Washington's Highest Caches

7.4k · May 11, 2007

I've always been interested in threads discussing cache elevations so I thought I'd put together a list of Washington's highest caches. I generated this data using NED 30m DEM so there will be a bit of error in the accuracy, but not too much. I ignored any cache that was archived or disabled, although I kept in events and the like - basically its a snapshot of anything you could find today (according to my GSAK database). There were a total of 9455 caches and the average elevation of those caches turned out to be 944 feet, which was higher than I was expecting since there are so many caches in the Puget Sound area with lower elevation than that.

Here are the top 100. Could be an interesting new challenge cache, huh? :drama:

[sEE UPDATED LIST BELOW]

Edited May 15, 2007 by Moun10Bike

2.8k · May 11, 2007

:drama:

Ouch...

:sad: :sad:

May 11, 2007

Great idea for a challenge. Glad to see quite a few Blue Mountain caches on the list.

1.5k · May 11, 2007

I had always thought that DEW Line was the highest "Traditional" cache in WA. Now I see there are a few I need to go find that may be higher :drama:

As you stated, the numbers are of course subject to error, so I though I would post this revision for Dew Line.

Here is a pic taken just 20 feet from the cache.

My GPS Concured with that number.

Edited May 11, 2007 by Right Wing Wacko

7.3k · May 11, 2007

It's cool to see my dad and my husband's caches at #20 and #21. :sad:

Weird though, because when they were placed, you go to Elk View first, and then you have to hike up higher to get to A Beautiful View. At least that's what it felt like. I can't believe that there is only a 2 foot difference between them. :drama: Perhaps my judgement is off. :sad: I'd go back up there and check if I could. :wub: :wub:

Edited May 11, 2007 by Ambrosia

May 12, 2007

This is a fascinating topic for me. I went to the summit of Mt Adams last summer and logged that cache. I was on the tip of Ranier early in 2005 and unfortunately that cache didn't exist at the time. I would like to see a similar study done for the Gem State of Idaho as it has a lot of high peaks with caches on top. I'm guessing Idaho will have more caches that are higher - the average certainly should be higher. Also surprised to see how high Abercrombie and Hooknose placed on this list. And finally, this gives me an idea for a great earthcache!

3.7k · May 12, 2007

Very cool, thanks for generating this, Jon! Don't think I'll ever summit Rainier, so the finders of a challenge cache based on this would definitely be a select few. Might be interesting to create a challenge that requires you to get X number of these altitude caches, that would probably get a few people revved.

The highest one I've done thus far is #15, Above the Clouds, when I did the St Helens summit last year.

It was interesting to see who all has placed these caches, and where. The Barnabirdy(s) at #7! I was startled to see one of mine on the list. Coming in at #75, it's Leg o' Mutton! :drama: I was also surprised at some of the mountain caches that aren't on there. We have a tall state!

7.4k · May 12, 2007

I don't run Pocket Queries for all of Idaho, but I do for the Panhandle. I define that as everything in Idaho within 150 miles of my parents' house on Spokane's South Hill. :drama: Using NED 30m DEM again, below are what I get as the 100 highest caches in Idaho's Panhandle.

I'm seeing more error here with caches I know than I did with the caches I know in Washington. Most of the caches in the Selkirks, for example, are showing as 300 feet or so too low. I think that this is because I'm thinking of mountain-top caches, and the cragginess of the Selkirk peaks gets rounded off by the relative low resolution of the 30m data (imagine taking elevation readings every 100 feet and hoping you hit the summit of peaks like Mount Roothaan, Gunsight Peak, Harrison Peak, etc.!). Eventually I'll gather all of the caches in Idaho and run them (and the Washington ones) against 10m data, but for now here are the Panhandle results:

