New rock climbing cache

[+Cav Scout]

We find a location that is focused on rock climbing and hide a 5 star cache there, do you think there would be a problem with getting the cache listing approved?

 

Permission from property owner granted with provided phone number.

 

Climbing waivers at the beginning of trailhead to cache.

 

All special equipment listed.

 

The cache is a 80 foot rappel to cache hide or a 40 foot ascent once you hook the ropes in.

 

Cache is secured to rock wall "40" plus feet above the ground.

 

Currently there is a problem with the cache reviewer and logging the actual cache. They are concerned with log deletions for cachers who sit at the bottom of the cliff and watch and log the find without attempting getting to the cache location.

 

Listing says you must reach and sign the log yourself to get a find.

 

Any input? I am open to suggestions.

[+Touchstone]

I'm not sure what's to prevent people from lowering the cach/logbook to the ground for folks to sign, which would technically be within the spirit of the Guidelines.

 

Sounds like fun

[+Cav Scout]

The actual cache is attached by a secure cord to the cliff wall. The log itself is secured by a cord inside the ammocan. To lower the cache you would have to cut the cord its secured by and possibly end up loosing the cache due to bad weather. The cache is on a rock climbers cliff.

 

I'm not sure what's to prevent people from lowering the cach/logbook to the ground for folks to sign, which would technically be within the spirit of the Guidelines.

 

Sounds like fun

[+Touchstone]

I can think of two or three workarounds to that scenario off the top of my head

[+jeffbouldin]

If you went to check on the logbook and peoples names were not in it that were online you could delete those. If they were in the log book you couldn't. If one person wants to repel and sign everyone's name nothing you can do to prevent that.

 

Is a reviewer denying the listing based on the probability that you might delete someones valid logs? If so that doesn't sound right.

[knowschad]

We find a location that is focused on rock climbing and hide a 5 star cache there, do you think there would be a problem with getting the cache listing approved?

Permission from property owner granted with provided phone number.

Climbing waivers at the beginning of trailhead to cache.

All special equipment listed.

The cache is a 80 foot rappel to cache hide or a 40 foot ascent once you hook the ropes in.

Cache is secured to rock wall "40" plus feet above the ground.

Currently there is a problem with the cache reviewer and logging the actual cache. They are concerned with log deletions for cachers who sit at the bottom of the cliff and watch and log the find without attempting getting to the cache location.

Listing says you must reach and sign the log yourself to get a find.

Any input? I am open to suggestions.

No problems that I can see, from what you posted. I'm a bit skeptical, however, about why you are asking the question here, I guess. Was your cache not allowed for some reason?

[+tomfuller & Quill]

If you want people who come to the site with the climber to sign the logbook, you could allow the climber to lower the logbook with a clipboard and fishing line. If it is windy or rainy safe climbers won't even attempt.

You should read the logs of extreme cachers from NJ/PA who went to Kentucky to log Cavers Plunge (GCRVXB)

In the interest of safety, at least 1 person has to remain on top when others go into the pit. The cache page allows someone on site but not able to touch the cache to log the cache.

As with all 5 terrain caches requiring ropes and ascenders, make sure your disclaimer is clear/valid.

If you want to see some extreme caches, check out Vinny & Sue 's PUC series.

[+delphic]

It might be a good idea to send a message to the reviewer saying that you understand that you won't be deleting online logs if the name is in the physical cache.

 

Keep in mind, if several cachers are out together, it is unlikely that every member of the group will rap down to the cache. Instead, one representative will sign for the group. There is nothing you can do about this.

 

If you want a cache the requires all log signers to be at the final location, try a multi-pitch climb. There would be VERY little traffic on the cache but every signature would be authentic.

[+Team Cotati]

We find a location that is focused on rock climbing and hide a 5 star cache there, do you think there would be a problem with getting the cache listing approved?

Permission from property owner granted with provided phone number.

Climbing waivers at the beginning of trailhead to cache.

All special equipment listed.

