Trees

[+South Lyon Trekkers]

I have been running into a few EarthCaches where one of the questions is to identify a tree in order to prove I was at the location. The trees had no signage and nothing to do with the geological topic. The most recent one was in Georgia. I'm not a geologist nor am I an arborist. I have yet to be denied a find due to mislabeling a tree, I guess I've been lucky because I don't know my trees. I don't like these questions and they have nothing to do with the EarthCache. If a EarthCache owner needs proof then ask for picture. Identifying a tree is not always easy, especially if a cacher is from another area where that tree doesn't grow. My 2 cents.

[+geocyclist94]

For me, I don't think that identifying trees for earth caches is much fun at all. There are trees everywhere. Think about it!

[+geoaware]

This concerns me. NO EarthCache should be approved with that as its only logging requirement....the task should be earth science related and about the site.

 

In the past when we have followed up on some of these issues we have found that developers have changed their requirements after approval. We then have to deal with the developer to repair the issue. EarthCaches have been archived for this type of mishap.

[+Konnarock Kid & Marge]

Do petrified trees count although I don't believe I could tell an oak from a maple if it was petrified!

[+Konnarock Kid & Marge]

I have been running into a few EarthCaches where one of the questions is to identify a tree in order to prove I was at the location. The trees had no signage and nothing to do with the geological topic. The most recent one was in Georgia. I'm not a geologist nor am I an arborist. I have yet to be denied a find due to mislabeling a tree, I guess I've been lucky because I don't know my trees. I don't like these questions and they have nothing to do with the EarthCache. If a EarthCache owner needs proof then ask for picture. Identifying a tree is not always easy, especially if a cacher is from another area where that tree doesn't grow. My 2 cents.

 

More seriously, was identifying a tree(s) the ONLY requirement?

Changing the requirements in such a manner is not right. Let us see the cache (GC number) to check for ourselves. Without information given at the site such as a sign, a cacher shouldn't be expected to be a botanist to complete a find.

[+Harry Dolphin]

AARGH!! Don't get me started! I find that many geocachers have no idea what trees they are looking at! "It's in the pine tree." "No, that's a cedar." "It's in the fir tree." "No. That's a yew." Or from the NGS: The benchmark is located 7.5 feet north from the triple trunk cherry." "No. That's a maple."

If the tree is labeled, I can see that being used to prove that you were there. Otherwise, it becomes a 5 difficulty for most cachers. AND it should be noted that A Field Guide to Trees is probably necessary to log the EarthCache. You think it's a plane tree. I think it's a sycamore.

EarthCaches teach earth science, not botany. Report it to EarthCaching.

[+Konnarock Kid & Marge]

AARGH!! Don't get me started! I find that many geocachers have no idea what trees they are looking at! "It's in the pine tree." "No, that's a cedar." "It's in the fir tree." "No. That's a yew." Or from the NGS: The benchmark is located 7.5 feet north from the triple trunk cherry." "No. That's a maple."

If the tree is labeled, I can see that being used to prove that you were there. Otherwise, it becomes a 5 difficulty for most cachers. AND it should be noted that A Field Guide to Trees is probably necessary to log the EarthCache. You think it's a plane tree. I think it's a sycamore.

EarthCaches teach earth science, not botany. Report it to EarthCaching.

Very well said. We have been to several traditional caches when a tree was misidentified in the write up. Marge and I have wondered around endlessly looking for the "pine" tree when the target was a hemlock. Around here, to a lot of people, all evergreens are pines!

While I defend Groundspeak's guidelines regarding the right of any cache owner to delete a log for any reason, tree identification shouldn't be part of EC. If it got through Geoaware, that was a mistake. If the requirement was added after publication, then. the EC developer should be required to change it.