  RANK	  WAYPOINT										   CACHE										   ELEV (feet)
1		GCGFHC		St Joe Lake -  Illinois Peak by MedicOne												7376
2		GCY147		Selkirk Mtns, NW of Bonners by idahobob01											   7172
3		GCXBVG		Gunsight Cliffhanger by bonfire11													   7075
4		GCX8R9		Walton Lakes View by dshifter														   7035
5		GCDCC		 Mount Roothaan Geocache by Moun10Bike & wife Shauna, Perry							  7008
6		GCQWKK		Ball lakes Rockhopper by PF.A.T.5													   6966
7		GCG9AB		Myrtle Peak Lookout by Supreme744													   6770
8		GCGW4R		Harrison Peak Arête by urbn4str/Pentimento											  6757
9		GCGBYY		Scotchman Peak by MedicOne															  6678
  10		GCGG25		Indian Post Office Lake View by M/W and Combat Fisherman								6666
  11		GCJZWP		Scotchman II by RCTRECKER															   6650
  12		GCKGJ0		Goat Lake Vista by Elpé																 6582
  13		GCPYGA		Eddy Peak by cvb and the Hunt Creek gang												6548
  14		GCPXBH		Chimney Rock Cache by Moun10Bike														6538
  15		GCJVFK		A Tribute to Edward Abbey by Urbn4str												   6526
  16		GCH1CM		Beehive Lake Cache by Urbn4str / Pentimento											 6490
  17		GCJRDF		Simmons by wapiti53																	 6479
  18		GC77D9		Lookout Mountain by Moun10Bike, Laura & Anthony										 6475
  19		GCXWC9		Gem & Estelle....2 Lakes At Once by conradv											 6444
  20		GCKA5T		Clifty -  Katka by RCTRECKER															6435
  21		GCK3C1		Burke and Beyond by niskibum															6431
  22		GCGFHT		White and Wild -  Snow Peak by MedicOne												 6403
  23		GCK15W		Have I Lost My Marbles? by Hickymondu												   6238
  24		GC8F75		Let's Do Lunch by Niskibum & The Bums Mom											   6235
  25		GCX2HD		McCormick Lake by Hawser2															   6200
  26		GCGDQJ		Lunch Peak Cache by wildwillys														  6199
  27		GCK3R6		Yikes at Schweitz by schweitzerguy													  6196
  28		GCG83R		Packsaddle Mountain by MedicOne														 6193
  29		GCJWHV		Harrison Lk. by grampapa																6180
  30		GCGDHY		Grandpappy by wadel																	 6155
  31		GCGK6R		Twin Craggs Lookout by Hickymondu													   6147
  32		GCXQ3B		Trestle Peak Lookout -  Gone but not forgotten by conradv							   6121
  33		GCPP9P		Shefoot Mountain by Hickymondu														  6080
  34		GC7397		St. Joe by beiberd																	  6079
  35		GCXT1E		No. 9 Telephone Wire by Loblollylove													6054
  36		GCGHFR		Sundance Mountain Cache (TSM) by Moun10Bike and Cindy								   6022
  37		GC7F36		View of Mark's Butte by Hike&Bike													   6018
  38		GCYM8V		Twin Crags by apolloant																 6010
  39		GCQ591		My Favorite View by 2FATBOYZ															5965
  40		GC12JAZ	   Round Top Lookout by conradv															5926
  41		GCJQR1		Upper Stevens Lake by Urbn4str / Pentimento											 5925
  42		GCXBXJ		Mountain High by D & C																  5887
  43		GC1AA5		Cache Hunt by Moun10Bike, idspud & family											   5883
  44		GCGN2G		Tarn it 2 by fdmedic																	5874
  45		GC8F23		Roman Nose Lakes by wapiti53															5862
  46		GCY593		on top of ole Smoky by grampapa														 5837
  47		GCXWRJ		Fishing at West Fork Lake by up-up-and-away											 5836
  48		GCH2HV		Wonderful Peak by supreme744															5824
  49		GCH0XC		Lisa's Lookout Series #1 - Little Guard by Lookout Lisa								 5809
  50		GCGF8A		Tarn It by fdmedic																	  5801