The cache is a 80 foot rappel to cache hide or a 40 foot ascent once you hook the ropes in.

Cache is secured to rock wall "40" plus feet above the ground.

Currently there is a problem with the cache reviewer and logging the actual cache. They are concerned with log deletions for cachers who sit at the bottom of the cliff and watch and log the find without attempting getting to the cache location.

Listing says you must reach and sign the log yourself to get a find.

Any input? I am open to suggestions.

No problems that I can see, from what you posted. I'm a bit skeptical, however, about why you are asking the question here, I guess. Was your cache not allowed for some reason?

 

"Currently there is a problem with the cache reviewer and logging the actual cache. They are concerned with log deletions for cachers who sit at the bottom of the cliff and watch and log the find without attempting getting to the cache location."

[knowschad]

We find a location that is focused on rock climbing and hide a 5 star cache there, do you think there would be a problem with getting the cache listing approved?

Permission from property owner granted with provided phone number.

Climbing waivers at the beginning of trailhead to cache.

All special equipment listed.

The cache is a 80 foot rappel to cache hide or a 40 foot ascent once you hook the ropes in.

Cache is secured to rock wall "40" plus feet above the ground.

Currently there is a problem with the cache reviewer and logging the actual cache. They are concerned with log deletions for cachers who sit at the bottom of the cliff and watch and log the find without attempting getting to the cache location.

Listing says you must reach and sign the log yourself to get a find.

Any input? I am open to suggestions.

No problems that I can see, from what you posted. I'm a bit skeptical, however, about why you are asking the question here, I guess. Was your cache not allowed for some reason?

 

"Currently there is a problem with the cache reviewer and logging the actual cache. They are concerned with log deletions for cachers who sit at the bottom of the cliff and watch and log the find without attempting getting to the cache location."

Yes, I just noticed that. Missed it the first time. I'm wondering, though... who is worried about that... the reviewers? I have never seen a reviewer that was concerned about anything like that, particularily to the point of possibly not publishing the cache. Have you?

[Keystone]

Whenever a cache description attempts to define what does or does not constitute a "find," this can trigger scrutiny from the reviewer under the "no Additional Logging Requirements" section of the listing guidelines. Often these issues can be worked out between the owner and the reviewer, like through an assurance that there will be no log deletions, toning down of declaratory statements, etc.

[+bittsen]

We find a location that is focused on rock climbing and hide a 5 star cache there, do you think there would be a problem with getting the cache listing approved?

Permission from property owner granted with provided phone number.

Climbing waivers at the beginning of trailhead to cache.

All special equipment listed.

The cache is a 80 foot rappel to cache hide or a 40 foot ascent once you hook the ropes in.

Cache is secured to rock wall "40" plus feet above the ground.

Currently there is a problem with the cache reviewer and logging the actual cache. They are concerned with log deletions for cachers who sit at the bottom of the cliff and watch and log the find without attempting getting to the cache location.

Listing says you must reach and sign the log yourself to get a find.

Any input? I am open to suggestions.

No problems that I can see, from what you posted. I'm a bit skeptical, however, about why you are asking the question here, I guess. Was your cache not allowed for some reason?

 

"Currently there is a problem with the cache reviewer and logging the actual cache. They are concerned with log deletions for cachers who sit at the bottom of the cliff and watch and log the find without attempting getting to the cache location."

 

Yeah, some people like to be concerned over little things. As if it makes a difference.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Whenever a cache description attempts to define what does or does not constitute a "find," this can trigger scrutiny from the reviewer under the "no Additional Logging Requirements" section of the listing guidelines. Often these issues can be worked out between the owner and the reviewer, like through an assurance that there will be no log deletions, toning down of declaratory statements, etc.

So cachers don't actually have to get to the cache, they can just look up and say "There it is! I think." and log it?

 

Don't have to sign the cache log?

 

Way cool!

[+sTeamTraen]

Don't have to sign the cache log?

 

Way cool!

I don't see any such suggestion in Keystone's reply.

