+chrisrayn Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 I'm thinking about putting a cache pretty high in a tree. The tree isn't impossible to climb, but it is quite difficult. I'm 6'2" and relatively limber, and it takes me about five minutes to get up to the cache location. It's a sizable oak tree with a near-stairstep formation of branches. I'd say for someone 5'6 or less this would be pretty difficult. I'd say the cache location is around 20 feet up, if I had to guess. Very little foliage to contend with, no vines, no poison ivy, and the area around the tree is well-mown. I don't know how difficult I'll make it to Find yet, just the terrain. What number would you give the Terrain difficulty for something like this? I think what throws me off is that many older folks do this, and I've never seen a 50+ climb a tree before. If you are a 50+ and have, in fact, climbed trees to achieve caches before please accept my humble apology for your exceptional geriacrobatics. :-) Quote Link to comment
+StarBrand Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 (edited) With what you are describing......maybe a 3.5. I would be sure to include some kind of a tidbit about climbing/heights in the description or you may have some mad visitors when they realize where it is at and decide not to pursue it. (edit to add the .5 that i left off in the first post!!) Edited August 19, 2009 by StarBrand Quote Link to comment
+gof1 Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 4.5 unless it requires technical skill and gear. Quote Link to comment
+chrisrayn Posted August 19, 2009 Author Share Posted August 19, 2009 4.5 unless it requires technical skill and gear. Just out of curiosity, why? I did a 4.0 recently that was MUCH harder, involved walking a rotten log across a creek, BUSHES of poison ivy, and thorny vines that literally formed impenetrable walls. Is it because of the potential fall damage? And should I include information about the climb in the hint and the title? Something like titleing it "Such great heights" and the hint "Terrain rating sure is up there..." or something like that? Quote Link to comment
+WRASTRO Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 I am in the 50+ group and have gone up about 12' for a cache. Not sure if I would do 20'. I wouldn't do a 50' ladder at Crazy Monkey Tripod Quote Link to comment
+gof1 Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 4.5 unless it requires technical skill and gear. Just out of curiosity, why? I did a 4.0 recently that was MUCH harder, involved walking a rotten log across a creek, BUSHES of poison ivy, and thorny vines that literally formed impenetrable walls. Is it because of the potential fall damage? And should I include information about the climb in the hint and the title? Something like titleing it "Such great heights" and the hint "Terrain rating sure is up there..." or something like that? I considered both the fall hazard and the fact that you stated short people would have a more difficult time of it. I figured rate it for the most challenging possibility and erred on the side of caution not having seen the tree. It may only be a 4. Quote Link to comment
knowschad Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 What does Clayjar say? A 3.5 would give me a pretty good idea that I would probably be expected to climb the tree, once I was on site. It would not tell me ahead of time that I was going to a tree-climb cache. Take a look around and see if there's maybe a stump or boulder nearby that could be used by the shorter cachers to get that first step up. Quote Link to comment
+ecanderson Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 FWIW: The "clayjar" rating method would likely put this into a 4.0 terrain. That encompasses all of the following conditions: 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.) Note the "requiring use of hands". That could include rock scrambles or trees. It's surely not one that you'll "walk to". If you find that shorter finders are going to have special trouble, I certainly wouldn't go for a lesser number. Quote Link to comment
+BigWhiteTruck Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 I agree with the 4.0 Quote Link to comment
+chrisrayn Posted August 19, 2009 Author Share Posted August 19, 2009 4.5 unless it requires technical skill and gear. Just out of curiosity, why? I did a 4.0 recently that was MUCH harder, involved walking a rotten log across a creek, BUSHES of poison ivy, and thorny vines that literally formed impenetrable walls. Is it because of the potential fall damage? And should I include information about the climb in the hint and the title? Something like titleing it "Such great heights" and the hint "Terrain rating sure is up there..." or something like that? I considered both the fall hazard and the fact that you stated short people would have a more difficult time of it. I figured rate it for the most challenging possibility and erred on the side of caution not having seen the tree. It may only be a 4. K. That sounds good. I may get a shorter individual to act as a guinea pig if I can. I also need to see if I can accurately just the distance down from the spot in the tree. Thanks everybody! Quote Link to comment
+briansnat Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 I have one in a tree and its rated a 3. It's a pine that is fairly easy to climb. I'd say anything between a 3 and a 5 depending on the difficulty. Quote Link to comment
+Harry Dolphin Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 If you are a 50+ and have, in fact, climbed trees to achieve caches before please accept my humble apology for your exceptional geriacrobatics. :-) I have decided to take offense at the word 'geriacrobatics'! It depends on the safety of the branches upon which I am climbing. I've done four or five up to about 20 up. If I feel safe climbing, it's no problem. I've also DNFed a few that would have required shinnying. The 3 on Brian's was about right. Quote Link to comment
