Terrain/Dificulty Rating

9.4k · May 1, 2002

We might have missed this on another post, but we have found some inconsistencies in how caches are rated for terrain and difficulty.

I went on a cache hunt today with my wife and kids (ages 5,3,1). It was rated a 1 for both difficulty and terrain. This cache was well over a half mile one way up and down hills on rocky and sandy soil. The path was occasionally lined with cactus with the cache location being on the side of a small hill. My kids were ok for most of the hike to the cache, but worn out for the return. There were 5 other caches in the general area, but each one required a similar hike. They were all rated 1/1 with one of them being 1/1.5...This might have been okay for me and my wife with hiking boots on, but seeing a rating of 1, we wore sneakers.

I think we need a set of guidelines for determining the difficulty/terrain ratings. My proposed list for terrain is:

1 - Suitable for any age (young kids and those over 80)

2 - Ok for children at least 5 or 6 years old and seniors in good shape.

3 - Teenagers and up to retirement age

4 - Physically fit adults

5 - Adults that are prepared for a challenge

These are only rough guidelines, discretion should still be used on each cache.

Difficulty ratings should be similar, but they don't have to match exactly.

Obviously, children would need to be accompanied by an adult as most caches are in an area you must drive to get to the trailhead. The actual hike should follow the rating guidelines.

Drive-up caches (within a hundred feet or so of the parking area) would probably be a 1 unless a 4-wheel-drive is needed.

What do you think?

FriarED

Team GPSaxophone

P.S. Found the rating system after making this post. I tried rating the cache using the form and it came back with 1/3. How about making that rating form more prominent on the placing a cache page?

[This message was edited by Team GPSaxophone on May 01, 2002 at 05:24 PM.]

May 1, 2002

The ratings aren't consistent by a long shot. I used clayjar's ratingsystem the first time to get a feel for it, and just wing now, but i try to make it a pretty good prediction of what to expect. I think people should pay a little more attention to the ratings...my suggestion: read the logs and see what people have said. If they said, "nice hike, wore me out" then you know a little what to expect. Anyway, good luck!

-pizzachef

2.7k · May 1, 2002

As you have well found out the ratings are subject to an interpertation of another person.

Which makes the use of TOPO maps very important.

Once you find the cache location, plan a possible route. Look at your elevation gain and general type of terrain.

A software program that does TOPO would be a good investment.

The "Bushwhacker"

Exitus acta probat

>>--->

8.9k · May 1, 2002

Back in July of last year, we had the same problem and lamentations: inconsistent ratings making life difficult and sometimes dangerous for cachers.

So some threads popped up.

Difficulty rating

Terrain ratings and warnings (the key thread where a lot of stuff was hashed out), and

the final resulting thread: Terrain and Difficulty Rating Software?.

What eventually came out of all of this was Clayjar's Geocache Rating System, a highly useful tool to assign a suggested rating to a cache. Jeremy liked it enough to post links right next to the rating fields on the hide-a-cache page.

The problem is that the system is voluntary and suggested. We can't force someone to rate their cache in a manner that we've agreed on. But what ClayJar and the rest of us did was to try and quantify the terrain system and provide a tool to standardize the ratings.

Here we are, close to 10 months later, and the topic pops up again. Why? My guess is that the rating system that we so diligently worked on is still not widely used, and also not as well "advertized" as it could be.

Personally, I've found that most hiders underrate their terrain based on the agreed upon standards. Don't be afraid of placing a "3" on a terrain! It will definitely help those with kids to make an informed decision of whether to go out on the weekend with the kids, or take a day off in the middle of the week to go it alone.

So consider this another plea as we get into the cache planting season in the northern hemisphere: Rate your caches appropriately and verify them with the ClayJar Online cache rating system.

Markwell

My Geocaching Page

8.9k · May 1, 2002

By the way...

At this page you can see the results of the various ratings that we hashed out.

Markwell

My Geocaching Page

1.9k · May 1, 2002

I prefer to slightly overrate the terrain of a cache than under rate it and have someone have trouble.