 

There are no universal rules for logging, but I think that most people would accept that your name signed in the book "counts". If there are two young, fit people who make the climb, and Mom drove them to GZ and gasped her way up the hill, she's part of the team, and if she's a geocacher, she's entitled to sign the book, I reckon. Ditto if I push my wheelchair-bound buddy along so he can admire the view from the cliff-top.

 

Consider the alternative to "log book sharing"; it would mean that when 10 people go out caching in a group, in order to log a find, they would each have to hide round the corner 300 feet away, while the one in front of them finds/logs/rehides the cache. This is not going to happen for a 1* terrain cache, and probably not going to happen for a 5* terrain cache either.

[+Cav Scout]

Some good points here .

 

Currently we was told by the reviewer that they are going to send this to a group of world wide reviewers (or something to that effect) and see what they say. We already sent a email saying we would not delete logs from cachers who dont actually get to the cache to sign the log. I think the problem is that the finder cannot lower the cache to the cachers on the bottom due to the ammocan being secured by a nylon cord.

 

I think the reviewer may want me to mention on the write up that if we will allow group logs for those who cannot actually make it to the cache as long as "A" finder signs their name on the log.

 

To be honest I really dont care about the group logs. In the end someone has to climb up to the cache to sign the log. Its a great hide. I just dont understand why the reviewer is being hestitant and feels the need to have a group of world wide reviewers approve the cache before its published. Is this the norm?

 

I can come up with several caches that are much harder than the cache we are trying to get published.

[+Cav Scout]

We already did that along with the note saying the cache is secured by a nylon cord and that i cant be lowered to the bottom. I stated I would not delete the logs of cachers just watching , as long as the finder signs their name.

 

It might be a good idea to send a message to the reviewer saying that you understand that you won't be deleting online logs if the name is in the physical cache.

 

Keep in mind, if several cachers are out together, it is unlikely that every member of the group will rap down to the cache. Instead, one representative will sign for the group. There is nothing you can do about this.

 

If you want a cache the requires all log signers to be at the final location, try a multi-pitch climb. There would be VERY little traffic on the cache but every signature would be authentic.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

I don't see any such suggestion in Keystone's reply.

I know. Sometimes my sense of humor falls flat. Not signing the log has been the heat under many forum flame wars and I was trying to play off of that.

[+Kit Fox]

I remember reading a thread where an owner of an extreme cache had an interesting solution. His solution was to ask finders to post an image of themselves at the location of the cache. Those that had a verified find were listed on the cache page list of "real finders." Those that stood on the ground and had the "climber in the group" sign their name for them were listed in a "cachers that didn't actually find the cache but, chose to claim a find anyway" posted clearly on the cache page.

Edited December 15, 2009 by Kit Fox

[+Konnarock Kid & Marge]

Personally, I don't see the reason for the reviewer to hold up the approval. Too often, in so-called group caching, one cacher climbs the hill or crawls through a mess to find the cache only to have the other 'non-finders' sign the log.

If you want all cachers to actually find the cache and sign the log, there's nothing wrong with it!

Is there some sort of bias working here 'cause I see nothing in the guidelines to prevent your approach? Others have used similar requirements for a true log and/or find. This certainly doesn't fit the now banned ALR caches.

Edited December 15, 2009 by Konnarock Kid & Marge

[+delphic]

I remember reading a thread where an owner of an extreme cache had an interesting solution. His solution was to ask finders to post an image of themselves at the location of the cache. Those that had a verified find were listed on the cache page list of "real finders." Those that stood on the ground and had the "climber in the group" sign their name for them were listed in a "cachers that didn't actually find the cache but, chose to claim a find anyway" posted clearly on the cache page.

 

That's a cute ALR loop hole.

 

So if I don't bring my camera or what not, when I sign the log and post online I will get ripped apart by the CO? Someone who I probably don't know, who never saw me at the cache location is going to tell me that I wasn't there just because I didn't follow their ALR loop hole. Sounds super bogus.

