Let's define the 4.5 Terrain rating for Alaska

[SSO JOAT]

The 4.5 is one of those rare birds that a lot of people would like to find (or try). The D/T tool isn't the best way to figure out Alaskan terrain ratings. So, let's put our heads together and try to define what it takes to get there!

[ladybugkids]

4.5 Difficulty:
About half-way between

Difficult. A real challenge for the experienced cache hunter - may require special skills or knowledge, or in-depth preparation to find. May require multiple days / trips to complete.

and

Extreme. A serious mental or physical challenge. Requires specialized knowledge, skills, or equipment to find cache.

4.5 Terrain:
About half-way between

Experienced outdoor enthusiasts only. (Terrain is probably off-trail. Will have one or more of the following: very heavy overgrowth, very steep elevation (requiring use of hands), or more than a 10 mile hike. May require an overnight stay.)

and

Requires specialized equipment and knowledge or experience, (boat, 4WD, rock climbing, SCUBA, etc) or is otherwise extremely difficult.

Good topic, Scott. Quite a few of the 4+ Ds/Ts on my grid are WAY overrated, so I'm working to double up some of them to have "legitimate" combinations when I finally complete the Fizzy Well-Balanced Cacher Challenge (all 81 D/T combinations complete).

Then there's the matter of seasonal variation. An island cache in Anchorage may be Terrain 5 in summer and Terrain 2 in winter.

And, there's the matter of what are specialized knowledge, skills, or equipment? In Alaska, I consider snowshoes, skis, watercraft and dogs standard equipment. In Arizona, all would be specialized equipment. However, some folks in the Interior took issue with that assessment with some caches I placed in the White Mountains Recreation Area via skijoring and felt I underrated my caches out there. The most remote cache was only seven miles from the trailhead and is accessible year-round via snowmachine, ATV, mountain bike and foot travel.

[SSO JOAT]

I think the difficulty ratings are fairly standardized regardless of location. Difficulty is the most subjective measurement of the D/T rating.

But the terrain rating system seems to me to have a more objective measure as it relates specifically to the ground you cover and how you cover it. In Alaska, I think we tend to low-ball the terrain ratings when compared to many other geographical regions. We've all seen the large number of T-1 caches out there where there is no way you could get a wheelchair to the cache, let alone retrieve the cache while seated in a wheelchair. But that is the golden standard for a T-1.

So, if we look at the T-5, it should be the hardest to get to. One of the rulers used is specialized equipment including boats and ATVs. Yet, there are plenty of caches scattered over Alaska where you must use a boat (e.g. PWS) and yet they have T ratings of about 3 because the CO doesn't consider the boat ride to get to the place where you start walking. There are caches that are best accessed by ATV, but then again if you can ride there you can probably walk there.

I guess my gut says that, for Alaska, if you can get there by a common mode of transport such as ATV, snowmachine, or boat and the walking is pretty easy from the parking place to the cache and you need no other specialized gear or skill to cover the terrain, that would fall into the 4-ish category. ATVs and snowmachines are so common, that a 4 rating is probably quite adequate. A small boat or airplane accessible cache (that you can't ATV or walk to) might fall into the 4.5 category due to the large number of private boats and planes we have. Now if you must take a big ocean-going boat that's not in common public service, that could be the 5 star trigger.

What about a cliff-side cache on the side of a highway where you have to do an easy rock climb up 30 feet, or a trail takes you up to where you have an easy 40-foot rappel down? These are fairly easy skills with no approach problems, so maybe they fall down in the 4 range, but many folks might consider that a 5 star rating because it requires specialized equipment and skills.

[NeverSummer]

Before going too far down the road of "typical equipment" for an Alaskan, I can speak as a new transplant. I grew up in Minnesota, and many would argue that xc skis, a snowmobile, or snowshoes were not special equipment. I, on the other hand, would say that some things just come with the territory! But, if you can cover the ground in a convenient fashion, one shouldn't assume you'd always cover it in the easiest way.

Because of the prolific presence of an ATV and/or snowmachine, combined with laws and ability to use them cross-country, I think folks assume everyone will get to that cache using that mode of transport. I, for one, don't own either. Some day I might, but I'd never consider an ATV or Snowmachine a given unless I lived in a place where that is the primary mode of transport. Even then, my experience has shown me that you measure D/T on where you leave the pavement. If I go overland to find a cache, it doesn't matter the distance for it to be considered a higher D/T. If I've had to leave established road systems, >10mi is still >10mi no matter the method. I'd still consider a 10-mile snowmachine ride a more significant terrain rating than just taking a quick 1000 foot ride (or hike) from a trailhead. I just can't bring myself to think of ATV/snowmachine "park-n-grabs"!