I try to think about the rating guideline though when rating and in general keep it close

Now where did I set my GPS??? planetrobert.net

38.2k · May 2, 2002

If you encounter a rating that you think is way off, just tell the cach owner. I recall doing one cache that where the terrain was rated as a 1, which is supposed to be flat, paved & wheelchair friendly. This trail instead was somewhat flat, but very rocky, with ocassional hills and close to a mile. I e-mailed the cache owner with my thoughts and he thanked me and changed it. In fact, nearly every time I suggested that the terrain, or difficulty rating was incorrect, the owner thanked me and changed the rating.

1.8k · May 2, 2002

How about adding a system where in addition to logging a find, you also rate how difficult you found the cache? The site would keep an average "user rating" that potential hunters could use as an additional guide as to how difficult a cache is.

20.7k · May 2, 2002

I have read the threads regarding the rating system and would like to throw my two cents into the fountain.

I used Clayjar's rating system when I placed 'Great Caesar's Ghost Cipher'. I believe that it approximated the difficulty very well.

I agree that the biggest problem with the rating system is that everyone does not understand it and therefore does not use it.

May 2, 2002

Just post what YOU think the ratings should have been in your log.

quote:
Originally posted by Cheesehead Dave:
How about adding a system where in addition to logging a find, you also rate how difficult you found the cache? The site would keep an average "user rating" that potential hunters could use as an additional guide as to how difficult a cache is.

http://www.wi-geocaching.com/ http://home.wi.rr.com/thekrugs/geocaching/

"My gps say's it RIGHT HERE".

http://www.geogadgets.com

12 caches in 12 hours.

9.4k · May 2, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Cheesehead Dave:
How about adding a system where in addition to logging a find, you also rate how difficult you found the cache? The site would keep an average "user rating" that potential hunters could use as an additional guide as to how difficult a cache is.

http://www.wi-geocaching.com/ http://home.wi.rr.com/thekrugs/geocaching/

Good idea, Dave!

1.8k · May 6, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Steak N Eggs:
Just post what YOU think the ratings should have been in your log.

If I think that a rating is way off, then that's a good idea, too. What I was thinking was putting a rating drop-down on the reporting page (which would only be visible if you found the cache, so people who report a no-find don't give it a five by default)

When you view a cache page, it would avarage out everybody's rankings to give a third ranking besides the two that the cache owner gave it.

1.1k · May 6, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Cheesehead Dave:

What I was thinking was putting a rating drop-down on the reporting page (which would only be visible if you found the cache, so people who report a no-find don't give it a five by default)

When you view a cache page, it would avarage out everybody's rankings to give a third ranking besides the two that the cache owner gave it.

I agree. Sure, we can state in our logs what we think it should have been, but averaged "finder difficulty/terrain ratings" at the top of the page would be helpful for future finders...who don't want to read through all the logs, and risk stumbling across spoiler info.

-------

"I may be slow, but at least I'm sweet!"

May 27, 2002

WHat kind of rating I should use when you must use a boat to get to the cache?

I am planning to place caches to a popular boating route.

If I use the rating system on the web page, it always gives 5. However I feel that his is incorrect since in this area boating is as usual and common as driving a car in some other area.

Ofcource you need a boat, know how to operate it, and basic navigation skills. But this is no different from having a car and a drivers license.

Also boat owners are in most cases also GPS owners. This is not true for car owners.

May 27, 2002

click here

http://www.cachunuts.com

8.9k · May 27, 2002

While it may be common for people around your area to have/use a boat, if I came into the area and wanted to find the cache, I might have some difficulty if I didn't have a boat.

That being said, if boats are readily available for renting in the area, I think you can lower the terrain rating. A good example is Row, Row, Row Your Boat in Chicago. It's on an island in the middle of a good sized lake. You can't get there by any other means than a boat, but since boat rental is what this lake is used for, it only needs a 2.0 terrain rating (the 3.5 difficulty is pretty accurate, too). Even a novice oarsman like me was able to get there after remembering some basic Newtonian laws of physics.

However, if it were in the middle of the lake and there were no boats around, I'd say that definitely ups the cache to a level 5. You need to bring your own special equipment to the cache.

Markwell

May 29, 2002

I'm sure this was covered in the hash/rehash discussion, but just in case: it has been my experience that many caches can be approached in more than one way and the apparent difficulty can vary a lot depending on your way in.

Around here most hiders seem to be conservative and so the rating tends to be as bad as or worse than the way in, but I've seen people turn 1/1 caches into 4/1 caches by coming at them in a way that the hider would have never guessed.

