Very nice. I hope they use it. If you need extra voices to make your case with Jeremy, let us know.
>From: "Andrew Ayre"
>Reply-To:
listserv@azgeocaching.com
>To:
>Subject: RE: [Az-Geocaching] Handicap Accessibility Guideline Generator
>Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 21:52:14 -0700
>
>I've created an updated version that incorporates the suggestions people
>have given to me - BIG thank you to Gale and Mike!!
>
>
http://www.britishideas.com/geocaching/handicap.php
>
>I couldn't think of anything better than "slight incline", so it's still in
>there. Suggestions, feedback, etc. welcome.
>
>I'm trying to get Jeremy to put a link to it on the hide a cache
>page.............................................
>
>Andy
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
az-geocaching-admin@listserv.azgeocaching.com
>[
mailto:az-geocaching-admin@listserv.azgeocaching.com]On Behalf Of Andrew
>Ayre
> Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2003 10:14 PM
> To:
listserv@azgeocaching.com
> Subject: [Az-Geocaching] Handicap Accessibility Guideline Generator
>
>
> Well, I got a response from Jeremy - they will get to it sometime after
>they move the site to better servers...
>
> So, meanwhile I've thrown together a guideline generator that hopefully is
>quick and easy to use. It generates encoded and unencoded text for putting
>on the cache page or on a web site.
> I don't claim to know or understand many handicap limitations, so
>comments, suggestions, etc. are welcome. Help me to make it a better tool!
>
>
http://www.britishideas.com/geocaching/handicap.php
> Andy
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
az-geocaching-admin@listserv.azgeocaching.com
>[
mailto:az-geocaching-admin@listserv.azgeocaching.com]On Behalf Of Andrew
>Ayre
> Sent: Friday, April 11, 2003 1:18 PM
> To:
listserv@azgeocaching.com
> Subject: RE: [Az-Geocaching] Cache Ratings
>
>
> Well, I would hope that the kind of checkbox rating form for detailed
>terrain descriptions would be part of the form you fill in to submit a
>cache. Note however that despite the clayjar system being around for a
>relatively long time now, the people running geocaching.com haven't even
>bothered to make it part of the cache submission process, or produced their
>own version.
>
> I'm going to send Jeremy an Email with my suggestion and ask him for
>comments.
>
> Andy
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
az-geocaching-admin@listserv.azgeocaching.com
>[
mailto:az-geocaching-admin@listserv.azgeocaching.com]On Behalf Of gale and
>mike
> Sent: Friday, April 11, 2003 1:09 PM
> To:
listserv@azgeocaching.com
> Subject: [Az-Geocaching] Cache Ratings
>
>
> That's the clayjar's ratings system from geocaching.com. Problem is,
>not everyone uses it consistently. Case in point is a fairly recent cache
>called Savanic Mine
>
http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=61648 which the owners
>have given a 1 * rating to. The cache description tells me it might be
>beyond my abilities. People who don't have limitations don't usually realize
>the difficulties a cache may present. It's also why I think something like
>handicap rating system might be better implemented locally rather than at
>geocaching.com. Since too many people already rate a cache without using
>their ratings form, what makes anyone think people will use an updated form
>or a new one?
>
> There is definitely a need though. Recently I e-mailed someone whose
>log entries included mention of a physically handicapped cacher. I gave them
>a list of about 50 caches and compared them to other caches they had been
>to. They were very appreciative of the list since the handicapped person had
>serious heart problems and several recent hospitalizations.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >From: "Trisha"
> >Reply-To:
listserv@azgeocaching.com
> >To:
listserv@azgeocaching.com
> >Subject: Fwd: Re: [Az-Geocaching] Cache Ratings
> >Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 11:28:04 -0700 (MST)
> >
> >Back a few weeks ago (Mar 25) I posted this post re: cache ratings, a
> >descriptive system that I have been using (supplemented by
>appropriate
> >wording on my cache pages) This post did not get ONE reply....which
>is
> >fine, but now that you guys are discussing it, what do you think?
> >
> >Obviously, the difference between a "1", "1.5", and "2" on terrain,
> >when critical to whether someone with some limitations may have
> >trouble accessing that cache, needs to be described on the page in
> >some fashion that you guys appear to be hashing out.
> >
> >When in doubt, I provide hopefully enough description so everybody
> >will have some idea what they are getting into, because I sure
> >appreciate the same in return.
> >
> >Trisha "Lightning"
> >Prescott
> >
> >SEE BELOW
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >------- Start of forwarded message -------
> >
> >Subject: Re: [Az-Geocaching] Cache Ratings
> >From: "Trisha"
> >Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 16:08:15 -0700 (MST)
> >To:
listserv@azgeocaching.com
> >
> >Hi Patrick and all,
> >
> >In regards to rating caches, I have been using a descriptive system
> >that seems to be fairly accurate. I just looked at geocaching.com to
> >see if I could find where this is listed, because I don't remember
> >where I got it from!!!