[+Castle Mischief]

The actual cache is attached by a secure cord to the cliff wall. The log itself is secured by a cord inside the ammocan. To lower the cache you would have to cut the cord its secured by and possibly end up loosing the cache due to bad weather. The cache is on a rock climbers cliff.

 

Could you not attach the cord via a carabiner or some similar device that would allow the climbers to detach the cache/log and then lower it down?

 

I remember reading a thread where an owner of an extreme cache had an interesting solution. His solution was to ask finders to post an image of themselves at the location of the cache. Those that had a verified find were listed on the cache page list of "real finders." Those that stood on the ground and had the "climber in the group" sign their name for them were listed in a "cachers that didn't actually find the cache but, chose to claim a find anyway" posted clearly on the cache page.

 

That's a cute ALR loop hole.

 

So if I don't bring my camera or what not, when I sign the log and post online I will get ripped apart by the CO? Someone who I probably don't know, who never saw me at the cache location is going to tell me that I wasn't there just because I didn't follow their ALR loop hole. Sounds super bogus.

 

Sounds like a drama storm waiting to hatch.

Edited December 15, 2009 by Castle Mischief

[+The Jester]

As a rock climber, my take is that it takes a team to do a climb - climber and belayer. They are both needed to safely climb, so both should be able to sign the log even if only the 'climber' touched the container.

[Andronicus]

My thoughts. If two able bodied people get to the clift, they realy should take turns making the climb. I know I wouldn't pass up the opportunity. There is no way that my buddy is making the climb, and I am not! But if I am there with my 7 year old dauter, well, she can't belay me, so she will make the climb, and sign for both of us. And I will be sad that I couldn't make the climb! I will then post tones of pics and a verbose detailed log explainting every aspect of the hunt etc.

 

The example of the wheel chair or mother is valid. And lets face it, if one guy signs the log book with everyone's name, not much can be done

 

That's a cute ALR loop hole.

 

So if I don't bring my camera or what not, when I sign the log and post online I will get ripped apart by the CO? Someone who I probably don't know, who never saw me at the cache location is going to tell me that I wasn't there just because I didn't follow their ALR loop hole. Sounds super bogus.

 

No one goes to an extream terrain cache without a camera! That is realy the deffinition of insanity!

 

As for the list of "cachers that didn't actually find the cache but, chose to claim a find anyway", maybe that should be changed to "Caching team members who didn't get to the cache site, but supported the team in a important way."

 

What buggs me is teams that have people not even leave the car, but claim the find. That is truly boggus!

Edited December 15, 2009 by Andronicus

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Could you not attached the cord via a carabiner or some similar device that would allow the climbers to detach the cache/log and then lower it down?

And add an electric winch because, you know, some of us might not be able to hold the cord.

 

I remember reading a thread where an owner of an extreme cache had an interesting solution. His solution was to ask finders to post an image of themselves at the location of the cache. Those that had a verified find were listed on the cache page list of "real finders." Those that stood on the ground and had the "climber in the group" sign their name for them were listed in a "cachers that didn't actually find the cache but, chose to claim a find anyway" posted clearly on the cache page.

There ya go, if you can't beat them, humiliate them!

[+DeRock & The Psychic Cacher]

On Belay

 

Deane

AKA: DeRock & the Psychic Cacher - Grattan MI

[+Touchstone]

On Belay

 

Deane

AKA: DeRock & the Psychic Cacher - Grattan MI

 

Belay's On...climb when ready

 

Back on topic..

 

If it were my cache and I felt compelled to worry about bogus log entries, I would probably try and think of a more permanent attachment method

[+Cav Scout]

I always use "on belay" to let the rappeller know you have the bottom of the rope. I have never heard of Belay on.

 

On Belay

 

Deane

AKA: DeRock & the Psychic Cacher - Grattan MI

 

Belay's On...climb when ready

 

Back on topic..

 

If it were my cache and I felt compelled to worry about bogus log entries, I would probably try and think of a more permanent attachment method

[+Cav Scout]

The cache is permanently attached to the sandstone wall to prevent it from falling to the bottom.