[+joranda]

I have been running into a few EarthCaches where one of the questions is to identify a tree in order to prove I was at the location. The trees had no signage and nothing to do with the geological topic. The most recent one was in Georgia. I'm not a geologist nor am I an arborist. I have yet to be denied a find due to mislabeling a tree, I guess I've been lucky because I don't know my trees. I don't like these questions and they have nothing to do with the EarthCache. If a EarthCache owner needs proof then ask for picture. Identifying a tree is not always easy, especially if a cacher is from another area where that tree doesn't grow. My 2 cents.

 

More seriously, was identifying a tree(s) the ONLY requirement?

Changing the requirements in such a manner is not right. Let us see the cache (GC number) to check for ourselves. Without information given at the site such as a sign, a cacher shouldn't be expected to be a botanist to complete a find.

 

It was too easy to find the GC#, (GC1ATE0)

It isn't the only question that you have to answer and he even posts a picture on the cache page of the tree and the trees leafs so a quick google search and you have the tree type so I don't see the big deal here. Maybe we need to start handing badges back out.

[+South Lyon Trekkers]

I have been running into a few EarthCaches where one of the questions is to identify a tree in order to prove I was at the location. The trees had no signage and nothing to do with the geological topic. The most recent one was in Georgia. I'm not a geologist nor am I an arborist. I have yet to be denied a find due to mislabeling a tree, I guess I've been lucky because I don't know my trees. I don't like these questions and they have nothing to do with the EarthCache. If a EarthCache owner needs proof then ask for picture. Identifying a tree is not always easy, especially if a cacher is from another area where that tree doesn't grow. My 2 cents.

 

More seriously, was identifying a tree(s) the ONLY requirement?

Changing the requirements in such a manner is not right. Let us see the cache (GC number) to check for ourselves. Without information given at the site such as a sign, a cacher shouldn't be expected to be a botanist to complete a find.

 

It was too easy to find the GC#, (GC1ATE0)

It isn't the only question that you have to answer and he even posts a picture on the cache page of the tree and the trees leafs so a quick google search and you have the tree type so I don't see the big deal here. Maybe we need to start handing badges back out.

 

No, it wasn't the only question, but the tree was not easy for me to find. I ended up identifying from the tiny picture on the web site. I didn't have the picture on my GPSr and the trail is a loop making the left and right relative. This tree didn't stick out when we walked around. This is why I was a bit frustrated.

 

But, my point is why are questions centering on biology? A better case in point was an EC I just did in Iowa about Nahant Marsh. (I have not logged it yet). There were four questions. Two of the answers came from signs. One was to identify a tree. Two others had to do with animals. One question was about geology. Yes, I could answer them and did, but there were signs around the marsh that had to do with the marsh itself and those were not used.

[+Konnarock Kid & Marge]

As I said before, I don't think tree (biological) questions ought to be part of EC requirements but thanks to the GC number being posted I would like to offer this comment. They are two 14 year old kids with their first EC. I seriously don't believe they added the tree stuff after publication but my feeling is give them a break. I am impressed with what I read.

If you have objections, and I believe they are legit, then a polite email may help them have a learning experience instead of a punishing one! Maybe Geoaware can gently remind them and help them see the error of their ways. The World needs more kids like them!

[+South Lyon Trekkers]

As I said before, I don't think tree (biological) questions ought to be part of EC requirements but thanks to the GC number being posted I would like to offer this comment. They are two 14 year old kids with their first EC. I seriously don't believe they added the tree stuff after publication but my feeling is give them a break. I am impressed with what I read.

If you have objections, and I believe they are legit, then a polite email may help them have a learning experience instead of a punishing one! Maybe Geoaware can gently remind them and help them see the error of their ways. The World needs more kids like them!

 

I think it's great kids are out there doing this. In my OP I didn't mention the original post because it was an issue with a few EarthCaches and generally speaking. This EarthCache was the latest and sparked me to write about the issue.

 

Overall, I don't like identify-the-tree questions because I stink at it and it is usually included as the prove-you-were-there question. I prefer to take a picture of my mug.