  51		GCJZA4		Lisa's Lookout Series #4 - Grizzly Mt. by Lookout Lisa								  5770
  52		GC25		  Camels Prairie Stash by Moun10Bike, Cindy, Laura and Jasmine							5731
  53		GCJRMQ		Mastodon  Lookout by Hickymondu														 5714
  54		GCJR80		Gold Creek Saddle by twofishheads													   5692
  55		GCK62B		East Fork Peak by RCTRECKER															 5675
  56		GCR4CP		On the Way to Elk Summit by GeoTechnician & OliviaRed								   5661
  57		GCK9ZH		Lisa's Lookout Series #5 - Bloom Peak by Lookout Lisa								   5643
  58		GCQNCV		rattle saddle by grampapa and grampaskid												5607
  59		GCK14M		Elk Butte lookout - BELOOOOOW!!!! by ttabs											  5600
  60		GCJXB3		Elsie Lake View by luckyangel1998													   5600
  61		GCQ7YD		Reflections of Nature by wiildrose													  5593
  62		GCP240		Cottonwood Butte by dshifter															5579
  63		GCJPF2		SOUTH South Chilco Peak by MntTreckers												  5534
  64		GCXM2P		Too Tired to Go All the Way to Hunt, So It's Here by 5xfun							  5521
  65		GCX299		Looking Glass by wiildrose															  5499
  66		GCGK31		Huckleberry Lookout by Hickymondu													   5498
  67		GCQX04		Spruce Lake Cache by Yarns R Us														 5473
  68		GCWWWM		Loose Moose by FishinIdaho															  5460
  69		GC9DEE		Tall Cool Lemonade by niskibum														  5407
  70		GCQE85		Ruby Pass by grampapa and nanna														 5378
  71		GCPNQK		A Scenic Burial ?? by birdgeeks														 5372
  72		GCY09N		Caribou Lake by The O Team															  5318
  73		GCQ1JK		Dugals Loop by Loblollylove															 5316
  74		GC10WP9	   Glade Creek by yumitori																 5307
  75		GCGG5N		The Glade by kettlekeeper															   5297
  76		GCGH1T		Tri-State Multi-Cache (TSM) by Firebuck, Moun10Bike, and Skydiver (aka Team TSM)		5292
  77		GC80FA		Just Your Standard Fishing Cache by niskibum											5285
  78		GCJDTE		Lookout Below! by Grizfan															   5276
  79		GCK0TX		It's 93 Bloomin Miles to a Montana Beach! by niskibum								   5268
  80		GC12GMM	   Hall mountain by grampapa															   5208
  81		GCK14J		Big Greenie by ttabs																	5195
  82		GCJXFT		Lisa's Lookout Series #2 - Spy Glass Peak by Lookout Lisa							   5130
  83		GCWQPH		Zaza Overlook by chadleo10															  5116
  84		GCKDJ2		3 C's Cougar Cache by mytrook, renkato, roughsatinjenny								 5094
  85		GCP2GX		Blue Line by pokey & speedy															 5006
  86		GCG946		Schafer Peak by MedicOne																4998
  87		GCJFWA		Scout Trail -  Bernard Peak by MedicOne												 4988
  88		GCPEA4		Just Another Micro by dshifter														  4977
  89		GCWJ88		Spion Kop by kavuday																	4969
  90		GCQE87		caribou pass by grampapa and nanna													  4939
  91		GCX8EH		Off the Main Road! by sloni12														   4931
  92		GCG4BQ		Hoodoo View by niskibum																 4923
  93		GC8F83		Prickly Surf and Turf by niskibum													   4905
  94		GCJZ9V		Lisa's Lookout Series #3 - Grassy Mt. by Lookout Lisa								   4898
  95		GCYX68		5 of Spades by mytrook																  4887
  96		GCYRTA		It's Just A Hike! by sloni12															4881
  97		GCGAXX		Hog 01 by ElPuercoVolador															   4877
  98		GCJMDG		Dodge Peak by wapiti53																  4875
  99		GCNFGH		Fort Simons by dshifter																 4840
 100		GCG6G6		Thompson Pass by CanGoose															   4801