 

On Belay

 

Deane

AKA: DeRock & the Psychic Cacher - Grattan MI

 

Belay's On...climb when ready

 

Back on topic..

 

If it were my cache and I felt compelled to worry about bogus log entries, I would probably try and think of a more permanent attachment method

[+Touchstone]

Hmmm...I hear the phrase all the time in Yosemite. Must be from Freedomof the Hills or some similarly old reference book.

 

At any rate, you mentioned using "nylon cord" which I would not consider very permanent nor durable beyond a season or two. Something more along the lines of a swagged steel cable or lock and chain was what I was thinking of. Even so, I suspect there are ways to defeat even these methods.

 

Good luck!

[+DragonsWest]

Don't let Royal Robbins hear about this.

 

The cache is permanently attached to the sandstone wall to prevent it from falling to the bottom.

 

On Belay

 

Deane

AKA: DeRock & the Psychic Cacher - Grattan MI

 

Belay's On...climb when ready

 

Back on topic..

 

If it were my cache and I felt compelled to worry about bogus log entries, I would probably try and think of a more permanent attachment method

[+GeoGeeBee]

I always use "on belay" to let the rappeller know you have the bottom of the rope. I have never heard of Belay on.

 

I don't know if this is a climbing vs. rappelling thing, or a regional thing. Around here it goes like this (at least, this is how I was taught):

 

Climber: "On belay." (I'm tied in and ready to climb)

Belayer: "Belay on." (I'm anchored and ready for you to climb)

Climber: "Climbing." (What it sounds like)

Belayer: "Climb on." (Go ahead and climb)

 

To the topic at hand: A non-climbing belayer should, IMHO, be able to log the cache. He's just as much a part of the team as the climbers.

[+wimseyguy]

If someone's name is in the logbook then they can claim a find on the cache per the guidelines. If a CO requires a picture, or original signature, or any other sort of verification that the cache was found the way they want, then they have crossed the ALR line and it shouldn't be published. **

 

If cachers who have their names in the log book have their online logs deleted after the fact because a CO doesn't like the way their signature was entered onto the physical log, then they are enforcing an ALR. The finds should be restored and locked.

 

If a CO persists in deleting legit found logs, the cache should be archived and locked. Just my $.03.

 

**Armchair logs are not legit logs, and won't have a sig in the physical log. Those should be deleted, and the cachers posting those should be suspended and/or banned.

Edited December 15, 2009 by wimseyguy

[+bittsen]

What more of a control freak could one be than to have special, personal, guidelines placed to assure that a signature on the log sheet was actually signed by the person whose signature appears on the cache log?

 

What next, DNA testng on logsheets that must be signed in blood?

 

I can't see the necessity to be this petty. Really, it's an UNIMPORTANT game.

[Andronicus]

What more of a control freak could one be than to have special, personal, guidelines placed to assure that a signature on the log sheet was actually signed by the person whose signature appears on the cache log?

 

What next, DNA testng on logsheets that must be signed in blood?

 

I can't see the necessity to be this petty. Really, it's an UNIMPORTANT game.

 

Maybe finger printing. Anyone with one of those bio-metrics things in their laptop. We have a few at work. They are kind of fun, but for some reason, sofar, it has not realy become common place.

[+Castle Mischief]

What more of a control freak could one be than to have special, personal, guidelines placed to assure that a signature on the log sheet was actually signed by the person whose signature appears on the cache log?

 

What next, DNA testing on log sheets that must be signed in blood?

 

I can't see the necessity to be this petty. Really, it's an UNIMPORTANT game.

 

I'm not saying you're wrong, but you might have missed this post:

 

We already did that along with the note saying the cache is secured by a nylon cord and that i cant be lowered to the bottom. I stated I would not delete the logs of cachers just watching , as long as the finder signs their name.

 

Bolding is mine.

 

EDIT: Oh wait. I see you might have been responding to the cache that Kit Fox mentioned. In which case I agree with you.