So, that said, I think someone in a bush community (I'm thinking about the Aleutians, since that's the context I have so far when thinking about this scenario) people might rate a cache based on using their ATV to go cross-country to get there. But, unless you are a geocacher in that community, there is no guarantee that someone outside your community is going to have an ATV or snowmachine once they are to your town to get to the cache. This can be likened to "house rules" for a game; it might be the way where you're from, but others might have an issue with it. Taking a mode of transport for granted is slightly different than having it be a normal and accessible manner of transport for the majority of visitors to that cache; just because you have one, doesn't mean others do.

I do think, however, that from my experience living in 3 different caching communities (versus just visiting), people don't really have a clear definition of how to rate anything over a 3. It really comes down to the feedback that others might give over the lifetime of a cache. What might start as a 3/3 could fall or climb the rating scale based on constructive criticism and other feedback. A nudge here, and tweak there, and you can easily rate a 4* cache a 4.5* or a 5* if you wanted to.

In Minnesota I saw some 4-4.5 T and D caches that required a true class IV climb (hands and feet scramble, but no rope). I thought those were fair representations of what a not-quite-5-star cache would be.

Looking at SSO's second-to-last paragraph... I think it sums up things better. I should have saved the time typing and just gone to bed sooner! lol

[GreatlandReviewer]

Mar 6, 2013 19:31:03 GMT -9 SSO JOAT said:

But the terrain rating system seems to me to have a more objective measure as it relates specifically to the ground you cover and how you cover it. In Alaska, I think we tend to low-ball the terrain ratings when compared to many other geographical regions. We've all seen the large number of T-1 caches out there where there is no way you could get a wheelchair to the cache, let alone retrieve the cache while seated in a wheelchair. But that is the golden standard for a T-1.

The new cache submission form isn't supposed to let a person submit a Terrain 1 cache without also adding the "Wheelchair Accessible" attribute. Or, more correctly stated since it's been at least six years since my alter ego placed an urban cache, I can't publish a Terrain 1 cache without the "Wheelchair Accessible" attribute becaues the reviewer toolset won't let me.

There are many older underrated Terrain 1 caches out there because the Reviewer Team has been instructed not to look too hard at the D/T ratings. The Cache Owner and caching community will sort that out.

[fuzzybelly]

I Think we could use more T1 rated caches to get more treasure chests for wheelchair bound cachers. I've chatted with a couple cachers who are limited, And geocaching is a great bit of entertainment they are able to enjoy. We just need more.

[fuzzybelly]

But that's a bit off subject, in fact the opposite end

4.5 to me means a long hike, a mountain climb, or on an island where the water doesn't freeze to allow access.

But I don't think a difficult puzzle means a high T rating unless the getting to GZ is difficult.

[SSO JOAT]

Yes, I've noticed a time or two that folks are confused about the T vs the D, especially when it comes to puzzles.

The Terrain rating has absolutely nothing to do with the type of cache at the end. All caches are equal when it comes to the T. The only thing to consider in the T is what you have to go through between the parking lot and GZ. It should consider distance, terrain type, obstacles, elevation changes, and special skills or equipment that you must have to get over that terrain.

The Difficulty rating is all about the cache itself and has nothing to do with the ground between the truck and GZ. A big red ammo can sitting in plain view and reachable while seated in a wheel chair is a D-1. At the other end of the scale, a puzzle cache that may take hundreds of hours of puzzle solving work just to figure out the coords, followed by a well-hidden container is probably worthy of the D-5 rating. And then you have the traditional caches that are extremely tricksy to find or figure out in the field. They may require special tools to access or require you to figure out a field puzzle or something like that These could range from D-3 through D-5 depending on the CO's subjective measure. And many CO's guess wrong when trying to figure out how hard their cache will be to find and/or access, since they know how to do so and can't quite see the cache from the 3rd point of view (the cache hunter). So, when you hide a tricksy cache, pay attention to the logs and be ready to adjust the ratings.

[SSO JOAT]

Mar 7, 2013 6:14:07 GMT -9 GreatlandReviewer said:

There are many older underrated Terrain 1 caches out there because the Reviewer Team has been instructed not to look too hard at the D/T ratings. The Cache Owner and caching community will sort that out.