1.5k · May 12, 2007

Very cool, thanks for generating this, Jon! Don't think I'll ever summit Rainier, so the finders of a challenge cache based on this would definitely be a select few. Might be interesting to create a challenge that requires you to get X number of these altitude caches, that would probably get a few people revved.

Perhaps a challenge that only included the Traditional Caches and not the Virtuals would be somewhat easier, although looking at the list.... it would probably still be beyond me capabilities.

1.2k · May 14, 2007

Thanks for the list Moun10bike. It was nice to see 4 of them are mine and I have found 16 others on the list. Since there are several others on my to-do list, I'd be up for a Washington's highest caches challenge. How's this for an idea for the challenge?: Find caches from that list with elevation totals of 100,000 feet. That would mean finding about 15 caches in the 6500 feet range.

May 14, 2007

Find caches from that list with elevation totals of 100,000 feet.

I think there is a decimal place or two off on that proposal. Or were you thinking of the moon?

3.7k · May 14, 2007

Find caches from that list with elevation totals of 100,000 feet.

I think there is a decimal place or two off on that proposal. Or were you thinking of the moon?

I believe he's suggesting that the combined total of the found caches would be 100,000 feet. In his example, 6500 ft x 15 caches = 97,500 ft, which is pretty close.

Not a bad challenge idea. Lots of short mountains, or a few tall ones.

1.2k · May 14, 2007

Find caches from that list with elevation totals of 100,000 feet.

I think there is a decimal place or two off on that proposal. Or were you thinking of the moon?

I believe he's suggesting that the combined total of the found caches would be 100,000 feet. In his example, 6500 ft x 15 caches = 97,500 ft, which is pretty close.

Not a bad challenge idea. Lots of short mountains, or a few tall ones.

Yep, that's what I meant by elevation totals, but hydnseek said it better than I did. Any chance of getting a bookmark list of these caches?

May 14, 2007

Yep, that's what I meant by elevation totals, but hydnseek said it better than I did.

Thats clearer. At least I understand it now. thanks.

May 14, 2007

Using the 100,000 idea, the Blue Mountain caches alone equal 53,378. You can drive very close to all but "Uprooted".

"Uprooted" is a 1.25 mile moderate hike from Tee Pee TH but well worth it and a Forest Pass is NOT required in the Umatilla NF. A high clearance vehicle and a good spare tire is recommended for the Kendal and 2 Table Rock caches but you can get very close. All roads are usually open by July.

7.4k · May 14, 2007

I like the idea of setting a goal of some total elevation, although I want to make sure it is high enough that this is truly a worthy challenge cache - i.e. a cache that involves some effort and takes you to multiple areas throughout the state. 100,000 total feet seems too low; I'd like to make sure people have to visit at least 30-50 caches to complete the quest.

I will put together a bookmark list with updated elevations (taken from NED 10m DEM) and the USGS quad in which the cache falls, then post a link here in the next day or two.

3.7k · May 14, 2007

I like the idea of setting a goal of some total elevation, although I want to make sure it is high enough that this is truly a worthy challenge cache - i.e. a cache that involves some effort and takes you to multiple areas throughout the state. 100,000 total feet seems too low; I'd like to make sure people have to visit at least 30-50 caches to complete the quest.

That sounds like a great challenge. My hope would be that, like the DeLorme and History challenges, previous finds would count in any Mountain High challenge cache.

May 14, 2007

I too think 100,000 feet is a little low. Spokane has an elevation of around 2000' so anyone that has done more than about 50 caches in the Spokane area has already done 100,000 feet and that does not really seem to be in the spirit of this challange.

I think maybe a cache should have some sort of a minimum elevation to qualify.

Just my 2 cents.

1.2k · May 14, 2007

anyone that has done more than about 50 caches in the Spokane area has already done 100,000 feet and that does not really seem to be in the spirit of this challange.

