available, and have the wheelchair attribute goes back about five years. I ran into problems with this in 2013. My T1 did not have the attribute, and would not be published without it. So I hid another that was wheelchair findable. (I'd always wanted a 5/1 cache.)

To the rest: This is Groundspeak's definition. GS makes the rules. Deal with it. T1 must fit the definition, and have the attribute. The many without the attribute probably date back more than five years.

[+narcissa]

If it can't be accessed from the wheelchair then it shouldn't be terrain 1. As far as I am aware, terrain 1 has always been attached to the caveat that it must be accessible from the wheelchair. Any sort of barrier that prevents a person in a wheelchair from reasonably reaching it should change it to a terrain 1.5. This is just a convention that was created, at some point, to make it easier for people in wheelchairs to determine if a cache is truly accessible to them. Why nitpick that?

 

It's like the convention to make island caches terrain 5. Sure, it might be easy once you get to the island with a boat. Sure, you might be able to walk to the cache across ice in the winter. But it's convention that when a typical cacher will require special equipment to reach the cache, you make it a terrain 5.

 

As far as I know, the requirement that a T1 cache must be wheelchair available, and have the wheelchair attribute goes back about five years. I ran into problems with this in 2013. My T1 did not have the attribute, and would not be published without it. So I hid another that was wheelchair findable. (I'd always wanted a 5/1 cache.)

To the rest: This is Groundspeak's definition. GS makes the rules. Deal with it. T1 must fit the definition, and have the attribute. The many without the attribute probably date back more than five years.

 

I think it's been around longer than that, but enforcement is stricter than it used to be.

 

I remember finding a cache on top of a rock cut 7 or 8 years ago that was listed a terrain 1. We made fun of it in our logs with ridiculous stories about how we got a wheelchair up the 30 foot rock cut to the cache. It probably should have been a terrain 3.

 

And around 10 years ago I would rely on terrain 1 and/or the wheelchair attribute to find caches that I knew I could definitely reach with a stroller, if they weren't marked stroller friendly.

[+geocat_]

If you really want to get the idea, go caching in a wheelchair. My best friend uses a wheelchair and I have done this to gain perspective. Nothing else can sum it up as completely as experience.

[+Gill & Tony]

If it can't be accessed from the wheelchair then it shouldn't be terrain 1. As far as I am aware, terrain 1 has always been attached to the caveat that it must be accessible from the wheelchair. Any sort of barrier that prevents a person in a wheelchair from reasonably reaching it should change it to a terrain 1.5. This is just a convention that was created, at some point, to make it easier for people in wheelchairs to determine if a cache is truly accessible to them. Why nitpick that?

 

It's like the convention to make island caches terrain 5. Sure, it might be easy once you get to the island with a boat. Sure, you might be able to walk to the cache across ice in the winter. But it's convention that when a typical cacher will require special equipment to reach the cache, you make it a terrain 5.

 

As far as I know, the requirement that a T1 cache must be wheelchair available, and have the wheelchair attribute goes back about five years. I ran into problems with this in 2013. My T1 did not have the attribute, and would not be published without it. So I hid another that was wheelchair findable. (I'd always wanted a 5/1 cache.)

To the rest: This is Groundspeak's definition. GS makes the rules. Deal with it. T1 must fit the definition, and have the attribute. The many without the attribute probably date back more than five years.

I'm not disputing that T1 must have the attribute. I agree completely.

 

My question is whether the attribute can be used with other terrain values.

 

T3 for example may mean "Walk down steps to the beach, walk along the beach, scramble over some rocks and then start searching". It may also mean "Make your way along the accessible path to the base of a tree, then climb the tree to retrieve the cache". Without using the attribute there is no way to distinguish between the two.

 

I simply don't understand the assertion that putting a wheelchair attribute on a higher terrain cache is rude. Higher terrain says that the cache is not accessible from a wheelchair. The presence or absence of the attribute does not change that. Adding the attribute simply adds the information that the location is accessible.

 

It has been interesting to hear other folk's thoughts on the subject. What would be really nice now would be for a reviewer or lackey to reply to give a definitive answer. Is it permitted to use the wheelchair attribute with terrain greater than 1?

 

Edit for spelling

Edited April 26, 2017 by Gill & Tony

[+narcissa]

If it can't be accessed from the wheelchair then it shouldn't be terrain 1. As far as I am aware, terrain 1 has always been attached to the caveat that it must be accessible from the wheelchair. Any sort of barrier that prevents a person in a wheelchair from reasonably reaching it should change it to a terrain 1.5. This is just a convention that was created, at some point, to make it easier for people in wheelchairs to determine if a cache is truly accessible to them. Why nitpick that?