We all know the VR's don't have time to sort through 2,000,000 existing caches to try and fix stuff, but I don't see the caching community sorting it out. In nearly every case I can think of where a cache is grossly mis-rating by the CO, they won't fix it despite logs and requests to do so.

At what point can we notify the Reviewer to correct a notably misleading cache? For instance, the wheelchair access is a common one. You see a T-1 rating, but get there and walk 100 yards over a rocky dirt path through the woods and then have to get down on your hands and knees to get the cache pulled out from a hiding spot in a critter hole or under a tree or thicket. If the CO doesn't respond, can GLR make the adjustment to the listing in such cases, or does it always have to fall back to the CO?

[NeverSummer]

Mar 7, 2013 14:11:24 GMT -9 SSO JOAT said:

Yes, I've noticed a time or two that folks are confused about the T vs the D, especially when it comes to puzzles.

The Terrain rating has absolutely nothing to do with the type of cache at the end. All caches are equal when it comes to the T. The only thing to consider in the T is what you have to go through between the parking lot and GZ. It should consider distance, terrain type, obstacles, elevation changes, and special skills or equipment that you must have to get over that terrain.

The Difficulty rating is all about the cache itself and has nothing to do with the ground between the truck and GZ. A big red ammo can sitting in plain view and reachable while seated in a wheel chair is a D-1. At the other end of the scale, a puzzle cache that may take hundreds of hours of puzzle solving work just to figure out the coords, followed by a well-hidden container is probably worthy of the D-5 rating. And then you have the traditional caches that are extremely tricksy to find or figure out in the field. They may require special tools to access or require you to figure out a field puzzle or something like that These could range from D-3 through D-5 depending on the CO's subjective measure. And many CO's guess wrong when trying to figure out how hard their cache will be to find and/or access, since they know how to do so and can't quite see the cache from the 3rd point of view (the cache hunter). So, when you hide a tricksy cache, pay attention to the logs and be ready to adjust the ratings.

I agree completely. Terrain ratings are related to something much more objective. However, Difficulty ratings can sometimes be properly, in my opinion, used to articulate the hide in the context of Terrain.

For example, a cache on the peak of a mountain. Hidden in an obvious spot (say, at a summit marker or register), the D could be low. (1.5-2, perhaps) But, if it takes a significant hike to get there, it should be undoubtedly reflected in the terrain rating. However, if the hike could take a long time, and might be a strain on your physical being or a time-consuming process, I'd bump the Difficulty up to reflect that.

So, what might be a 2/4 could be upped to a 3/4 based on the context of the terrain. This idea, however, is so subjective that it would be hard to create a hard-and-fast rule of thumb. There are certainly many more variables that go into a D rating, and terrain, I think, is one of them that can be considered, but not directly linked.

[SSO JOAT]

And that's where the subjective part comes in and I tend to disagree with you slightly here. I think the Terrain part is completely separate and only covers the travel from car to cache "area" (e.g. GZ), but has nothing to do with the cache itself. I don't count the GZ circle in the Terrain rating, so the last few feet of off trail doesn't alter the mile of paved path, except when talking about the T-1 wheelchair accessibility.

Conversely, I think the Difficulty rating is entirely about the cache itself and has nothing to do with the ground you cover to get there. So, if it's that ground pounder up the mountain that you're talking about, but the cache itself is a neon orange ammo can sitting in plain view, I'd rate the D/T as a 1/4. If the cache is well hidden and may require a little searching, then the D/T could be 2/4. If the cache is cleverly camo'd and might require extensive searching to find it, that could be a 3/4. If it's going to take special tools or solving a puzzle to get to the cache, then you might be looking at the 4/5. If the cache is amongst the elite of the elite on access with puzzles, special tools, need to pack a gallon of water, or other such complicated measures are needed to find and/or access the container, then you could be looking at that 5/4.

Notice that I didn't change the Terrain rating of 4 at all, becuase the hike to the top of the mountain remains in place for all 5 container hide difficulty ratings. Also, that neon orange ammo can in plain view is a D-1 cache regardless of what kind of terrain you have to go through to arrive at GZ.

[NeverSummer]

Mar 7, 2013 15:23:31 GMT -9 SSO JOAT said:

And that's where the subjective part comes in and I tend to disagree with you slightly here. I think the Terrain part is completely separate and only covers the travel from car to cache "area" (e.g. GZ), but has nothing to do with the cache itself. I don't count the GZ circle in the Terrain rating, so the last few feet of off trail doesn't alter the mile of paved path, except when talking about the T-1 wheelchair accessibility.