I think the challenge would be based on finding caches from the list Moun10bike provided at the beginning of this thread, the 100 highest elevation caches, not any cache. The list also provides an elevation minimum. The 100th cache on the list is at 5646 feet. but hopefully the list can be expanded a little to include more caches, say those over 5000 feet?

May 14, 2007

Have to agree, 100K is to low. The 13 I've found/placed on the list put me a little over 80K already.

3.7k · May 14, 2007

I was telling cache ahead about this list yesterday, and we were both curious about some of the caches not on there, which seem to be high enough to be in the top 100.

For instance, her Three Fingers Cache is near the summit of Three Fingers, which is 6854 ft.

Since the #100 cache on the generated list is at 5646 ft, this would seem to qualify. But maybe I'm missing something about how high these caches really are.

1.2k · May 14, 2007

Have to agree, 100K is to low. The 13 I've found/placed on the list put me a little over 80K already.

The 100,000 suggestion wasn't meant to include previous finds, otherwise with the 16 I have found, I would have completed the challenge already. But if Moun10bike wants 35-50 finds in his challenge cache, then 250,000 may be more appropriate. I'd also like to see previous finds not included so as to level the playing field.

7.4k · May 14, 2007

I was telling cache ahead about this list yesterday, and we were both curious about some of the caches not on there, which seem to be high enough to be in the top 100.

For instance, her Three Fingers Cache is near the summit of Three Fingers, which is 6854 ft.

Since the #100 cache on the generated list is at 5646 ft, this would seem to qualify. But maybe I'm missing something about how high these caches really are.

I can only guess at this point, but I imagine that this has to do with Three Fingers' cragginess and the relatively low resolution of the NED 30m DEM. This is what I was seeing with the Idaho caches. If the sample point for the DEM doesn't hit the summit of the mountain and the mountain peak is small with drop-offs around it (like Three Fingers), the cache elevation will come in substantially lower than it really is, as the sampling will be from a point up to 100 feet away - plenty of distance in which to drop hundreds of feet as in the case of Three Fingers!

The next step in this process is to generate the list using NED 10m DEM. This will more accurately map the true elevations of the caches. I will only do this for the 100 caches already listed and any that appear should have made the list, as the 10m DEM is a huge amount of data and would be unwieldy to do for the entire state. I will then post that list and ask people to name any caches they know should be on the list.

May 14, 2007

I am curious about the purpose of the challenge being proposed here. Is it simply to find caches above a certain elevation? Or is the intention to include some physical effort? If that is the case, then many of the caches on the list that are simple drive-bys such as Lion Rock or Snagglepuss might not count. Also, many of the caches along the Snoqualmie Pass corridor such as Silver Peak, SNOQUL-GUY, or Mailbox Peak are not among the highest 100 caches but require a great deal of physical effort to climb up to. Many mountain climbing challenges include summiting key peaks within a certain geographic area. Something to think about.

7.4k · May 14, 2007

This isn't a mountain climbing challenge. I don't want to exclude those who might not be capable of summiting a Rainier or Mailbox Peak from being able to participate. That doesn't mean I want it to be easy, either. I'm leaning toward making people find 50 of the 100 highest caches in Washington. Which 50 you choose is up to you.

May 14, 2007

This isn't a mountain climbing challenge. I don't want to exclude those who might not be capable of summiting a Rainier or Mailbox Peak from being able to participate. That doesn't mean I want it to be easy, either. I'm leaning toward making people find 50 of the 100 highest caches in Washington. Which 50 you choose is up to you.

Thankyou for that clearification. I like those thoughts.

Another question: Is the list of 100 highest caches a static list or will it be updated to include new caches? I have had thoughts of caches placements that will be up at that elevation (when I get time to go there ) and I know of other cachers with similar thoughts.

Edited May 14, 2007 by Kiersolvd

May 14, 2007

This isn't a mountain climbing challenge. I don't want to exclude those who might not be capable of summiting a Rainier or Mailbox Peak from being able to participate. That doesn't mean I want it to be easy, either. I'm leaning toward making people find 50 of the 100 highest caches in Washington. Which 50 you choose is up to you.