 

It's like the convention to make island caches terrain 5. Sure, it might be easy once you get to the island with a boat. Sure, you might be able to walk to the cache across ice in the winter. But it's convention that when a typical cacher will require special equipment to reach the cache, you make it a terrain 5.

 

As far as I know, the requirement that a T1 cache must be wheelchair available, and have the wheelchair attribute goes back about five years. I ran into problems with this in 2013. My T1 did not have the attribute, and would not be published without it. So I hid another that was wheelchair findable. (I'd always wanted a 5/1 cache.)

To the rest: This is Groundspeak's definition. GS makes the rules. Deal with it. T1 must fit the definition, and have the attribute. The many without the attribute probably date back more than five years.

I'm not disputing that T1 must have the attribute. I agree completely.

 

My question is whether the attribute can be used with other terrain values.

 

T3 for example may mean "Walk down steps to the beach, walk along the beach, scramble over some rocks and then start searching". It may also mean "Make your way along the accessible path to the base of a tree, then climb the tree to retrieve the cache". Without using the attribute there is no way to distinguish between the two.

 

I simply don't understand the assertion that putting a wheelchair attribute on a higher terrain cache is rude. Higher terrain says that the cache is not accessible from a wheelchair. The presence or absence of the attribute does not change that. Adding the attribute simply adds the information that the location is accessible.

 

It has been interesting to hear other folk's thoughts on the subject. What would be really nice now would be for a reviewer or lackey to reply to give a definitive answer. Is it permitted to use the wheelchair attribute with terrain greater than 1?

 

Edit for spelling

 

The terrain rating is for the cache, not the general location. If the cache can't be reached by wheelchair, it isn't wheelchair accessible.

[+dprovan]

T3 for example may mean "Walk down steps to the beach, walk along the beach, scramble over some rocks and then start searching". It may also mean "Make your way along the accessible path to the base of a tree, then climb the tree to retrieve the cache". Without using the attribute there is no way to distinguish between the two.

I don't even understand which you think should be considered wheelchair accessible. In either case, you'd have to leave the wheelchair. On the other hand, surely if the cache requires a 2 mile ride along a wheelchair accessible path, then it makes sense to rate it T2 and also assign the wheelchair attribute.

 

What I've seen a few times is the cache rated T1 even though the cache was too high or low to be reached from a wheelchair. I assumed to CO's idea was that someone in a wheelchair would always have a grabber just like any other extraordinarily short geocacher would have. I'm not saying I'd be convinced by that argument, but I don't think it's entirely unreasonable. I never worried about whether it would be allowed if the reviewer knew about it.

[+Tatanka49]

If you really want to get the idea, go caching in a wheelchair. My best friend uses a wheelchair and I have done this to gain perspective. Nothing else can sum it up as completely as experience.

 

I have been caching for 15 years. Fortunately for the first 13 I have had no problems with this discussion. Then, in August 2015 I lost both of my feet. I have been wheelchair bound since (I have prosthesis, but that's another story)

 

I am now very aware of of the difficulty. I filtered on T-1's assuming most were accessible. I have come across many that have the 1 terrain but are up a tree. Definitely not WC accessible. I live it each time I cache. I go with friends. sometimes I go for 1.5 because WC accessible ones are often mis-labeled. I look forward to D2 and 3 caches otherwise a true WC cache may be a 1.5/1 or a 1/1. I have sent CO's notes telling them that they should not be using a WC attribute.

 

Six months ago I placed a nano on a utility pole across from where I live. It was on a sidewalk about a foot off the ground. I could reach from my wheelchair. I know its accessible because I placed it there. There was a driveway slope nearby and I figured it was still a 1/1 if you carefully navigate the slope. After the last snow storm, it disappeared and I had to place it about 6 feet up. As much as it bothered my, I raised the T/D and eliminated the WC symbol.

 

I have another cache in n LPC in a shopping center. It fits all the criteria and reaching and its level, etc. But I decided not to enter the WC attribute because I know as a wheelchair user, I would not want to go spinning around in a parking lot.

 

I know I'm babbling. But when I filter, I look for 1's and the WC attribute.

[+Gill & Tony]

T3 for example may mean "Walk down steps to the beach, walk along the beach, scramble over some rocks and then start searching". It may also mean "Make your way along the accessible path to the base of a tree, then climb the tree to retrieve the cache". Without using the attribute there is no way to distinguish between the two.