+Isonzo Karst Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 I'd use a 4 on anything that required "use of hands" per Clayjar. I'm not fond of the terrain rating system we use, and this is one of the reasons why. People want those ratings to be 1= easy terrain, 5= hardest, but that's not the case. 5 = special equipment, which isn't necessarily "hard". I have a bunch of terrain 5 finds, and own some. They're just boat caches. The 3.5 hiking caches are tougher. And then there's 4= climb with use of hands. A short way up a "built to climb" tree is still a 4. Quote Link to comment
+Puppy Dawg Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 4 or 4.5. As for a name, I called one of mine (hidden 15feet up) Pining for a Smiley. It was 3.5 terrain, but not as hard as the oak you're talking about. Quote Link to comment
+Kit Fox Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 I'd rate yours a 3 to 3.5. I've got one cache in a tree that I rated a 5 for terrain. One find in 2 years, and the only finder needed climbing equipment to reach the cache. Quote Link to comment
+briansnat Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 (edited) If you are a 50+ and have, in fact, climbed trees to achieve caches before please accept my humble apology for your exceptional geriacrobatics. :-) I have decided to take offense at the word 'geriacrobatics'! It depends on the safety of the branches upon which I am climbing. I've done four or five up to about 20 up. If I feel safe climbing, it's no problem. I've also DNFed a few that would have required shinnying. The 3 on Brian's was about right. I'm in the 50+ club and I agree with Mr Dolphin. It all depends on the tree. I can still shinny short distances, but the days where I can shinny 20 feet up a branchless trunk are long gone. A pine with close together branches is still a piece of cake even in my soon to be 51 year old body. Edited August 20, 2009 by briansnat Quote Link to comment
+cerberus1 Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 Geriacrobatics ? Well listen up young fella, Me (54) and quite a few older folks have done a number of 4-5 rated tree climbs. I looked on your cache page and see that you're not even close. DO before you talk sheisse. A standard tree climb not requiring rope would be in the 3-4.5 range, depending on distance of branches, type of tree (bending/broken branches or sturdy) and height. Quote Link to comment
Tahosa and Sons Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 Level 5 Special Equipment Chainsaw to drop the tree Quote Link to comment
+Don_J Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 FWIW: The "clayjar" rating method would likely put this into a 4.0 terrain. That encompasses all of the following conditions: 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.) Note the "requiring use of hands". That could include rock scrambles or trees. It's surely not one that you'll "walk to". If you find that shorter finders are going to have special trouble, I certainly wouldn't go for a lesser number. I can do all of that. I cannot climb a trees above the first or second branch. Since 5 is reserved for "special equipment", I would make any tree above the first branch a 4.5. Just my personal opinion. Maybe we need a 4.75. I'll let GeoBigDawg take the lead on the feature request. Quote Link to comment
+ngrrfan Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 According to one of my caching partners....... it's a 4.75! Since she's altitudeinally challenged, anything over 6 ft off the ground is a challenge for her. Quote Link to comment
AZcachemeister Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 I'm thinking about putting a cache pretty high in a tree. The tree isn't impossible to climb, but it is quite difficult. I'm 6'2" and relatively limber, and it takes me about five minutes to get up to the cache location. It's a sizable oak tree with a near-stairstep formation of branches. I'd say for someone 5'6 or less this would be pretty difficult. I'd say the cache location is around 20 feet up, if I had to guess. Very little foliage to contend with, no vines, no poison ivy, and the area around the tree is well-mown. I don't know how difficult I'll make it to Find yet, just the terrain. What number would you give the Terrain difficulty for something like this? I think what throws me off is that many older folks do this, and I've never seen a 50+ climb a tree before. If you are a 50+ and have, in fact, climbed trees to achieve caches before please accept my humble apology for your exceptional geriacrobatics. :-) I'm over 50, and got the FTF on two caches up in trees (highest maybe forty feet up). Of course my success had nothing to do with all those years of rock-climbing! I'd give it a 4-4.5 just to let those paying attention know where to look. Quote Link to comment
+9Key Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 OP - look up the "Manly Man" series in your area for ideas on how to rate tree climbs. There are several of them and they will give you and idea of how to proceed, especially if you attempt them. Quote Link to comment
+DragonsWest Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 When I was 10 I would climb anything. 50ft was nothing. Now that I think about potentially missing work, cost of health care if I fall, how much sap I'm likely to have on my hands/clothing. I give climbing more consideration. A few months ago I scaled a 12 foot fence and did an injury to my left index finger in the process, which took a couple months to heal. I think if it's going to involve climbing it's not unreasonable for a cacher to know what they're in for before they go there. At the very least put it in the hints. Quote Link to comment
