Jump to content

What Terrain would you give a Tree Climb?


chrisrayn

Recommended Posts

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. :-)

Link to comment

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 by StarBrand
Link to comment

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?

Link to comment

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.

Link to comment

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.

Link to comment

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.

Link to comment

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!

Link to comment

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.

Link to comment

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.

Link to comment

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 by briansnat
Link to comment

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.

Link to comment

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.

Link to comment

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.

Link to comment

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.

Link to comment

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

Link to comment
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 by knowschad
Link to comment

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 by Castle Mischief
Link to comment

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

Link to comment

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).

Link to comment

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...