I don't even understand which you think should be considered wheelchair accessible. In either case, you'd have to leave the wheelchair. On the other hand, surely if the cache requires a 2 mile ride along a wheelchair accessible path, then it makes sense to rate it T2 and also assign the wheelchair attribute.

I don't think either cache should be considered wheelchair accessible, that's why they are rated T3. However, I think that in the second case a wheelchair accessible attribute would indicate that someone in a wheelchair could reach GZ even though (given T3) they will not be able to retrieve the cache.

 

I'm trying to consider the following type of scenario: A family member is wheelchair bound. They may or may not be a cacher, but another family member who is a cacher wants to take them out for the day and do some caching at the same time. If we divorce the Wheelchair attribute from the "able to retrieve the cache" aspect of T1 then a search for caches with wheelchair attribute will produce a list of suitable caches of varying terrain ratings. Otherwise a search for wheelchair accessible is functionally equivalent to a search for T1 caches.

 

I've just run 4 PQ's searching for caches with the wheelchair attribute and various T ratings. In NSW there are 256 caches rated T1.5 or higher and 1 cache rated T3 or higher. In Washington State there are 422 T1.5 or higher and 2 T3 or higher. One is T4 and the other is an event in a coffee shop rated T5 (which seems ludicrous to me, but a reviewer obviously approved it so what do I know?). So, either they were published before a change which prohibits this or they were published after a change which allows this or there never really was a restriction or they have been changed after approval.

 

All I am trying to get is an official response saying "Yea" or "Nay". There are a lot of opinions in this thread, none of which is a definitive answer.

[+cerberus1]

I have been caching for 15 years. Fortunately for the first 13 I have had no problems with this discussion. Then, in August 2015 ...

Thanks for that.

[yrcko]

I have a multi in my home town. It is wheel chair accessible but covers a distance of more than 2 km. So it got the symbol and a T2 rating. I think that makes sense. I explained it to the reviewer and he accepted it.

 

Happy hunting

Yrcko

[+narcissa]

T3 for example may mean "Walk down steps to the beach, walk along the beach, scramble over some rocks and then start searching". It may also mean "Make your way along the accessible path to the base of a tree, then climb the tree to retrieve the cache". Without using the attribute there is no way to distinguish between the two.

I don't even understand which you think should be considered wheelchair accessible. In either case, you'd have to leave the wheelchair. On the other hand, surely if the cache requires a 2 mile ride along a wheelchair accessible path, then it makes sense to rate it T2 and also assign the wheelchair attribute.

I don't think either cache should be considered wheelchair accessible, that's why they are rated T3. However, I think that in the second case a wheelchair accessible attribute would indicate that someone in a wheelchair could reach GZ even though (given T3) they will not be able to retrieve the cache.

 

I'm trying to consider the following type of scenario: A family member is wheelchair bound. They may or may not be a cacher, but another family member who is a cacher wants to take them out for the day and do some caching at the same time. If we divorce the Wheelchair attribute from the "able to retrieve the cache" aspect of T1 then a search for caches with wheelchair attribute will produce a list of suitable caches of varying terrain ratings. Otherwise a search for wheelchair accessible is functionally equivalent to a search for T1 caches.

 

I've just run 4 PQ's searching for caches with the wheelchair attribute and various T ratings. In NSW there are 256 caches rated T1.5 or higher and 1 cache rated T3 or higher. In Washington State there are 422 T1.5 or higher and 2 T3 or higher. One is T4 and the other is an event in a coffee shop rated T5 (which seems ludicrous to me, but a reviewer obviously approved it so what do I know?). So, either they were published before a change which prohibits this or they were published after a change which allows this or there never really was a restriction or they have been changed after approval.

 

All I am trying to get is an official response saying "Yea" or "Nay". There are a lot of opinions in this thread, none of which is a definitive answer.

 

If the cache can't be retrieved by the person in the wheelchair, it isn't wheelchair accessible. The terrain rating is for the cache. Your cache page is not a listing for a trail, it's a listing for a cache.

 

Why would you want to mislead someone in a wheelchair into thinking the cache is accessible to them? This is clearly not a wise thing to do.

 

You may want to note, or perhaps not, that referring to people as "wheelchair bound" is generally considered rude / insensitive.