> >
> >It's not that long, so I will type it out here and hopefully it will
> >help. Obviously, this is subjective (half steps can be used) but it
> >helps me to think of the ratings in these descriptive terms.
> >
> >TERRAIN:
> >
> >1. Handicap Accessible (may be paved, relatively flat, <1/2 mile)
> >
> >2. Suitable for Small Children (likely marked trails, no steep or
> >overgrowth, <2 mile hike)
> >
> >3. Not Suitable for Small Children - Average Adult/Older Child OK
> >depending on physical condition (Likely off trail, may have one or
> >more of the following: some overgrowth, some steep elevation changes,
> > > 2 mile hike)
> >
> >4. Experienced Outdoor Enthusiasts Only - (offtrail, one or more of
> >the following: Heavy Overgrowth, Steep elevation (need use of hands),
> > >10 miles, may be overnight.)
> >
> >5. Requires Special Equipment or Knowledge: (Boat, 4WD, Rock
>Climbing,
> >SCUBA) or otherwise extremely difficult.
> >
> >Because I feel very strongly that people need to know what they are
> >getting into, esp up here in the mountains or any out-of-the-way
> >place, I will describe pretty clearly if there is a difficult part in
> >getting to the cache. The only thing I don't agree with in this
> >descriptive system is the 4WD = a "5". While 4WD is "special
> >equipment", many have it. If getting to my cache requires 4WD I will
> >put that in the description, with an assessment of how hard the 4WD
> >might be, and rate the cache less than a "5" based upon the rest of
> >the adventure.....:-)
> >
> >
> >DIFFICULTY:
> >
> >1. EASY - plain sight or found in a few minutes
> >
> >2. AVERAGE - Any geocacher can find in less than 30 minutes
> >
> >3. CHALLENGING - Experienced Geocacher will find it challenging and
> >could take a good part of the afternoon
> >
> >4. DIFFICULT - Real challenge for experienced Geocacher. May require
> >special skills/knowledge, or in depth preparation. May need multiple
> >days/trips to find.
> >
> >5. EXTREME - Serious mental/physical challenge. Requires Special
> >knowledge, skills or equipment.
> >
> >As you can see, there is quite a gap between "2" and "3". Guess that
> >is what "2.5" is for!!!
> >
> >LIke I said, I get this over a year ago from.... I thought - the
> >geocaching website. Anyway, I wrote it down and this is what I go by.
> >What do people think? Anybody else using this descriptive system? If
> >most like it maybe it could become the standard?
> >
> >Trisha "Lightning"
> >Prescott
> >
> >
> >
> >On Mon, 24 Mar 2003, "Patrick Brown" wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I have notised that a lot of people that place Caches use
> >different
> > > ratings. When we place a cache we have been using the suggested
> >Rating
> > > when
> > > we fill out the form (
> >href="
http://mail.brasher.com/jump/http://www.clayjar.com/gcrs">
http://www.
>clayjar.com/gcrs/ ).
> > > That is why it looks like we have set some high numbers. These
> > > caches are
> > > a lot easyer than they look. Then again I see some that have a
> >rating
> > > of 2
> > > or 3 that are really tuff. Does anyone else see that?
> > >
> > > Patrick Brown
> > > PANDA77
> > > Check out
> > >
> >href="
http://mail.brasher.com/jump/http://www.geocaching.com">
http://www.ge
>ocaching.com/
> > >
> >href="
http://mail.brasher.com/jump/http://www.azgeocaching.com">
http://www.
>azgeocaching.com/
> > > ____________________________________________________________
> > > Az-Geocaching mailing list
listserv@azgeocaching.com
> > > To edit your setting, subscribe or unsubscribe visit:
> > >
> >href="
http://mail.brasher.com/jump/http://listserv.azgeocaching.com/mailman
>/listinfo/az-geocaching">
http://listserv.azgeocaching.com/mailman/listinfo/a
>z-geocaching
> > >
> > > Arizona's Geocaching Resource
> > >
> >href="
http://mail.brasher.com/jump/http://www.azgeocaching.com">
http://www.
>azgeocaching.com
> >
> >------- End of forwarded message -------
> >____________________________________________________________
> >Az-Geocaching mailing list
listserv@azgeocaching.com
> >To edit your setting, subscribe or unsubscribe visit:
> >
http://listserv.azgeocaching.com/mailman/listinfo/az-geocaching
> >
> >Arizona's Geocaching Resource
> >
http://www.azgeocaching.com
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
> MSN 8 helps ELIMINATE E-MAIL VIRUSES. Get 2 months FREE*.
>____________________________________________________________ Az-Geocaching
>mailing list
listserv@azgeocaching.com To edit your setting, subscribe or
>unsubscribe visit:
>
http://listserv.azgeocaching.com/mailman/listinfo/az-geocaching Arizona's
>Geocaching Resource
http://www.azgeocaching.com
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
(text/html)