June 9, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Markwell:
While it may be common for people around your area to have/use a boat, if I came into the area and wanted to find the cache, I might have some difficulty if I didn't have a boat.

That being said, if boats are _readily available_ for renting in the area, I think you can lower the terrain rating. A good example is http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=4583 in Chicago. It's on an island in the middle of a good sized lake. You can't get there by any other means than a boat, but since boat rental is what this lake is used for, it only needs a 2.0 terrain rating (the 3.5 difficulty is pretty accurate, too). Even a novice oarsman like me was able to get there after remembering some basic Newtonian laws of physics.

However, if it were in the middle of the lake and there were no boats around, I'd say that definitely ups the cache to a level 5. You need to bring your own special equipment to the cache.

For a person who doesn't drive a car almost every cache is certainly of level 5 difficulty.

Here is an image of the area where cache could be hidden http://www.saaristo.org/bilder/flygbilder/hitis.jpg

People over here can load their family to a vehicle and have a nice and convenient trip to find a cache. Difficulty would be of level 1. Only difference is that the vehicle is a boat. If you don't own a boat, you can take a (boat) taxi.

If I want to find a cache in IL/USA, I must flight. Doesn't that make all caches level 5?

June 9, 2002

Marnord, I agree with markwell thus:

quote:
Originally posted by Markwell:
That being said, if boats are _readily available_ for renting in the area, I think you can lower the terrain rating. A good example is http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=4583 in Chicago. It's on an island in the middle of a good sized lake. You can't get there by any other means than a boat, but since boat rental is what this lake is used for, it only needs a 2.0 terrain rating (the 3.5 difficulty is pretty accurate, too). Even a novice oarsman like me was able to get there...

If boats are very common and/or you can rent one nearby, then I don't think it warrants a 5 difficulty.

King Pellinore

June 9, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Team GPSaxophone:
We might have missed this on another post, but we have found some inconsistencies in how caches are rated for terrain and difficulty.

I think we need a set of guidelines for determining the difficulty/terrain ratings. My proposed list for terrain is:

1 - Suitable for any age (young kids and those over 80)

2 - Ok for children at least 5 or 6 years old and seniors in good shape.

3 - Teenagers and up to retirement age

4 - Physically fit adults

5 - Adults that are prepared for a challenge

These are only rough guidelines, discretion should still be used on each cache.

Difficulty ratings should be similar, but they don't have to match exactly.

What do you think?

FriarED

Team GPSaxophone

Well good friar seeing as you asked ;-) Glad you found ClayJar's rating system. It works pretty well, there is however no guarantee that a cache placer used it, or even what his idea of flat terrain is. I found that for accessablility, the nature of the trail itself (paved, gravel, bouldery) is more of an issue than the lenght or elevation. Everyone has their own idea. The only problem that I have with the ClayJar system is you don't know why the terrain is a 4. Is it overgrown and trackless, or steep, or what?

King Pellinore

38.2k · June 9, 2002

.

38.2k · June 9, 2002

xxx

July 13, 2004

BUMP!

38.2k · July 13, 2004

Now why did you bump this. Wasn't the argument over this issue a few weeks ago enough? Whereis that dead horse photo?

9.4k · July 13, 2004

Now why did you bump this. Wasn't the argument over this issue a few weeks ago enough? Whereis that dead horse photo?

Look at the date of your last post again, Brian: Jun 9 2002, 01:09 PM

Edited July 13, 2004 by Team GPSaxophone

July 13, 2004

I bump therefore I am.

38.2k · July 13, 2004

Now why did you bump this. Wasn't the argument over this issue a few weeks ago enough? Whereis that dead horse photo?

Look at the date of your last post again, Brian: Jun 9 2002, 01:09 PM

Yeah, that's what I meant.

5.9k · July 13, 2004

The reason you see a 1/1 rated cache that is clearly not 1/1 is often due to the Report a Cache page having those defaulted on the 1s.

Change that page so that it requires user input to advance and most of the problems should go away. If I don’t enter a state I get kicked back to the Report a Cache page with a red error message telling me where I messed up. Just eliminate the default so that hiders have to put something in there.

9.4k · July 13, 2004

Here we are, close to 10 months later, and the topic pops up again.

2 Years later and I still see these topics come up. If the Clayjar system isn't good enough (for those that feel they have to adjust the rating it gives you), then why don't we fix the system?