Thankyou for that clearification. I like those thoughts.

Another question: Is the list of 100 highest caches a static list or will it be updated to include new caches? I have had thoughts of caches placements that will be up at that elevation (when I get time to go there ) and I know of other cachers with similar thoughts.

I was taught not to answer a question with a question but in this case......

How would you propse to avoid folks dropping hides at insignificant locations just to get on the list. I for one wasn't fond of a lot of the micros added to the Delorme Challenge just to get sparsly populated pages.

May 14, 2007

Another question: Is the list of 100 highest caches a static list or will it be updated to include new caches?

I was taught not to answer a question with a question but in this case......

How would you propse to avoid folks dropping hides at insignificant locations just to get on the list. I for one wasn't fond of a lot of the micros added to the Delorme Challenge just to get sparsly populated pages.

A valid thought. My two cents worth (which after the postal rate increase is worth even less): I'm more interested in finding caches.

Be that as it may, the original question about static vs. dynamic list is still valid.

Edited May 14, 2007 by Kiersolvd

May 14, 2007

I don't run Pocket Queries for all of Idaho, but I do for the Panhandle. I define that as everything in Idaho within 150 miles of my parents' house on Spokane's South Hill. Using NED 30m DEM again, below are what I get as the 100 highest caches in Idaho's Panhandle.

Wow -I own 5 in the top 100 for Idaho! Would hidden caches count?? Will this be state specific?

May 14, 2007

Another question: Is the list of 100 highest caches a static list or will it be updated to include new caches?

I was taught not to answer a question with a question but in this case......

How would you propse to avoid folks dropping hides at insignificant locations just to get on the list. I for one wasn't fond of a lot of the micros added to the Delorme Challenge just to get sparsly populated pages.

A valid thought. My two cents worth (which after the postal rate increase is worth even less): I'm more interested in finding caches.

Be that as it may, the original question about static vs. dynamic list is still valid.

I would vote for static. When the list declines so that the numbers are no longer achievable (say 50 of the top 100) the existing top 100 challenge could be archived and a new challenge generated.

7.4k · May 14, 2007

Another question: Is the list of 100 highest caches a static list or will it be updated to include new caches?

I am leaning toward a dynamic list, but I am cautious of this for the reasons that runhills mentions - namely, that we've seen people throw out meaningless caches, often caches that don't meet the guidelines, in order to fulfill the requirements of a challenge cache. I am thinking along the lines of making any finds count, but only hides made after I posted this thread. Of course, then there's always the possibility of people teaming up to hide caches for the others to find and vice versa. Any suggestions on how to keep the noise down but permit the list to update with any legitimate caches is welcome!

7.4k · May 14, 2007

Will this be state specific?

Yes. State boundaries, while often arbitrary (especially for most of the WA-ID border, for example), are less arbitrary than picking and choosing areas that I happen to have in my GSAK database, and there's no way I'm running a challenge that incorporates any larger of an area than I currently maintain!

7.4k · May 14, 2007

Well, I re-ran the list using NED 10m DEM and it has reorganized the list to a significant degree. To be careful, I took the 250 highest caches generated by the 30m DEM and re-ran those against the 10m DEM, then resorted. Here is the updated list with elevations taken from 10m DEM. I think that you will find these elevations to be much more accurate and more in line with what you see on USGS 7.5-minute topo maps.

[sEE UPDATED LIST BELOW]

Edited May 15, 2007 by Moun10Bike

5.9k · May 14, 2007

Any suggestions on how to keep the noise down but permit the list to update with any legitimate caches is welcome!

Any new cache for the list must have a minimum 6+ miles RT hike. That should eliminate all the drive-by throw-downs.

7.3k · May 14, 2007

Ok, that list looks more accurate for the two caches I mentioned earlier. I suppose it must be because of the cragginess on top of Mission Peak like you were describing earlier.