[+Gill & Tony]

T3 for example may mean "Walk down steps to the beach, walk along the beach, scramble over some rocks and then start searching". It may also mean "Make your way along the accessible path to the base of a tree, then climb the tree to retrieve the cache". Without using the attribute there is no way to distinguish between the two.

I don't even understand which you think should be considered wheelchair accessible. In either case, you'd have to leave the wheelchair. On the other hand, surely if the cache requires a 2 mile ride along a wheelchair accessible path, then it makes sense to rate it T2 and also assign the wheelchair attribute.

I don't think either cache should be considered wheelchair accessible, that's why they are rated T3. However, I think that in the second case a wheelchair accessible attribute would indicate that someone in a wheelchair could reach GZ even though (given T3) they will not be able to retrieve the cache.

 

I'm trying to consider the following type of scenario: A family member is wheelchair bound. They may or may not be a cacher, but another family member who is a cacher wants to take them out for the day and do some caching at the same time. If we divorce the Wheelchair attribute from the "able to retrieve the cache" aspect of T1 then a search for caches with wheelchair attribute will produce a list of suitable caches of varying terrain ratings. Otherwise a search for wheelchair accessible is functionally equivalent to a search for T1 caches.

 

I've just run 4 PQ's searching for caches with the wheelchair attribute and various T ratings. In NSW there are 256 caches rated T1.5 or higher and 1 cache rated T3 or higher. In Washington State there are 422 T1.5 or higher and 2 T3 or higher. One is T4 and the other is an event in a coffee shop rated T5 (which seems ludicrous to me, but a reviewer obviously approved it so what do I know?). So, either they were published before a change which prohibits this or they were published after a change which allows this or there never really was a restriction or they have been changed after approval.

 

All I am trying to get is an official response saying "Yea" or "Nay". There are a lot of opinions in this thread, none of which is a definitive answer.

 

If the cache can't be retrieved by the person in the wheelchair, it isn't wheelchair accessible. The terrain rating is for the cache. Your cache page is not a listing for a trail, it's a listing for a cache.

 

Why would you want to mislead someone in a wheelchair into thinking the cache is accessible to them? This is clearly not a wise thing to do.

 

You may want to note, or perhaps not, that referring to people as "wheelchair bound" is generally considered rude / insensitive.

First, if I have been rude or insensitive, I apologise. That was not my intention.

 

Second, I fully agree that the terrain rating is for the cache. T1 means, and should always mean that the cache can be reached by someone in a wheelchair.

 

I am at a loss to understand how adding a wheelchair attribute to a T3 cache would mislead someone into thinking that the cache is retrievable from a wheelchair when T3 says clearly that it isn't.

[+Team Microdot]

I am at a loss to understand how adding a wheelchair attribute to a T3 cache would mislead someone into thinking that the cache is retrievable from a wheelchair when T3 says clearly that it isn't.

 

Is it fair to say though that it might cause avoidable confusion?

[+narcissa]

T3 for example may mean "Walk down steps to the beach, walk along the beach, scramble over some rocks and then start searching". It may also mean "Make your way along the accessible path to the base of a tree, then climb the tree to retrieve the cache". Without using the attribute there is no way to distinguish between the two.

I don't even understand which you think should be considered wheelchair accessible. In either case, you'd have to leave the wheelchair. On the other hand, surely if the cache requires a 2 mile ride along a wheelchair accessible path, then it makes sense to rate it T2 and also assign the wheelchair attribute.

I don't think either cache should be considered wheelchair accessible, that's why they are rated T3. However, I think that in the second case a wheelchair accessible attribute would indicate that someone in a wheelchair could reach GZ even though (given T3) they will not be able to retrieve the cache.

 

I'm trying to consider the following type of scenario: A family member is wheelchair bound. They may or may not be a cacher, but another family member who is a cacher wants to take them out for the day and do some caching at the same time. If we divorce the Wheelchair attribute from the "able to retrieve the cache" aspect of T1 then a search for caches with wheelchair attribute will produce a list of suitable caches of varying terrain ratings. Otherwise a search for wheelchair accessible is functionally equivalent to a search for T1 caches.

 

I've just run 4 PQ's searching for caches with the wheelchair attribute and various T ratings. In NSW there are 256 caches rated T1.5 or higher and 1 cache rated T3 or higher. In Washington State there are 422 T1.5 or higher and 2 T3 or higher. One is T4 and the other is an event in a coffee shop rated T5 (which seems ludicrous to me, but a reviewer obviously approved it so what do I know?). So, either they were published before a change which prohibits this or they were published after a change which allows this or there never really was a restriction or they have been changed after approval.