+chrisrayn Posted August 20, 2009 Author Share Posted August 20, 2009 Thanks for all the help, everybody! And, by the way, those of you who took offense to the word "geriacrobatics," I just wanted you all to know that's sort of what I intended. It had the intended effect of all of those posting in this thread to be proud of their age and tell me of tree climbs they had accomplished. Now THAT is the information I was really looking for in this thread. :-) I'm sorry I had to go about it in a shady way, but knowing now that many 50+rs climb trees on a regular basis, I'm thinking of scaling my 4.0 terrain back to a 3.5. I'm quite tall, and I had to stretch a bit to get to where I ended up, and I found it's only about 15 feet up on sturdy branches. So, thank you all for all your help! And, luckily, I found out my cache is roughly .12 miles from the nearest one, making it doable for me. :-) If I offended you, I humbly apologize. I have a mere 170 caches and am still learning. I am a padawan to your master Jedis. :-) I can't even imagine climbing a tree where I would need equipment. :-s Quote Link to comment
+popokiiti Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 For me it would be a level 6! Short legs, suspect back and getting stuck up there would be extremely likely for me . However it sounds like a great idea, go for it! Quote Link to comment
+Minimike2 Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 Level 5 Special Equipment Chainsaw to drop the tree I'll go with this option. Quote Link to comment
knowschad Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 (edited) Level 5 Special Equipment baseball bat to chop hider at the knees I'll go with this option. Seriously, I am a few months shy of 60 and have climbed a few trees in my pursuit of caches, but I have also taken a pass on a couple of them. I've even let younger caching partners do the dirty work on a couple, and have shamelessly claimed the smiley on them anyway. Is that so wrong? Emotional support is worth a smiley, right? Edited August 20, 2009 by knowschad Quote Link to comment
+bittsen Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 Rate it a 1.5 and let cachers know to add a chainsaw to their caching tools. Quote Link to comment
+Touchstone Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 ...add a chainsaw to their caching tools. Oops! Special Equipment...automatically a 5* Speaking on behalf of the 50+ club I'd give it a 4-4.5 depending on the type of tree. Most of the oaks in our area are fairly simple to climb. Quote Link to comment
+bflentje Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 I am thrilled that this went 30 posts, no angst, and no one brought up the permission issue. There's hope for these forums yet. Thank you all. Quote Link to comment
+Castle Mischief Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 (edited) I am thrilled that this went 30 posts, no angst, and no one brought up the permission issue. There's hope for these forums yet. Thank you all. Because there was no mention of the tree being on private land behind a fence in a Wal-Mart parking lot 50 feet from the railroad tracks...? Edit to be on topic: I've give it a 3.5 or a 4. Edited August 20, 2009 by Castle Mischief Quote Link to comment
+Stargazer22 Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 I'd go with a 4 or a 4.5. That's a pretty good indication that seekers will need to climb once they get there. I'm not 50+ yet (only 49 ) but I can remember 3 of them off the top of my head that I have climbed for in the last year . Quote Link to comment
+JoGPS Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 am over sixty, and not in that greatest of shape and have several in tall trees, I feel like if I can climb it so can anyone else ( just get R done ), also I have a few off the sides of cliffs, no not use a rope or any other equipment and rate the terrain a 4 stars on both types Joe Quote Link to comment
Skippermark Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 Around here, a climb like that would be a 4.0. There's one tree climb cache here that's a 4.5. It's quite high up in a tree that has no branches or knots to hold onto. Quote Link to comment
Clan Riffster Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 I've got one cache in a tree that I rated a 5 for terrain. I had one of those! It was a 30cal ammo can 30' up a palm tree. Someone managed to steal it, even though it was chained in place. Quote Link to comment
+paleolith Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 I'm 60yo and 30# overweight. Quote Link to comment
+drainhook Posted August 27, 2009 Share Posted August 27, 2009 Either a 3, or 3.5 You have to leave room for more daring caches in the 1-5 window. Maybe in the future I will say an easy climb should be a 2.5? Quote Link to comment
knowschad Posted August 27, 2009 Share Posted August 27, 2009 Either a 3, or 3.5You have to leave room for more daring caches in the 1-5 window. Maybe in the future I will say an easy climb should be a 2.5? Kinda depends on the tree, doesn't it? Quote Link to comment
+simpjkee Posted August 27, 2009 Share Posted August 27, 2009 I had a cache that sounds just like the OP's and I rated mine a 3.5 Quote Link to comment
knowschad Posted August 27, 2009 Share Posted August 27, 2009 I had a cache that sounds just like the OP's and I rated mine a 3.5 Kinda depends on the tree, doesn't it? Quote Link to comment
knowschad Posted August 27, 2009 Share Posted August 27, 2009 Of course, I'm having fun with these "it depends" posts, but actually, I'm serious. None of us can tell the OP how to rate a tree climb that we haven't seen. About all that we can say is, "probably at least a 3" because that will/should keep the hunters from wasting their time looking around on the ground (unless, of course, it truely was a 3 terrain hike to the tree). Quote Link to comment
+Ladybug Kids Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 This tree cache of ours is rated 3.5. The ammo can is about twenty feet up a large spruce tree with lots of branches to hang onto. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.