7.3k · May 14, 2007

One of my daughter's shows up as #36. :blink: So basically, 3 of my family members have caches on the list, but not me. :huh:

2.5k · May 14, 2007

Another question: Is the list of 100 highest caches a static list or will it be updated to include new caches?

I am leaning toward a dynamic list, but I am cautious of this for the reasons that runhills mentions - namely, that we've seen people throw out meaningless caches, often caches that don't meet the guidelines, in order to fulfill the requirements of a challenge cache. I am thinking along the lines of making any finds count, but only hides made after I posted this thread. Of course, then there's always the possibility of people teaming up to hide caches for the others to find and vice versa. Any suggestions on how to keep the noise down but permit the list to update with any legitimate caches is welcome!

Did you mean before?

Caches placed after that date might well be the type you are trying to avoid.

1.2k · May 15, 2007

Another question: Is the list of 100 highest caches a static list or will it be updated to include new caches?

I am leaning toward a dynamic list, but I am cautious of this for the reasons that runhills mentions - namely, that we've seen people throw out meaningless caches, often caches that don't meet the guidelines, in order to fulfill the requirements of a challenge cache. I am thinking along the lines of making any finds count, but only hides made after I posted this thread. Of course, then there's always the possibility of people teaming up to hide caches for the others to find and vice versa. Any suggestions on how to keep the noise down but permit the list to update with any legitimate caches is welcome!

I'd still like to see more than 100 caches to choose from. Seems like finding 50 caches from a list of 100 caches scattered all over the state would take a long time to complete. It certainly won't be like the Delorme challenge where there were thousands of caches to choose from and you could go out in a weekend and pick up several Delorme pages. Some of these highest elevation locations might take a whole day just to drive to, hike in to the cache and out, and drive back home. If you included any cache at an elevation say higher than 5000 feet, there would be more to choose from. But its your cache so you decide. Just a suggestion.

7.4k · May 15, 2007

Did you mean before?

Caches placed after that date might well be the type you are trying to avoid.

Whoops, typo! Yep, I meant before.

7.4k · May 15, 2007

I'd still like to see more than 100 caches to choose from. Seems like finding 50 caches from a list of 100 caches scattered all over the state would take a long time to complete. It certainly won't be like the Delorme challenge where there were thousands of caches to choose from and you could go out in a weekend and pick up several Delorme pages. Some of these highest elevation locations might take a whole day just to drive to, hike in to the cache and out, and drive back home. If you included any cache at an elevation say higher than 5000 feet, there would be more to choose from. But its your cache so you decide. Just a suggestion.

I think more than 100 caches is overkill and unwieldy. For one thing, the number of caches grow exponentially as you drop the elevation. For example, there are over 100 caches just between 5000 feet and 5700 feet. While deciding to take just the 100 top caches might seem arbitrary, so does taking any given elevation as the cutoff. 100 caches seems like a nice round number to use.

As for taking a long time to complete, that's sort of the idea of a challenge. It's supposed to be epic. I don't want this to be a list with which a person can just "go out in a weekend and pick up several". Each cache on this should be memorable, or at least more so than some of the DeLorme pages.

7.4k · May 15, 2007

I put together a bookmark list of the 100 highest caches:

Washington's Highest Caches

Please let me know if you see any errors or omissions.

7.4k · May 15, 2007

I put together a bookmark list of the 100 highest caches:

Washington's Highest Caches

Please let me know if you see any errors or omissions.

If you are interested in this challenge and following this thread, would you mind posting the number of finds and hides you have out of this list? It will help me decide what the target number of required caches should be in the challenge.

I have currently found or hidden 11 of the caches on the top 100 list.

May 15, 2007

First, thanks for the effort required to establish this challenge. I have 17 of those on the bookmark list and am looking forward to a bunch more.

3.7k · May 15, 2007

...the Three Fingers Cache is near the summit of Three Fingers, which is 6854 ft, but it's not on the list. Since the #100 cache on the generated list is at 5646 ft, it would seem to qualify.

