[Az-Geocaching] Cache Ratings
Andrew Ayre
listserv@azgeocaching.com
Fri, 11 Apr 2003 13:18:08 -0700
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0051_01C3002C.CB077350
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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
------=_NextPart_000_0051_01C3002C.CB077350
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1106" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D034171620-11042003><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>Well,=20
I would hope that the kind of checkbox rating form for detailed terrain=20
descriptions would be part of the form you fill in to submit a cache. =
Note=20
however that despite the clayjar system being around for a relatively =
long time=20
now, the people running geocaching.com haven't even bothered to make it =
part of=20
the cache submission process, or produced their own =
version.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D034171620-11042003><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D034171620-11042003><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>I'm=20
going to send Jeremy an Email with my suggestion and ask him for=20
comments.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<P><FONT size=3D2>Andy<BR><BR> </FONT> </P>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV class=3DOutlookMessageHeader dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><FONT =
face=3DTahoma=20
size=3D2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B>=20
az-geocaching-admin@listserv.azgeocaching.com=20
[mailto:az-geocaching-admin@listserv.azgeocaching.com]<B>On Behalf Of =
</B>gale=20
and mike<BR><B>Sent:</B> Friday, April 11, 2003 1:09 PM<BR><B>To:</B>=20
listserv@azgeocaching.com<BR><B>Subject:</B> [Az-Geocaching] Cache=20
Ratings<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<P>That's the clayjar's ratings system from geocaching.com. Problem =
is, not=20
everyone uses it consistently. Case in point is a fairly recent cache =
called=20
Savanic Mine <A=20
=
href=3D"http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=3D61648">htt=
p://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=3D61648</A> which =
the owners have given a 1 * rating to. The cache description tells me =
it might=20
be beyond my abilities. People who don't have limitations don't =
usually=20
realize the difficulties a cache may present. It's also why I think =
something=20
like handicap rating system might be better implemented locally rather =
than at=20
geocaching.com. Since too many people already rate a cache without =
using their=20
ratings form, what makes anyone think people will use an updated form =
or a new=20
one? </P>
<P>There is definitely a need though. Recently I e-mailed someone =
whose log=20
entries included mention of a physically handicapped cacher. I gave =
them a=20
list of about 50 caches and compared them to other caches they had =
been to.=20
They were very appreciative of the list since the handicapped person =
had=20
serious heart problems and several recent =
hospitalizations.<BR><BR></P></DIV>
<DIV></DIV><BR><BR><BR>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>From: "Trisha" <TRISHA@BRASHER.COM>
<DIV></DIV>>Reply-To: listserv@azgeocaching.com=20
<DIV></DIV>>To: listserv@azgeocaching.com=20
<DIV></DIV>>Subject: Fwd: Re: [Az-Geocaching] Cache Ratings=20
<DIV></DIV>>Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 11:28:04 -0700 (MST)=20
<DIV></DIV>>=20
<DIV></DIV>>Back a few weeks ago (Mar 25) I posted this post re: =
cache=20
ratings, a=20
<DIV></DIV>>descriptive system that I have been using (supplemented =
by=20
appropriate=20
<DIV></DIV>>wording on my cache pages) This post did not get ONE=20
reply....which is=20
<DIV></DIV>>fine, but now that you guys are discussing it, what do =