 

All I am trying to get is an official response saying "Yea" or "Nay". There are a lot of opinions in this thread, none of which is a definitive answer.

 

If the cache can't be retrieved by the person in the wheelchair, it isn't wheelchair accessible. The terrain rating is for the cache. Your cache page is not a listing for a trail, it's a listing for a cache.

 

Why would you want to mislead someone in a wheelchair into thinking the cache is accessible to them? This is clearly not a wise thing to do.

 

You may want to note, or perhaps not, that referring to people as "wheelchair bound" is generally considered rude / insensitive.

First, if I have been rude or insensitive, I apologise. That was not my intention.

 

Second, I fully agree that the terrain rating is for the cache. T1 means, and should always mean that the cache can be reached by someone in a wheelchair.

 

I am at a loss to understand how adding a wheelchair attribute to a T3 cache would mislead someone into thinking that the cache is retrievable from a wheelchair when T3 says clearly that it isn't.

 

The cache page should describe the cache. If you want to convey that the path is easily navigable, use the stroller attribute. Nobody's toddler is going to be disappointed, frustrated, and insulted that the stroller attribute is used to convey the message "You can push someone in a stroller really close to this cache but it can't actually be reached from the stroller."

[+Gill & Tony]

I would like now to close the debate part of this thread, since we seem to be arguing in circles. I have made my thoughts clear, I believe, and others have made their thoughts clear.

 

I will now just await a definitive response from a reviewer or a lackey as to whether or not it is permissible to use the wheelchair attribute on caches whose terrain is rated greater than T1 and, if so, whether there are any restrictions on its use.

 

Thanks to everyone who has contributed their ideas and thoughts.

[+redsox_mark]

Not wanting to stir things more, but I agree with the OP on what I see are the 2 main points:

 

1. If every T1 cache needs to have the wheelchair accessible attribute set (and vice versa), then the attribute doesn't seem to add much value. I.e. T=1 tells you all you need to know. Though it is not clear if they need to be 1:1 or not.

 

2. The OP made a good point that Terrain rating has 2 main parts: 1. The route to GZ. 2: The position of the cache ant GZ and physical task to retrieve it. The point is valid that it would be useful to distinguish between the two cases. E.g in the case where the path to GZ is wheelchair accessible but the cache itself can't be reached from a wheelchair, it can be done by a cacher in a wheelchair with a friend to help. While a cache in a location which typically a wheelchair can't get near is something different.

 

The only way I've seen these cases addressed is in the description. I've seen some which say things like "The cache location is wheelchair accessible, but can't be easily reached from a wheelchair". Such a cache won't be T1 or have the attribute, one needs to read the text to understand the detail. There is no way to search for such caches today. I think that is the main point the OP is making.

[+niraD]

1. If every T1 cache needs to have the wheelchair accessible attribute set (and vice versa), then the attribute doesn't seem to add much value. I.e. T=1 tells you all you need to know. Though it is not clear if they need to be 1:1 or not.

Even if they do need to be 1:1, I think the redundancy can serve a purpose. It's essentially a sanity check, the same way that typing your new password twice is redundant, but serves as a sanity check.

[+justintim1999]

I'm sorry if I wasn't as clear as I could have been.

 

I didn't mean to suggest that a trail rated higher than T1 be given the wheelchair attribute. I meant to suggest that the T1 rating be used to show caches where the trail is T1 AND the cache can be reached from the wheelchair, whereas the Wheelchair attribute be used when the trail is T1, but the cache cannot necessarily be reached from the chair.

 

I know just how determined some wheelchair users can be. We visited Iguassu Falls a few years ago and one chap, a paraplegic, had two mates with him and they maneuvered his wheelchair into places I would never have thought possible.

 

I'm not suggesting that trails like that be given the wheelchair attribute. What I am suggesting is that there be a way of distinguishing caches that can be reached and found by someone in a wheelchair from those where there is a designated accessible path to GZ, but the cache may not be reachable from the wheelchair.

 

I understand, but I would use the attribute for designated accessible areas - such as trails that are ADA compliant -- even if they are longer than T1's half mile limit. And I would use it only for caches that actually can be retrieved from a wheelchair. In other words, I think a 1.5 terrain with a wheelchair attribute should be allowed as your first post indicated.

 

Limiting the attribute to the T1 guideline seems arbitrary or condescending and using it if the cache cannot be retrieved by a solo wheelchair user seems confusing.

 

+1