Edited December 15, 2009 by Castle Mischief

[+bittsen]

What more of a control freak could one be than to have special, personal, guidelines placed to assure that a signature on the log sheet was actually signed by the person whose signature appears on the cache log?

 

What next, DNA testing on log sheets that must be signed in blood?

 

I can't see the necessity to be this petty. Really, it's an UNIMPORTANT game.

 

I'm not saying you're wrong, but you might have missed this post:

 

We already did that along with the note saying the cache is secured by a nylon cord and that i cant be lowered to the bottom. I stated I would not delete the logs of cachers just watching , as long as the finder signs their name.

 

Bolding is mine.

 

EDIT: Oh wait. I see you might have been responding to the cache that Kit Fox mentioned. In which case I agree with you.

 

It was just a general comment.

 

My stance has always been.... "Who cares" when it comes to whether or not the cache log was signed by the cacher or his buddy, as long as they were there when it was signed.

 

I understand that people want to make it nearly impossible for most to actually "find" their cache (for whatever reason, only the cache owner knows) but it's just a cache. IMHO, geocaching is about cachers knowing a cache exists while the rest of the world doesn't.

 

Making a cache signature more difficult is nothing more than being a control freak (again IMHO).

 

Personally, I don't care if one person signs for all as long as the signature is of a person who was actually on the caching trip at the time. That includes the possibility of someone in a wheelchair sitting in the geovehicle getting a find on my cache when they watched their friend sign my cache.

 

I would only delete a log if someone obviously didn't visit my cache. If they said "I drove by and there was a cache there but I was in a hurry and didn't stop" I would probably delete their "find". If they said "I'm a little short to reach the cache so my brother signed for me while he was up there" the log would stand.

 

It's all about having fun. I will always err on the side of having fun.

[+linuxxpert]

I have the same problem and know many others who do too since the whole ALR rule change... I was upset about it at first but then got over it quickly. At the end of the day its the finder's "moral" issue, if they want to pretend they bagged an extreme cache, it's their problem.

Heck, I know cachers who have logged extreme finds from across a river and never even touched the logbook or container... but really... who cares?

 

It's just caching, the numbers are worthless but the experiences are priceless. (yeah I just came up with that) I feel sorry for anybody who "cheats" themselves out of those experiences.

 

Good luck on getting your cache published, I'll be out there one day logging it! (without cheating! ) Don't let a little thing like that discourage you from getting it published!

[+Cav Scout]

This is the note the reviewer sent us.

 

Thanks for the information. I am discussing this with our world-wide panel of reviewers, please do not make any changes at this time.

 

What do the world-wide panel of reviewers think? Im wondering why its not stateside reviewers deciding the fate of the new cache listing...

 

Keeping our fingers crossed!

 

I have the same problem and know many others who do too since the whole ALR rule change... I was upset about it at first but then got over it quickly. At the end of the day its the finder's "moral" issue, if they want to pretend they bagged an extreme cache, it's their problem.

Heck, I know cachers who have logged extreme finds from across a river and never even touched the logbook or container... but really... who cares?

 

It's just caching, the numbers are worthless but the experiences are priceless. (yeah I just came up with that) I feel sorry for anybody who "cheats" themselves out of those experiences.

 

Good luck on getting your cache published, I'll be out there one day logging it! (without cheating! ) Don't let a little thing like that discourage you from getting it published!

Edited December 15, 2009 by Cav Scout

[Skippermark]

There are quite a few climbing/rappelling caches here in CT. There are even climbing events where people climb together and experienced climbers (years of experience) teach others about it.

 

When people around here find the caches, it's often done in a group, with people spending the day climbing different routes. It's more about climbing with friends rather than simply finding a cache, though people find the cache at that time.

 

For the actual event, (before the ALR change) the owner didn't want to force people to do something where they might have a problem just to sign the log, so he put the event log at the bottom of the cliff and let people sign in there if they felt they couldn't do the climb/rappel.

 

Editing to add that I'm not sure why there would be differences in publishing between areas as long as the caches meet the guidelines.