you=20
think?=20
<DIV></DIV>>=20
<DIV></DIV>>Obviously, the difference between a "1", "1.5", and "2" =
on=20
terrain,=20
<DIV></DIV>>when critical to whether someone with some limitations =
may have=20
<DIV></DIV>>trouble accessing that cache, needs to be described on =
the page=20
in=20
<DIV></DIV>>some fashion that you guys appear to be hashing out.=20
<DIV></DIV>>=20
<DIV></DIV>>When in doubt, I provide hopefully enough description =
so=20
everybody=20
<DIV></DIV>>will have some idea what they are getting into, because =
I sure=20
<DIV></DIV>>appreciate the same in return.=20
<DIV></DIV>>=20
<DIV></DIV>>Trisha "Lightning"=20
<DIV></DIV>>Prescott=20
<DIV></DIV>>=20
<DIV></DIV>>SEE BELOW=20
<DIV></DIV>>=20
<DIV></DIV>>=20
<DIV></DIV>>=20
<DIV></DIV>>=20
<DIV></DIV>>=20
<DIV></DIV>>------- Start of forwarded message -------=20
<DIV></DIV>>=20
<DIV></DIV>>Subject: Re: [Az-Geocaching] Cache Ratings=20
<DIV></DIV>>From: "Trisha" <TRISHA@BRASHER.COM>
<DIV></DIV>>Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 16:08:15 -0700 (MST)=20
<DIV></DIV>>To: listserv@azgeocaching.com=20
<DIV></DIV>>=20
<DIV></DIV>>Hi Patrick and all,=20
<DIV></DIV>>=20
<DIV></DIV>>In regards to rating caches, I have been using a =
descriptive=20
system=20
<DIV></DIV>>that seems to be fairly accurate. I just looked at=20
geocaching.com to=20
<DIV></DIV>>see if I could find where this is listed, because I =
don't=20
remember=20
<DIV></DIV>>where I got it from!!!=20
<DIV></DIV>>=20
<DIV></DIV>>It's not that long, so I will type it out here and =
hopefully it=20
will=20
<DIV></DIV>>help. Obviously, this is subjective (half steps can be =
used)=20
but it=20
<DIV></DIV>>helps me to think of the ratings in these descriptive =
terms.=20
<DIV></DIV>>=20
<DIV></DIV>>TERRAIN:=20
<DIV></DIV>>=20
<DIV></DIV>>1. Handicap Accessible (may be paved, relatively flat, =
<1/2=20
mile)=20
<DIV></DIV>>=20
<DIV></DIV>>2. Suitable for Small Children (likely marked trails, =
no steep=20
or=20
<DIV></DIV>>overgrowth, <2 mile hike)=20
<DIV></DIV>>=20
<DIV></DIV>>3. Not Suitable for Small Children - Average =
Adult/Older Child=20
OK=20
<DIV></DIV>>depending on physical condition (Likely off trail, may =
have one=20
or=20
<DIV></DIV>>more of the following: some overgrowth, some steep =
elevation=20
changes,=20
<DIV></DIV>> > 2 mile hike)=20
<DIV></DIV>>=20
<DIV></DIV>>4. Experienced Outdoor Enthusiasts Only - (offtrail, =
one or=20
more of=20
<DIV></DIV>>the following: Heavy Overgrowth, Steep elevation (need =
use of=20
hands),=20
<DIV></DIV>> >10 miles, may be overnight.)=20
<DIV></DIV>>=20
<DIV></DIV>>5. Requires Special Equipment or Knowledge: (Boat, 4WD, =
Rock=20
Climbing,=20
<DIV></DIV>>SCUBA) or otherwise extremely difficult.=20
<DIV></DIV>>=20
<DIV></DIV>>Because I feel very strongly that people need to know =
what they=20
are=20
<DIV></DIV>>getting into, esp up here in the mountains or any=20
out-of-the-way=20
<DIV></DIV>>place, I will describe pretty clearly if there is a =
difficult=20
part in=20
<DIV></DIV>>getting to the cache. The only thing I don't agree with =
in this=20
<DIV></DIV>>descriptive system is the 4WD =3D a "5". While 4WD is =
"special=20
<DIV></DIV>>equipment", many have it. If getting to my cache =
requires 4WD I=20
will=20
<DIV></DIV>>put that in the description, with an assessment of how =
hard the=20
4WD=20
<DIV></DIV>>might be, and rate the cache less than a "5" based upon =
the=20
rest of=20
<DIV></DIV>>the adventure.....:-)=20
<DIV></DIV>>=20
<DIV></DIV>>=20
<DIV></DIV>>DIFFICULTY:=20
<DIV></DIV>>=20
<DIV></DIV>>1. EASY - plain sight or found in a few minutes=20
<DIV></DIV>>=20
<DIV></DIV>>2. AVERAGE - Any geocacher can find in less than 30 =
minutes=20
<DIV></DIV>>=20
<DIV></DIV>>3. CHALLENGING - Experienced Geocacher will find it =
challenging=20
and=20
<DIV></DIV>>could take a good part of the afternoon=20
<DIV></DIV>>=20
<DIV></DIV>>4. DIFFICULT - Real challenge for experienced =
Geocacher. May=20
require=20
<DIV></DIV>>special skills/knowledge, or in depth preparation. May =
need=20
multiple=20
<DIV></DIV>>days/trips to find.=20
<DIV></DIV>>=20
<DIV></DIV>>5. EXTREME - Serious mental/physical challenge. =
Requires=20
Special=20
<DIV></DIV>>knowledge, skills or equipment.=20
<DIV></DIV>>=20
<DIV></DIV>>As you can see, there is quite a gap between "2" and =
"3". Guess=20
that=20
<DIV></DIV>>is what "2.5" is for!!!=20
<DIV></DIV>>=20
<DIV></DIV>>LIke I said, I get this over a year ago from.... I =
thought -=20
the=20
<DIV></DIV>>geocaching website. Anyway, I wrote it down and this is =
what I=20
go by.=20
<DIV></DIV>>What do people think? Anybody else using this =
descriptive=20
system? If=20
<DIV></DIV>>most like it maybe it could become the standard?=20
<DIV></DIV>>=20
<DIV></DIV>>Trisha "Lightning"=20
<DIV></DIV>>Prescott=20
<DIV></DIV>>=20
<DIV></DIV>>=20
<DIV></DIV>>=20
<DIV></DIV>>On Mon, 24 Mar 2003, "Patrick Brown" wrote:=20
<DIV></DIV>>=20
<DIV></DIV>> >=20
<DIV></DIV>> > I have notised that a lot of people that place =
Caches use=20
<DIV></DIV>>different=20
<DIV></DIV>> > ratings. When we place a cache we have been using =
the=20
suggested=20
<DIV></DIV>>Rating=20
<DIV></DIV>> > when=20
<DIV></DIV>> > we fill out the form ( <A <=20
=
DIV>>href=3D"http://mail.brasher.com/jump/http://www.clayjar.com/gcrs"=
>http://www.clayjar.com/gcrs</A>/=20
).=20
<DIV></DIV>> > That is why it looks like we have set some high =
numbers.=20
These=20
<DIV></DIV>> > caches are=20
<DIV></DIV>> > a lot easyer than they look. Then again I see =
some that=20
have a=20
<DIV></DIV>>rating=20
<DIV></DIV>> > of 2=20
<DIV></DIV>> > or 3 that are really tuff. Does anyone else see =
that?=20
<DIV></DIV>> >=20
<DIV></DIV>> > Patrick Brown=20
<DIV></DIV>> > PANDA77=20
<DIV></DIV>> > Check out=20
<DIV></DIV>> > <A <=20
=
DIV>>href=3D"http://www.geocaching.com</A>/=20
<DIV></DIV>> > <A <=20
=
DIV>>href=3D"http://mail.brasher.com/jump/http://www.azgeocaching.com"=
>http://www.azgeocaching.com</A>/=20
<DIV></DIV>> >=20
____________________________________________________________=20
<DIV></DIV>> > Az-Geocaching mailing list =
listserv@azgeocaching.com=20
<DIV></DIV>> > To edit your setting, subscribe or unsubscribe =
visit:=20
<DIV></DIV>> > <A <=20
=
DIV>>href=3D"http://mail.brasher.com/jump/http://listserv.azgeocaching=
.com/mailman/listinfo/az-geocaching">http://listserv.azgeocaching.com/=
mailman/listinfo/az-geocaching</A>=20
<DIV></DIV>> >=20
<DIV></DIV>> > Arizona's Geocaching Resource=20
<DIV></DIV>> > <A <=20
=
DIV>>href=3D"http://mail.brasher.com/jump/http://www.azgeocaching.com"=
>http://www.azgeocaching.com</A>=20
<DIV></DIV>>=20
<DIV></DIV>>------- End of forwarded message -------=20
=
<DIV></DIV>>__________________________________________________________=
__=20
<DIV></DIV>>Az-Geocaching mailing list listserv@azgeocaching.com=20
<DIV></DIV>>To edit your setting, subscribe or unsubscribe visit:=20
=
<DIV></DIV>>http://listserv.azgeocaching.com/mailman/listinfo/az-geoca=
ching=20
<DIV></DIV>>=20
<DIV></DIV>>Arizona's Geocaching Resource=20
<DIV></DIV>>http://www.azgeocaching.com=20
<DIV></DIV></DIV><BR clear=3Dall>
<HR>
MSN 8 helps <A href=3D"http://g.msn.com/8HMCENUS/2743">ELIMINATE =
E-MAIL VIRUSES.=20
</A>Get 2 months FREE*.=20
____________________________________________________________ =
Az-Geocaching=20
mailing list listserv@azgeocaching.com To edit your setting, subscribe =
or=20
unsubscribe visit:=20
http://listserv.azgeocaching.com/mailman/listinfo/az-geocaching =
Arizona's=20
Geocaching Resource http://www.azgeocaching.com =
</BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0051_01C3002C.CB077350--