Geocaching.com has a rating system where planters can rate their caches on
a 1 to 5 scale for both terrain and the overall difficulty. This gives you
some insight before you decide to go off searching for a cache, so you
don't get in over your head or run out of time before dusk falls, etc. They
link to a tool that creates the ratings for you based on your answers to a
few questions. By codifying the ratings, you can avoid the problems that
arise from different interpretations of what might be an "easy" or
"difficult" hike. Users can also search for caches based on those levels,
which is a nice feature. For instance, a 1/1 geocache is almost always
wheelchair accessible, so searching is a quick way for those on wheels to
find suitable caches.
I wrote to the creator of the tool and asked to adapt the code for
letterboxing, and put together a working version on my site here:
http://www.letterboxing.info/rating/
Please feel free to give it a test with some of the boxes that you've
planted and see if the results seem to fit your expectations. Some of the
language is still very geocache-centric and should probably be changed, but
I welcome any input. (If you get a "500 error" when testing it, just hit
the refresh button in your browser -- my web host seems a bit flakey lately.)
|-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-|
Silent Doug, P22 F156 X05
silentdoug@douglasgerlach.com
http://www.letterboxing.info
another idea for difficulty ratings
3 messages in this thread |
Started on 2003-06-05
another idea for difficulty ratings
From: Silent Doug (silentdoug@douglasgerlach.com) |
Date: 2003-06-05 17:23:05 UTC-04:00
Re: [LbNA] another idea for difficulty ratings
From: Eric Polk (ericpolk@attbi.com) |
Date: 2003-06-07 12:13:41 UTC-07:00
I tried it out on a couple of boxes I have retrieved and got the following results:
1) El Dorado Express in Long Beach, CA. The tool gave me Difficulty Rating (DR) of 2 and Terrain Rating (TR) of 3. I think the DR is right on but the TR was off. While there is no trail it is in a wide open grassy area so small kids should have no problem going to this box.
2) Mugu Peak in Point Mugu State Park near Oxnard, CA. The tool gave me a DR of 2 and TR of 4. Again, the DR seemed to be right on but the TR came back too high. While there is not a trail to the peak that the box is on, it is not a real hard bushwhacking trip as the plants are spaced far enough apart that it isn't necessary to be a real hard core outdoorsperson to get there.
I think that using the tool as a guideline for ratings would work well as long as people don't get the idea that the tool is the ultimate rule and should be used as a guideline to be moderated with common sense.
___________________________
Eric Polk
----- Original Message -----
From: Silent Doug
To: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 2:23 PM
Subject: [LbNA] another idea for difficulty ratings
I wrote to the creator of the tool and asked to adapt the code for
letterboxing, and put together a working version on my site here:
http://www.letterboxing.info/rating/
Please feel free to give it a test with some of the boxes that you've
planted and see if the results seem to fit your expectations. Some of the
language is still very geocache-centric and should probably be changed, but
I welcome any input. (If you get a "500 error" when testing it, just hit
the refresh button in your browser -- my web host seems a bit flakey lately.)
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
1) El Dorado Express in Long Beach, CA. The tool gave me Difficulty Rating (DR) of 2 and Terrain Rating (TR) of 3. I think the DR is right on but the TR was off. While there is no trail it is in a wide open grassy area so small kids should have no problem going to this box.
2) Mugu Peak in Point Mugu State Park near Oxnard, CA. The tool gave me a DR of 2 and TR of 4. Again, the DR seemed to be right on but the TR came back too high. While there is not a trail to the peak that the box is on, it is not a real hard bushwhacking trip as the plants are spaced far enough apart that it isn't necessary to be a real hard core outdoorsperson to get there.
I think that using the tool as a guideline for ratings would work well as long as people don't get the idea that the tool is the ultimate rule and should be used as a guideline to be moderated with common sense.
___________________________
Eric Polk
----- Original Message -----
From: Silent Doug
To: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 2:23 PM
Subject: [LbNA] another idea for difficulty ratings
I wrote to the creator of the tool and asked to adapt the code for
letterboxing, and put together a working version on my site here:
http://www.letterboxing.info/rating/
Please feel free to give it a test with some of the boxes that you've
planted and see if the results seem to fit your expectations. Some of the
language is still very geocache-centric and should probably be changed, but
I welcome any input. (If you get a "500 error" when testing it, just hit
the refresh button in your browser -- my web host seems a bit flakey lately.)
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [LbNA] another idea for difficulty ratings
From: cavy_lovers4 (adelcoll@yahoo.com) |
Date: 2003-06-07 21:50:35 UTC
Silent Doug,
Thank you creating this tool - I think it is helpful as it provides
some standard concerns to think about. I especially liked the
measurements, such as elevation being one I could ride my bike up. I
guess that is still subjective - some folks can certainly manage
hills I can't, but if one tries to think of the average person, it
works.
I tried out 2 of my plants. The first rated the terrain more
difficult than I would.
1) The Cavorting Cavy box (Norfolk MA) - the tool rating gave me DR
of 2 and a TR of 3. In actuality this is an easy walk. I am not in
shape (sigh) not very sure-footed but I was never out of breath and
walked it with ease. Should be fine for the casual hiker and school
age children.
However, the trail is only one person wide so it would not be
suitable for strollers and I would probably not have enjoyed this
walk with a toddler as there isn't room to walk holding their hand.
The rating description said: "some overgrowth, some steep elevation
changes, or more than a 2 mile hike."
