Terrain / Difficulty...a_nordJanuary 21 2008, 12:39:13 UTC
I have noticed that the newbs to the game, have sissified the Terrain / Difficulty ratings. Unless you can roll a wheelchair up to the cache, terrain is automatically a 1.5. If it's in the woods they give it a 2 in difficulty. Brownie2 believes pretty much everyone other than himself and a few of his NC buddies are just cityfolk that aren't hikers and any kind of terrain other than blacktop is a 3.
Brownie2 is kinda right in his assessment of most cachers. Not all cachers are as nimble and in shape like you and find it hard to navigate the back roads in their hondas. The rating system is what we have, and is for the many not the few. You my friend, are a billy goat with a jeep. KVOM was a walk in the park for you...a 3.5 for you and a 4.5 for the rest of us. So maybe, you take the ratings that are there minus one and there you go...SparcRatings.
I think you are right, the ratings need to be re-worked... Cause most of the time I think they are too low!
Re: Terrain / Difficulty...sparc77January 21 2008, 17:03:07 UTC
Nah, I'm not a billy goat and I am certainly not in shape. I just have an overwhelming curiosity to see what is on the other side of the next clump of bushes. I think you are right, though. There are some cachers that I trust to accurately rate a cache, or perhaps we could have two scales, adventure and family. Either way, I agree with you that the best thing to do is subtract one from the terrain rating. It seems to work out better that way, at least for the terrain. When it comes to solving puzzles, I might have to add one since I seem to be as dense as a post on those.
Re: Terrain / Difficulty...sparc77January 21 2008, 17:18:45 UTC
Nah, I'm not a billy goat and I am certainly not in shape. I just have an overwhelming curiosity to see what is on the other side of the next clump of bushes. I think you are right, though. There are some cachers that I trust to accurately rate a cache, or perhaps we could have two scales, adventure and family. Either way, I agree with you that the best thing to do is subtract one from the terrain rating. It seems to work out better that way, at least for the terrain. When it comes to solving puzzles, I might have to add one since I seem to be as dense as a post on those.
Location Location. I have seen 3 1/2 ratings inside 285 in Atlanta. I know that ain't the same as a 3 1/2 rating in the Rocky Mountains out west. I look at the hider too. A hider from Macon may give it a higher rate than a hider from Bryson City NC. Location Location
Re: ratingjohnnielacyJanuary 21 2008, 17:05:50 UTC
Actually you are right. I tend to expect a lot less from urban caches than rural caches. On our honeymoon, Jan and I came to realize that you could add 1 to 1.5 points of difficulty just by placing a cache in a cactus bush! I really wished I had brought my hiking stick and embedded a hook or something on the end.
Use the standardext_8055January 22 2008, 15:57:39 UTC
I personally don’t think the have individual hunters rate the terrain would help. The problem I see is that some hunters and hiders try to rate based on their individual ability. Someone looking at the terrain on the way to the geocache says well if 1 is the easiest for me and 5 being the hardest for me this one is about in the middle so they rate it as a 3. Someone else looking at the same terrain and says this is about difficult terrain as I can do so I will rate it as 4 1/2 star
( ... )
Re: Use the standardsparc77January 22 2008, 23:15:18 UTC
I tend to agree that clayjar's system makes a good objective rating, but it is subject to people actually using it. So many don't. The reason I suggested having people rate a cache is that over time the ratings would eventually average to something that more accurately reflects the actual rating. Even if you had one person with both legs in a cast and a lung hanging out his side rating it a 5 or mister super macho rating it a 1, the sheer number of ratings would eventually compensate for any extraneous deviations.
Comments 7
Brownie2 is kinda right in his assessment of most cachers. Not all cachers are as nimble and in shape like you and find it hard to navigate the back roads in their hondas. The rating system is what we have, and is for the many not the few. You my friend, are a billy goat with a jeep. KVOM was a walk in the park for you...a 3.5 for you and a 4.5 for the rest of us. So maybe, you take the ratings that are there minus one and there you go...SparcRatings.
I think you are right, the ratings need to be re-worked... Cause most of the time I think they are too low!
Reply
I think you are right, though. There are some cachers that I trust to accurately rate a cache, or perhaps we could have two scales, adventure and family. Either way, I agree with you that the best thing to do is subtract one from the terrain rating. It seems to work out better that way, at least for the terrain. When it comes to solving puzzles, I might have to add one since I seem to be as dense as a post on those.
Reply
I think you are right, though. There are some cachers that I trust to accurately rate a cache, or perhaps we could have two scales, adventure and family. Either way, I agree with you that the best thing to do is subtract one from the terrain rating. It seems to work out better that way, at least for the terrain. When it comes to solving puzzles, I might have to add one since I seem to be as dense as a post on those.
Reply
I have seen 3 1/2 ratings inside 285 in Atlanta.
I know that ain't the same as a 3 1/2 rating in the Rocky Mountains out west.
I look at the hider too. A hider from Macon may give it a higher rate than a
hider from Bryson City NC.
Location Location
Reply
On our honeymoon, Jan and I came to realize that you could add 1 to 1.5 points of difficulty just by placing a cache in a cactus bush! I really wished I had brought my hiking stick and embedded a hook or something on the end.
Reply
Reply
Just my $0.02
Reply
Leave a comment