Conversely, I think the Difficulty rating is entirely about the cache itself and has nothing to do with the ground you cover to get there. So, if it's that ground pounder up the mountain that you're talking about, but the cache itself is a neon orange ammo can sitting in plain view, I'd rate the D/T as a 1/4. If the cache is well hidden and may require a little searching, then the D/T could be 2/4. If the cache is cleverly camo'd and might require extensive searching to find it, that could be a 3/4. If it's going to take special tools or solving a puzzle to get to the cache, then you might be looking at the 4/5. If the cache is amongst the elite of the elite on access with puzzles, special tools, need to pack a gallon of water, or other such complicated measures are needed to find and/or access the container, then you could be looking at that 5/4.

Notice that I didn't change the Terrain rating of 4 at all, becuase the hike to the top of the mountain remains in place for all 5 container hide difficulty ratings. Also, that neon orange ammo can in plain view is a D-1 cache regardless of what kind of terrain you have to go through to arrive at GZ.

Hmm. Never really thought of it that way.

The only thing that I think I see differently after you presented it that way is about the trek--not the trail. If I need to do some trip planning to get to that neon orange container in the open, I would think it would get a bump in difficulty. It isn't the terrain that is the issue, rather it is the process to get the cache.

Also, if a cache requires a quick trip on a paved trail, but the final location is 20 feet into the woods, I wouldn't call that a 1* terrain. Just to get away from the wheelchair thing, I think if it were a well-established trail (2*), but the cache was off that trail in tall brush, would we call that a 2.5* or a 3*? (Personally, I think there is more to ratings than just the way it is written in the knowledge books)

Anyway, so back to the mountain example. If the cache is on this mountain, and is obvious at GZ we can say T4, sure. But if you need to plan your trip to know where trails are/go, I think the difficulty gets a bump. If I can follow THE trail to the top of this mountain, and it isn't difficult to follow that singular trail, then I'd keep it as that 1* difficulty.

I mean, if we're going for a strict interpretation of what is in the knowledgebooks, then a 3* D cache ("An experienced cache hunter will find this challenging, and it could take up a good portion of an afternoon.") would be pretty hard. I've rarely found a cache that has taken me a good portion of an afternoon once I've found GZ. So are those caches over rated? (I can see how this might apply more to multis or puzzles, however)

To me, this means that not only is the difficulty of the hide part of the rating, but it also brings in the effort to find the cache overall. Take this one for example. This would imply "A real challenge for the experienced cache hunter - may require special skills or knowledge, or in-depth preparation to find. May require multiple days / trips to complete." But, I don't think the last part really applies here. What does matter is the "in-depth preparation". Consulting maps and being aware of backcountry travel skills would certainly apply to the D rating, but the difficulty of the hide itself at GZ likely doesn't.

Is this making sense? I don't want to come across as argumentative--I just want to make sure we're understanding what we're both trying to get at here.

How far off a trail can a cache's GZ be to begin to impact the T rating in your opinion? I don't think an arm's reach matters, but if I need to step off a trail and begin to search in the brush and briar, the T better reflect a higher number.

[SSO JOAT]

Not argumentative; good debate that needs to be had. I don't think there is a "strict interpretation" as these ratings are only guidelines and they are very subjective. What the guideline strictly calls a D-3, some people would call it a D-1 and others would call it a D-5 due to differences in personal knowledge and skill sets. You can clearly see this with puzzle caches, which I generally call D-3 as a starting point. But then you can look at some Klondike Kid puzzles and see that he rated his in the D-3 to D-4 range, but they are some of the hardest puzzles in the state. I think he has underrated the D on most of his puzzles, but then some folks might claim that I've overrated the D on some of mine. It's all perspective and very subjective.

That said, I fully agree with your D fudging factor. Yes, the trip planning and execution is part of the D rating. What I was trying to get across is that I consider the T rating to be the physical trek from car to cache and the actual look of the land doesn't affect the D rating. The factors leading up to the parking lot (pre-trip planning, puzzle solving, tool selection, etc) all figure into the D. Then T takes over for the travel segment. Finally, the cache hunt (GZ) reverts back to the D rating.