Edited December 15, 2009 by Skippermark

[+Konnarock Kid & Marge]

This is the note the reviewer sent us.

 

Thanks for the information. I am discussing this with our world-wide panel of reviewers, please do not make any changes at this time.

 

What do the world-wide panel of reviewers think? Im wondering why its not stateside reviewers deciding the fate of the new cache listing...

 

Keeping our fingers crossed!

 

 

"World-wide panel of reviewers"? That's about the strangest response I have ever heard a cacher receive from a reviewer! Maybe he needed input from Copenhagen?

Personally, I would go no further out than the southern hemisphere!

Edited December 16, 2009 by Konnarock Kid & Marge

[+Cav Scout]

Thats what we thought .

 

This is the note the reviewer sent us.

 

Thanks for the information. I am discussing this with our world-wide panel of reviewers, please do not make any changes at this time.

 

What do the world-wide panel of reviewers think? Im wondering why its not stateside reviewers deciding the fate of the new cache listing...

 

Keeping our fingers crossed!

 

 

"World-wide panel of reviewers"? That's about the strangest response I have ever heard a cacher receive from a reviewer! Maybe he needed input from Copenhagen?

Personally, I would go no further out than the southern hemisphere!

[+DeRock & The Psychic Cacher]

"World-wide panel of reviewers"? That's about the strangest response I have ever heard a cacher receive from a reviewer! Maybe he needed input from Copenhagen?

Personally, I would go no further out than the southern hemisphere!

 

Falling!

 

Deane

AKA: DeRock & the Psychic Cacher - Grattan MI

[Keystone]

I see that the cache is now published, thanks to helpful clarifications provided by the cache owner. The refinements permitted many cache reviewers worldwide to support publication. Many of them really liked the challenging cache. In fact, a reviewer from Canada gave it an "eh."

 

Enjoy the logs.

[+Walts Hunting]

remember reading a thread where an owner of an extreme cache had an interesting solution. His solution was to ask finders to post an image of themselves at the location of the cache.

 

Under the new ALR guidelines the picture requirement would probably not stand if the cache is a traditional. That was generally used for virtuals and is still used for earthcaches.

[+Touchstone]

I see that the cache is now published...

 

I just love new puppies

[+linuxxpert]

I see that the cache is now published, thanks to helpful clarifications provided by the cache owner. The refinements permitted many cache reviewers worldwide to support publication. Many of them really liked the challenging cache. In fact, a reviewer from Canada gave it an "eh."

 

Enjoy the logs.

 

GC # ?

[markandlynn]

I cant find a link to the cache any chance ??

 

Sent my 10 year old to retrieve our only rock climbing cache , there is a dearth of them in the UK

[+FreeBird65]

There is a cache in my area that is 40 feet up in a tree. So, I guess a climbing cache would be approved. I do have questions on the one climber lowering down to the "ground crew" for all to sign. Is that really in the spirit?

[+Cav Scout]

The Muir Valley Cliff Hanger cache was published !

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...a2-0f6ba43ccc16

 

This is good news for "behind the camera" and myself. We realize the cache won't bring in to many finders because of the remote pristen location in the heart of the Red River Gorge rock climbers paradise, Muir Valley, but we know the people who do come to find the cache will enjoy the climb and beauty of the area.

 

There is a group of cachers I know of who look for hides like this. We plan on placing a few more challenging caches out there for everyone to enjoy .

 

I see that the cache is now published, thanks to helpful clarifications provided by the cache owner. The refinements permitted many cache reviewers worldwide to support publication. Many of them really liked the challenging cache. In fact, a reviewer from Canada gave it an "eh."

 

Enjoy the logs.

 

GC # ?

[+Cav Scout]

GC21Z30

 

I see that the cache is now published, thanks to helpful clarifications provided by the cache owner. The refinements permitted many cache reviewers worldwide to support publication. Many of them really liked the challenging cache. In fact, a reviewer from Canada gave it an "eh."

 

Enjoy the logs.

 

GC # ?