9.4k · July 13, 2004

The reason you see a 1/1 rated cache that is clearly not 1/1 is often due to the Report a Cache page having those defaulted on the 1s.

Change that page so that it requires user input to advance and most of the problems should go away. If I don’t enter a state I get kicked back to the Report a Cache page with a red error message telling me where I messed up. Just eliminate the default so that hiders have to put something in there.

That is the way it works now. You have to select a rating before hitting the submit button. It isn't filled in for you

5.9k · July 13, 2004

That is the way it works now. You have to select a rating before hitting the submit button. It isn't filled in for you

Well I’m just really observant...

2.1k · July 13, 2004

Here we are, close to 10 months later, and the topic pops up again.

2 Years later and I still see these topics come up. If the Clayjar system isn't good enough (for those that feel they have to adjust the rating it gives you), then why don't we fix the system?

I agree Sax -

I am new and I think that clayjar is good but in my opinion under rates somewhat - that of course is my opinion. But one writer was very correct about which way you attack the cache. When I placed one of my caches I walked in on a nice hard packed lightly hilled trail that I had no trouble at all with walking with a cane - shade and all. The 'short way' in comes down 6 to 800 feet of very steep loose gravelled trail cut by a buldozer recently - in the hot sun.

I described this on my cache page. Some chose to take the short way - one person came the short way - did a dnf - came back the next day the easy way and found it. I also state that the difficulty was generated by clayjar - and if I decide to adjust it then I will report what cj said in my description.

But back to the main subject - clayjar is a tool - maybe it can be refined some - but it has to be rather general in order to work. But if we would all used it, I think we'd have a few less complaints. Both terrain and difficulty are very highly subjective - what I think is easy may be especially hard for someone and particularly if they have the little ones with them.

We all seem to be so very vocal here in the forums - why can't we be more so in our descriptions of our caches? Are we afraid of giving too much away? I believe that if we would give as much general information about the hike and the general finding, then we might not have this debate. Let's use cj and spell it out what it says then we can make personal adjustments in the description and the posted difficullty level.

Another post (or few) is asking about find ratings - eh, I don't see the need - describe what you found and your feelings about the terrain and the search and leave it at that. We already HAVE a found rating system and I think it works.

Hey - that's my $27 worth (inflation!)

2k · July 13, 2004

I find caches over rated all the time.

I have seen them rated 2.5/4 but you could drive up to within 100 ft. of the cache in the family car.

Then walk down a trail through knee high grass to find it laying on the ground next to the only tree in the area.

What's that all about?

2.7k · July 13, 2004

Two years later: And If I place it as a 4 x 4 get ready for a long day in the hills, and don't forget the flexall for the next day.

9.4k · July 14, 2004

Two years later: And If I place it as a 4 x 4 get ready for a long day in the hills, and don't forget the flexall for the next day.

Someday soon I'll live up there again. Next summer, I plan to find as many of your caches as I can.

July 14, 2004

Remember too, that after you rate your hide, the next day another cacher could change what you have so meticulously done to hide it. When hiding caches, we should all think about the durability of the cover as well as the container.

Terrain ratings change with seasons and events as well. I guess most cache hiders don't think about things like that.

July 14, 2004

WHat kind of rating I should use when you must use a boat to get to the cache?

If I use the rating system on the web page, it always gives 5. However I feel that his is incorrect since in this area boating is as usual and common as driving a car in some other area.

I'm in a wheelchair, yet I drive my accessible van as easily as most others drive their vehicles. I might be able to get into and out of a boat with assistance, but if my chair (over 200 pounds, with batteries) doesn't come with me in said boat, the likelihood of my finding a cache on an island is nil, no matter the rating of the final leg of the journey.

I don't normally pay a lot of attention to lower ratings; a 1 to me may be a 3 to someone else, and vice versa. As far as I can see, because of the difference in individual's abilities, there will never be a rating system implemented that is 100% accurate for everyone. Subjectivity is the name of the game.

The Handicaching Web Site is new and offers a more accurate form for rating caches than what has been available, but even the results generated by that system will be subjective.