I feel the half star ratings do what you're talking about with fudge factors. So, if you park in a parking lot and have a nicely constructed gravel trail over gently hilly terrain for about a mile, that would sound like an easy T-2. If you have to break off the trail and bushwack through thick cover for the last 25 yards to get to GZ, then you might bump it to T-2.5 or if the off-trail leg is particularly complicated to get through for that last bit it might warrant the 3. But that's still part of the trek as you're not at GZ yet. IMHO, the T must get you to the point where you start looking for the box. While a typical GZ circle is about 20 feet per the GPS, that distance may be reduced accordingly due to terrain (cliffs, water, etc.). Thus, you can have that nice T-2 trail run you all the way to within 5 feet of the cache, but if the last 5 feet of the accuracy circle includes a 100 foot vertical rock climb, then that's going to affect the T rating for the rock face as well as the D rating for the skills and equipment you need to perform it.

So, I think we are saying pretty similar things with the final answer being, "it depends".

[NeverSummer]

Two roads diverged in the wood...and they ended up at the same place in the end.

I'm totally with you on this now.

I do think that some of the puzzle D ratings really start to get screwy. I've spent months now on a puzzle and haven't made any headway. I believe it is rated a 3. Some of the "Aha!" moment might be rolled into it once you finally get it, but if folks have been working on your puzzle for this long and still haven't found the solution, I think it deserves some adjustment!

[SSO JOAT]

I've been working on the same one (it's the only puzzle on the Kenai I haven't solved). I know the guy who made it and I seriously question the validity of the puzzle information given. Maybe we'll have to compare notes sometime and see if 2 minds can pierce the cloud of this fella's thinking.

[NeverSummer]

I'll take a look at my notes. I also have an email out to the owner...

Anyway, back to the discussion. Nothing to see here! Move along!

[SSO JOAT]

Yeah, you probably won't hear anything from him by email, but it can't hurt to try. I saw him in town about 3 weeks ago, but didn't have a chance to try and grab him and shake a hint out of him.

[akgh519]

FYI
I just did a terrain 1 cache. A pop up window comes up and specifically asks if it is wheelchair accessible if you select terrain 1
Interesting read. I think I am now rating mine correctly. When I first started hiding I don't think so.

[NorthWes]

So subjective. Outside most high T number stuff I've done has been "easy" Alaskan 3 tops. People get here and think some 2.5 stuff should be 3.5 or 4 - really? Just because you had to walk off trail uphill for 20'? I agree with what's been said here about trying to better rate the T factor. It's kinda tough to settle on a good definition.

[NeverSummer]

Mar 9, 2013 15:24:30 GMT -9 akgh519 said:

FYI
I just did a terrain 1 cache. A pop up window comes up and specifically asks if it is wheelchair accessible if you select terrain 1
Interesting read. I think I am now rating mine correctly. When I first started hiding I don't think so.

Properly rated, I might add. Just enough D to make you really scratch your head, but not so much that you wanted to curse the name of the hider!

[NeverSummer]

Mar 10, 2013 21:27:41 GMT -9 NorthWes said:

So subjective. Outside most high T number stuff I've done has been "easy" Alaskan 3 tops. People get here and think some 2.5 stuff should be 3.5 or 4 - really? Just because you had to walk off trail uphill for 20'? I agree with what's been said here about trying to better rate the T factor. It's kinda tough to settle on a good definition.

To me, the big factor would be if the 20' uphill, off trail was overgrown significantly, or if it truly could be a place where you wouldn't want your little kid to be unattended. Do you likely need to use your hands to get up that last 20 feet? Totally subjective, indeed.

I think the bottom line in those cases should be the willingness to take the criticism from cachers (even if they are vacation cachers from outside...) and adjust the D or T. hen

Get ready to groan...
"When I started to cache..." people seemed very receptive to adapting their D/T ratings based on feedback. The definitions were so fresh that people were happy to help each other rate the cache in a manner that would be understood universally. Now, I think with the number of "evil hides" increasing, people rate caches so subjectively that it only will fit what they, personally, think the hide should be rated. I've encountered caches and cache owners in a couple of areas I've lived who have it set in their mind that their cache is, say, a 2* D, because they think it should be...even when people have historically had a very hard time with finding it. (No hint, no help in the description, many places it could be...and it's a micro in the woods types of caches)

I'm just glad that since I started finding caches a D/T rating system was created like the ClayJar. The few I found from 2001-2005 were all over the grid, and it made it really tough to want to keep playing! Once I jumped on the geocaching.com site, it was like walking into an oasis of good data!