I can only guess at this point, but I imagine that this has to do with Three Fingers' cragginess and the relatively low resolution of the NED 30m DEM. This is what I was seeing with the Idaho caches. If the sample point for the DEM doesn't hit the summit of the mountain and the mountain peak is small with drop-offs around it (like Three Fingers), the cache elevation will come in substantially lower than it really is, as the sampling will be from a point up to 100 feet away - plenty of distance in which to drop hundreds of feet as in the case of Three Fingers!

The next step in this process is to generate the list using NED 10m DEM. This will more accurately map the true elevations of the caches. I will only do this for the 100 caches already listed and any that appear should have made the list, as the 10m DEM is a huge amount of data and would be unwieldy to do for the entire state. I will then post that list and ask people to name any caches they know should be on the list.

Wow, Three Fingers is #24 on the new list - quite a promotion! You're right, the better resolution makes a big difference.

3.7k · May 15, 2007

I'd still like to see more than 100 caches to choose from. Seems like finding 50 caches from a list of 100 caches scattered all over the state would take a long time to complete. It certainly won't be like the Delorme challenge where there were thousands of caches to choose from and you could go out in a weekend and pick up several Delorme pages. Some of these highest elevation locations might take a whole day just to drive to, hike in to the cache and out, and drive back home. If you included any cache at an elevation say higher than 5000 feet, there would be more to choose from. But its your cache so you decide. Just a suggestion.

I think more than 100 caches is overkill and unwieldy. For one thing, the number of caches grow exponentially as you drop the elevation. For example, there are over 100 caches just between 5000 feet and 5700 feet. While deciding to take just the 100 top caches might seem arbitrary, so does taking any given elevation as the cutoff. 100 caches seems like a nice round number to use.

As for taking a long time to complete, that's sort of the idea of a challenge. It's supposed to be epic. I don't want this to be a list with which a person can just "go out in a weekend and pick up several". Each cache on this should be memorable, or at least more so than some of the DeLorme pages.

I agree with Jon's thoughts on this (like I'll ever complete the challenge...).

But if you decide that previous finds won't count, please post the new challenge BEFORE we do Camp Muir. :blink: I would hate to lose that in addition to Above the Clouds (which I just did last August, which is why I lobby for previous finds counting since it's a specific list, and the bar may be set high at 50, which would seem to take of Navigatorz' concerns).

Edited May 15, 2007 by hydnsek

7.4k · May 15, 2007

But if you decide that previous finds won't count, please post the new challenge BEFORE we do Camp Muir. I would hate to lose that in addition to Above the Clouds (which I just did last August, which is why I lobby for previous finds counting since it's a specific list, and the bar may be set high at 50, which would seem to take of Navigatorz' concerns).

Not to worry - I have every intention of allowing previous finds to count since this is a set list!

7.4k · May 15, 2007

Here's a little Google Maps applet to help with visualizing the cache locations:

Washington's 100 Highest Caches

The circle in the middle is a proximity search radius. You can drag the marker at the middle of the circle to whatever location you want and drag the marker on the outer arc of the circle to extend or retract the radius. When you update the circle, it will show you all of the caches within the chosen radius centered on the middle marker. The circle currently defaults to a radius of 25 miles located at the calculated center point of all of the caches in the top 100 list.

7.3k · May 15, 2007

It looks like I've done 5 of them.

If I'm up to it, I could get 5 more just above my house this summer. :rolleyes:

1.2k · May 15, 2007

If you are interested in this challenge and following this thread, would you mind posting the number of finds and hides you have out of this list? It will help me decide what the target number of required caches should be in the challenge. I have currently found or hidden 11 of the caches on the top 100 list.

I have found/hidden 19 of the caches on the list.

May 15, 2007

If you are interested in this challenge and following this thread, would you mind posting the number of finds and hides you have out of this list? It will help me decide what the target number of required caches should be in the challenge.

I have currently found or hidden 11 of the caches on the top 100 list.

1 for me... it's a start :rolleyes:

Washington's Highest Caches

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment