Only Coordinates

[marc_54140]

For those of you have banged your heads over these caches, #7 was found yesterday.

The idea for these caches came from MWGB. The caches have no info given – the D/T is default to 1/1/, no cache description, no hints, no attributes, etc.

That means, if you are a ‘purist’, these caches are probably not for you. You have no idea what you are getting into! But, someone did make the comment …. Oh, never mind.

I eventually added a comment about logging DNFs, since so many apparently were not doing so.

There are 7 in the series. One is the easier, and most conventional. After that, it’s all up hill, into … uh …. strange (?) territory. Each hide is different, in case you have not figured that out yet.

One Team made use of children, to find some of them. I told them that’s a no-no!

For a general hint – there are lots of four letter words to describe these caches.

[-cheeto-]

One Team made use of children, to find some of them. I told them that’s a no-no!

Doesn’t say that in the listings…. Hahahaha

Someday I’ll return with all my kids and all their friends to find them all. And we might re-hide them like they were…

-cheeto-

[bnb]

Just my opinion, but I don’t think it is right to list a regular cache as a 1/1 when it isn’t. If it was marked as a puzzle cache then that would provide the hint that it isn’t what it appears to be.

Ruth

[gotta run]

For the most part, I think that anything that breathes new life into the game is a good thing. And these caches pretty much fit the bill, based on what I have read/heard (haven’t done any yet).

My only observation is that the 1/1 rating is not a default. That is, D/T ratings are blank on the form, and you must choose some rating as the owner or the listing won’t go through, so a decision is being made to publish them as a 1/1.

Therefore, they would seem to be best published as mystery caches, in fitting with the theory that this alerts cachers that there is “something different” about them.

And I recall there was someone who liked to admonish people who published T1 caches that weren’t truly handicap accessible. Can’t recall offhand who that was.

On the Left Side of the Road...

[-cheeto-]

There are many who have posted when it was listed as a 1 and not handicapped accessible… won’t start naming names but I’ve seen it a lot on my first caches as well as many others out there.

Personally, I would like to see these “only coordinates” listed as accurate terrain and difficulty, but nothing else. It’s still “only coordinates” with no other text and no attributes to help.

[marc_54140]

Been mulling it over, and decided I will post accurate D/T ratings for these caches.

Now, to decide what they are, I am asking both cheeto and gotta run for their personal recommendations, having found each of them!

[zuma]

@-cheeto- wrote:

There are many who have posted when it was listed as a 1 and not handicapped accessible… won’t start naming names but I’ve seen it a lot on my first caches as well as many others out there.

Personally, I would like to see these “only coordinates” listed as accurate terrain and difficulty, but nothing else. It’s still “only coordinates” with no other text and no attributes to help.

I often will include in my log a note that a cache is not really a 1 terrain. I suppose some folks dont like it, and I know that there is a learning curve to everything, but accuracy seems to me to always to be a good idea. I dont mean to offend anyone by pointing out that there terrain rating is not accurate, but I do include that in my log on a fairly frequent basis.

zuma

[zuma]

@marc_54140 wrote:

The idea for these caches came from MWGB. The caches have no info given – the D/T is default to 1/1/, no cache description, no hints, no attributes, etc.

.

This is not really a new idea. King Boreas has been doing it for years. For example, see GC1065N one of his with no description at all that I did yesterday.

zuma

[AuntieNae]

I greatly appreciate it when the difficulty and terrain ratings reflect what the cache involves. Having geocached with an injury and with others who have physical disabilities, it better helps us screen caches that are beyond abilities.

You can keep the description blank, but having the D/T information would keep frustration levels lower with people knowing a bit what they are getting into.

AuntieNae

[bnb]

@marc_54140 wrote:

Been mulling it over, and decided I will post accurate D/T ratings for these caches.

Thank you.

[Team Deejay]

@zuma wrote:

@marc_54140 wrote:

The idea for these caches came from MWGB. The caches have no info given – the D/T is default to 1/1/, no cache description, no hints, no attributes, etc.

.

This is not really a new idea. King Boreas has been doing it for years. For example, see GC1065N one of his with no description at all that I did yesterday.

zuma

Maybe you should start a thread on the national forums indicating Marc has adopted KB as his mentor…

And seriously, I did a cache today that involved climbing a rotten tree. Terrain rating was 2. Lots of people out there who have not idea what they are doing with these ratings. At least it wasn’t a 1. Needless to say, I wasn’t very nice in my log.

[marc_54140]

Even though I have done some of the King’s caches, I had no idea he had any like these. If I knew this in advance, perhaps I would not have placed my Only Coordinates…. ?

[LightningBugs Mum]

@Team Deejay wrote:

And seriously, I did a cache today that involved climbing a rotten tree. Terrain rating was 2. Lots of people out there who have not idea what they are doing with these ratings. At least it wasn’t a 1. Needless to say, I wasn’t very nice in my log.

Yeah, I’ve run into caches just like this. Some people have the misconception that the terrain rating only applies to what it takes to get to ground zero, and then don’t factor in what it might take to retrieve it.

I wish Groundspeak would do more to clarify how to rate things properly, because it’s really not that hard. The way I see it, the difficulty rating is based on what it takes mentally to find the cache (from puzzle solving to how well it’s camo’ed or a technical hide, etc) and the terrain rating is based on what it takes physically to get the cache in hand (including things like climbing trees of course).

I once did two caches on the same day that were only a half point different in their ratings – both placed by experienced cachers. But the experience of doing the caches were as different as night and day – one was a fairly simple city park micro, the other required a long hilly hike on muddy trails and puzzling things out along the way. There’s just no real attempt at standardization and it annoys me a bit.

[GetMeOutdoors]

I guess despite the inconsistencies, confusion, misconceptions, and occasional misuse of the rating system, I’d still rather have what we’ve got than nothing. At least there’s a pretty good idea there for 90% or more of the caches. Overall, that’s not too bad I suppose.

[Team Deejay]

Actually, if you look at the new “hide a cache” page, there is now a link to the “Clayjar” site for rating caches. I think this shows Groundspeak’s intent to try to standardize on some sort of system. Unfortunately, most people will still not use it. To be honest, the difficulty rating is completely subjective. I kind of think there should only be two ratings: One star = Cache I can find, and Five Star = Cache I can’t find. 😀

Terrain, on the other hand, is fairly explicitly called out in the Clayjar system. For a cache to be rated 1 star terrain, it needs to be paved, flat, less than 1/2 mile hiking and no overgrowth. As someone who has done just about all the 1 star caches around my area, I’d say about 40% meet this standard, 50% are actually 1.5, and the remaining 10% are 2 star or higher.

[Author]

Posts