[ladybugkids]

Mar 10, 2013 21:27:41 GMT -9 NorthWes said:

So subjective. Outside most high T number stuff I've done has been "easy" Alaskan 3 tops. People get here and think some 2.5 stuff should be 3.5 or 4 - really? Just because you had to walk off trail uphill for 20'? I agree with what's been said here about trying to better rate the T factor. It's kinda tough to settle on a good definition.

Yeah, I still get a kick out of rereading the FTF and STF logs on Denali Bluff Bonanza.

 Found it
08/16/2006

OMG - FTF, My 1st FTF - And What a CLIMB!!!
This was a cache that is not for the weak of anything and the destination is so worth the journey; but terrain should be much higher. Took me a good 1-1/2 hour round trip from the "easy" parking spot -- but then again, I am from Kansas, and we consider a flight of stars 4-Star.
I will upload some pictures when I get my Alaskan vacation downloaded from the camera.
I thought for the work and the FTF I would grab some good booty.
T: Dutch Coin TB & Nenana TB
L: Nature TB & Andy's Pen

Thanks For the Incredible Cache

 Found it
08/17/2006

2TF Level three terrain, my foot! good heavens people, what would you consider a level five? mars? The things I do for a Cache! Took 2 TBs and a geo-coin to send on their way. K-kid took a hat left buttons, CITO bags, and US-AK flag pin. Then slid back down.

I'd gone up to GZ and down three times the night I placed the cache while wearing running shoes without giving it much thought and thought rating it 3* terrain was a stretch (think something like the trail up Lazy Mountain or Bird Ridge).  However, after receiving feedback, I bumped it up to 3.5* given that the average cacher who visits Denali is not your average Alaskan hiker.  The climb is only 500' or so, which is an order of magnitude less than many of the 4* and 4.5* terrain hikes in the Chugach that involve 5000'-6000' of elevation gain.  So, for an Alaskan, I still feel Denali Bluff Bonanza is overrated at 3.5*, but not for someone from Kansas.

[NeverSummer]

I hate to laugh, but I did. Vertical altitude change is likely enough to warrant some fear with flatlanders. That is an example of feedback to be taken with a large grain of rock salt.

[ladybugkids]

Yeah, here's validation on the same cache page:

 Found it

08/19/2010

Whew, that was quite a climb! We did it as "warm up" for our hike to the Mt. Healy overlook and beyond later in the day. We had to go look up the terrain rating system after we did it, because 3.5 just didn't seem high enough, but we decided that it did fit.

But then, the last log reads:

 Found it

09/14/2012

What is a seventy year old flat lander doing going after this heart attack special? But I found it and the cache is in good condition. There are no trackables in the cache and the CO might want to eliminate the TB listing from the cache. Additionally, if this is a 3.5 for tarain what does a five look like in this part of the world? Anyway, great fun and thanks for climbing way up there to place this one.

Sorry, but I just wasn't going to place a skirt lifter in a hotel parking lot.

[NeverSummer]

Mar 12, 2013 14:03:51 GMT -9 ladybugkids said:

YSorry, but I just wasn't going to place a skirt lifter in a hotel parking lot.

And for that, the people of the land rejoice!

[barnacle9]

Great topic! I have had some difficulty in figuring out how to rate a couple of my caches, terrain-wise, as two of them are only accessible by boat.

My thoughts are in a location such as Prince William Sound, you have to expect boat travel unless you are in one of the few towns or villages. So I would say probably a 4 terrain rating makes sense for a cache near the shoreline, unless some extra effort must be made, say a fairly significant climb or difficult boat landing.

Having said that, I am having trouble deciding whether to go 4 or 4.5 on my latest hide, which is an easy walk from the Esther hatchery, or a fairly challenging landing by boat in the nearby cove. Any input appreciated:
Crescent Moon Cove - GC483GK

[SSO JOAT]

I like the way you have it rated. A 4 on the official scale accounts for boat access. And then you describe the GZ terrain in the description as a 2 so folks know what to expect when they get there. That's exactly how I would do it. You get credit for the overall 4 rating in your stats, as that includes the whole journey.

[fuzzybelly]

I agree with JOAT.

Did I say that out loud

[barnacle9]

Thanks for the input guys! I'll try and come up with a good 4.5. I'm thinking Martin Islands, but they may never get any visitors . . .

[NorthWes]

I just checked my stats; I don't have any 4.5 terrain finds.  Hmmm... how much does helo rental time cost by the hour???