My advice: try to put yourself in the shoes of someone who may not be as physically capable as you; how hard might it be for you to push a wheelchair for 1/2 mile, or a parent to push a stroller over large rocks? How likely would it be for a heavy power chair to bog down in sand or spin on pine needles? How far might someone requiring oxygen be able to trek? Does everyone know how to navigate in a boat? Then, rate the cache, and hopefully, that rating will be more accurate.

I know this thread wasn't started to recommend ratings for accessible caches, but the above factors do help explain why the terrain ratings (as accurate as possible) are necessary, and why the requirement of a boat to access a cache really should be rated higher than a 1.

</2 shillings>

9.4k · July 14, 2004

I know this thread wasn't started to recommend ratings for accessible caches, but the above factors do help explain why the terrain ratings (as accurate as possible) are necessary, and why the requirement of a boat to access a cache really should be rated higher than a 1.

Exactly. A terrain 5 doesn't mean "strenuous hike required" it means "special equipment required". If I'm going to have to bring a boat to get to the cache location, it should be rated "5". If I can hike to it, 4.5 stars is the max. Likewise, if a wheelchair can't get to it, it should not be rated "1".

2.1k · July 14, 2004

Pyewacket

You were exactly one of the people I was thinking about when I wrote my note about this subject.

I walk with a cane - many others just can't make it where some can or as easily.

9.4k · July 14, 2004

Pyewacket

You were exactly one of the people I was thinking about when I wrote my note about this subject.

I walk with a cane - many others just can't make it where some can or as easily.

Everyone's abilities are different, but if everyone used the same rating system you could at least have an idea of what you'll face on the trail.

7.2k · July 14, 2004

Everyone doesn't need to use the same rating scheme because the rating scheme can't possibly fit all scenarios. However, what is really needed is saying what the ratings mean.

If you put the rating out of your butt, say so, but at least give a justification. The ClayJar scheme is just a scheme. If you use it, say you used it. But if you use it don't adjust it more than a half star up or down and not say why, because then it doesn't follow the scheme.

The only real thing that is needed is that everyone should be on the same page. Apparently though, some people aren't even in the same book!

Personally, I don't think specialized equipment should be included in the consideration of a rating. Some have easy access to a such "speciialities" some don't. We own a jetski and accessing an island is trivial. It's my assertion that a 5 star terrain should be reserved to several days hikes, extreme physical conditioning, or the requirement of specialized training and knowledge. Let the gear follow the knowledge.

(Before a certain SCUBA diver pipes up, SCUBA is specialized training. If you need to be certified to do something, it's specialized.))

A boat or a wrench shouldn't inflate a rating to five stars.

On a note on handicaching.com's rating scheme, it proves that an accessible cache can be greater than 1 star. Check it out. The "H" scheme tells more than the D/T star scheme.

Edited July 14, 2004 by CoyoteRed

2.1k · July 14, 2004

Pyewacket

You were exactly one of the people I was thinking about when I wrote my note about this subject.

I walk with a cane - many others just can't make it where some can or as easily.

Everyone's abilities are different, but if everyone used the same rating system you could at least have an idea of what you'll face on the trail.

that was my point -

July 14, 2004

[snip...] But one writer was very correct about which way you attack the cache. When I placed one of my caches I walked in on a nice hard packed lightly hilled trail that I had no trouble at all with walking with a cane - shade and all. The 'short way' in comes down 6 to 800 feet of very steep loose gravelled trail cut by a buldozer recently - in the hot sun.

I described this on my cache page. Some chose to take the short way - one person came the short way - did a dnf - came back the next day the easy way and found it. I also state that the difficulty was generated by clayjar - and if I decide to adjust it then I will report what cj said in my description.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Hash: SHA1

Also, I find that it can be very useful to use the cache ratings in

reverse--if I am scrambling up 3.5 terrain on a cache rated only 1.5,

I know I must not be on the preferred approach.

By the same token, if I find no obvious hiding spots near the

coordinates of a difficulty 1 cache, I know that expanding my search

area is more likely to help than looking for a more-sneaky camouflage

job.

John

Team Shredded Bark

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

Version: PGP 8.0.2 - not licensed for commercial use: www.pgp.com

iQA/AwUBQPWJHkcrpacku1SeEQJz5wCgq4q0tsmm/v4M6RAlwk86UYXzTpsAoLcn

nGxADProjS9A6h6kgaLnui+a

=nryT

-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Terrain/Dificulty Rating

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Join the conversation