I think that would scare off people who could easily do this hike.
Just my opinion
Maybe suitability for small children should be separate
consideration?
2). The Rocky Woods Series, (Norfolk, MA) This gave me a 3.25. The
same description was given:"Not suitable for small children. (The
average adult or older child should be OK depending on physical
condition. Terrain is likely off-trail. May have one or more of the
following: some overgrowth, some steep elevation changes, or more
than a 2 mile hike.)"
Pretty accurate.
One additional suggestion - I would prefer to have mileage broken
down a little more. That 2-10 rage is a little broad, for me. I
would do a 5 mile hike but not a 10. Then again, I usually try to
get a trail map and make my own assessmemnt of whether its okay for
me.
Thanks again,
Cavy Lovers
--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, "Eric Polk"
wrote:
> I tried it out on a couple of boxes I have retrieved and got the
following results:
>
> 1) El Dorado Express in Long Beach, CA. The tool gave me
Difficulty Rating (DR) of 2 and Terrain Rating (TR) of 3. I think
the DR is right on but the TR was off. While there is no trail it
is in a wide open grassy area so small kids should have no problem
going to this box.
>
> 2) Mugu Peak in Point Mugu State Park near Oxnard, CA. The tool
gave me a DR of 2 and TR of 4. Again, the DR seemed to be right on
but the TR came back too high. While there is not a trail to the
peak that the box is on, it is not a real hard bushwhacking trip as
the plants are spaced far enough apart that it isn't necessary to be
a real hard core outdoorsperson to get there.
>
> I think that using the tool as a guideline for ratings would work
well as long as people don't get the idea that the tool is the
ultimate rule and should be used as a guideline to be moderated with
common sense.
> ___________________________
> Eric Polk
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Silent Doug
> To: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 2:23 PM
> Subject: [LbNA] another idea for difficulty ratings
>
> I wrote to the creator of the tool and asked to adapt the code
for
> letterboxing, and put together a working version on my site here:
> http://www.letterboxing.info/rating/
>
> Please feel free to give it a test with some of the boxes that
you've
> planted and see if the results seem to fit your expectations.
Some of the
> language is still very geocache-centric and should probably be
changed, but
> I welcome any input. (If you get a "500 error" when testing it,
just hit
> the refresh button in your browser -- my web host seems a bit
flakey lately.)
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Thank you creating this tool - I think it is helpful as it provides
some standard concerns to think about. I especially liked the
measurements, such as elevation being one I could ride my bike up. I
guess that is still subjective - some folks can certainly manage
hills I can't, but if one tries to think of the average person, it
works.
I tried out 2 of my plants. The first rated the terrain more
difficult than I would.
1) The Cavorting Cavy box (Norfolk MA) - the tool rating gave me DR
of 2 and a TR of 3. In actuality this is an easy walk. I am not in
shape (sigh) not very sure-footed but I was never out of breath and
walked it with ease. Should be fine for the casual hiker and school
age children.
However, the trail is only one person wide so it would not be
suitable for strollers and I would probably not have enjoyed this
walk with a toddler as there isn't room to walk holding their hand.
The rating description said: "some overgrowth, some steep elevation
changes, or more than a 2 mile hike."
I think that would scare off people who could easily do this hike.
Just my opinion
Maybe suitability for small children should be separate
consideration?
2). The Rocky Woods Series, (Norfolk, MA) This gave me a 3.25. The
same description was given:"Not suitable for small children. (The
average adult or older child should be OK depending on physical
condition. Terrain is likely off-trail. May have one or more of the
following: some overgrowth, some steep elevation changes, or more
than a 2 mile hike.)"
Pretty accurate.
One additional suggestion - I would prefer to have mileage broken
down a little more. That 2-10 rage is a little broad, for me. I
would do a 5 mile hike but not a 10. Then again, I usually try to
get a trail map and make my own assessmemnt of whether its okay for
me.
Thanks again,
Cavy Lovers
--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, "Eric Polk"
wrote:
> I tried it out on a couple of boxes I have retrieved and got the
following results:
>
> 1) El Dorado Express in Long Beach, CA. The tool gave me
Difficulty Rating (DR) of 2 and Terrain Rating (TR) of 3. I think
the DR is right on but the TR was off. While there is no trail it
is in a wide open grassy area so small kids should have no problem
going to this box.
>
> 2) Mugu Peak in Point Mugu State Park near Oxnard, CA. The tool
gave me a DR of 2 and TR of 4. Again, the DR seemed to be right on
but the TR came back too high. While there is not a trail to the
peak that the box is on, it is not a real hard bushwhacking trip as
the plants are spaced far enough apart that it isn't necessary to be
a real hard core outdoorsperson to get there.
>
> I think that using the tool as a guideline for ratings would work
well as long as people don't get the idea that the tool is the
ultimate rule and should be used as a guideline to be moderated with
common sense.
> ___________________________
> Eric Polk
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Silent Doug
> To: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 2:23 PM
> Subject: [LbNA] another idea for difficulty ratings
>
> I wrote to the creator of the tool and asked to adapt the code
for
> letterboxing, and put together a working version on my site here:
> http://www.letterboxing.info/rating/
>
> Please feel free to give it a test with some of the boxes that
you've
> planted and see if the results seem to fit your expectations.
Some of the
> language is still very geocache-centric and should probably be
changed, but
> I welcome any input. (If you get a "500 error" when testing it,
just hit
> the refresh button in your browser -- my web host seems a bit
flakey lately.)
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]