Put a cache 30 feet up in a tree. What terrain should I make it?

[+GraffnTrix]

It is possible for me, a 16 year old able bodied male to climb, and it's very hard for me to get up to my cache.

[+dorqie]

I'd give it a 5/5

[+narcissa]

The terrain should be something high, in the range of 3.5 to 4.5. A terrain rating of 5 is usually reserved for caches that require special equipment (i.e. a boat, scuba gear, rock climbing gear) to get to.

 

The difficulty should be based on how hard it is to actually see/find the cache.

[+drain13]

if its only accessable by clibing the tree thats one thing, if its able to be retrieved via tool thats a little less, if its able to be retrieved ( ie let down by a rope) well thats way less.

[+briansnat]

I have a cache in an evergreen that is fairly easy to climb. I gve it 3 stars for terrain. If it is a difficult climb I might adjust it to 3.5 or 4 stars.

[Clan Riffster]

I reckon that depends on the tree. I hid one 30' up a palm tree. Because they have no branches, the only way up it was either a really big ladder or a self climbing tree stand. I consider both of those to be tools unique enough to rate a 5. Since you were presumably able to make the ascent without tools, it wouldn't qualify as a 5 in my book. Without seeing the tree, I'd call it a 3.

[+Mom-n-Andy]

I have to say that I hate this kind of caches. As a not so able bodied female who is old enough to be your grandmother, I can't do them, and nothing irritates me more than to get to a cache site and unexpectedly find the cache up a tree out of reach. Especially a difficult puzzle cache that I worked hard to solve, only to find that the cache is 20 feet up a tree.

 

If you do place a cache for 16 year old able bodied males, or folks who wish they were still 16 years old, then do give some indication of what to expect in your cache description. I'd set the terrain to 4.5, the difficulty to a relatively high number, and also specify the attributes for "difficult climbing" and "dangerous area." That way people don't waste their time if tree caches aren't their thing.

[+Klatch]

I'd give it a 5/5

Unlikely to be a "5" for difficulty unless it includes a fiendish puzzle or some devious hiding technique. More like a 1.5/3.5 or 4.

[+Isonzo Karst]

I like to see tree climbs rated as 4 - from the Clayjar rating system for "climb requiring use of hands".

Lower then that is unfair to those who are capable of hiking/walking terrain 3 places, but don't have the upper body strength for a tree (or other) climb.

 

There are some tree climbs that aren't much more demanding then a flight of steep steps, of course. I adopted a cache with a stage in a tree - it's got sturdy limbs, perfectly spaced for a human, rotating the trunk from the ground up. I left the rating at 3.

 

It's a 5 only if a sane person wouldn't attempt it without special climbing gear.

 

Difficulty could be anywhere from 1 - 5 . If you can see the thing from the ground, it's a 1. If you're going to need to carefully climb all over the darn tree hunting some small camo'ed something on the tree "somewhere" - it might be a 5.

[+bflentje]

The only possible answer to your question is that it depends on the tree.

Edited May 19, 2010 by bflentje

[+The red-haired witch]

I would tend to say 5 as I consider special equipment (harness, rope) to be needed when the climb is high enough that you have a high risk of killing yourself if you fall. Some people free climb cliffs or can free diving a hundred feet deep, yet people usually rate those place as terrain 5 as you should use special equipment, for safety, even if you don't absolutely have to. I don't understand why so many people think climbing a 50 foot tree is much safer than climbing a 50 foot cliff.

 

If it is a really solid and easy tree to climb (similar to climbing a ladder, then maybe 4 (can you climb a tree without using your hands?). Please use the climbing attribute.

[Hazelette]

Since you were presumably able to make the ascent without tools, it wouldn't qualify as a 5 in my book. Without seeing the tree, I'd call it a 3.

Wow. A 30' tree is only a 3 rating? That's a potentially lethal fall, ouch. Since so many people cache with kids or cache to try and be more active, then I'd hope it would include special warnings. And... many of the gallery pics I've seen of other cachers show larger people such as myself. My fat butt wouldn't ever consider climbing a tree.

[4wheelin_fool]

Since you were presumably able to make the ascent without tools, it wouldn't qualify as a 5 in my book. Without seeing the tree, I'd call it a 3.

Wow. A 30' tree is only a 3 rating? That's a potentially lethal fall, ouch. Since so many people cache with kids or cache to try and be more active, then I'd hope it would include special warnings. And... many of the gallery pics I've seen of other cachers show larger people such as myself. My fat butt wouldn't ever consider climbing a tree.

 

It's not necessarily lethal. I've fallen 30 feet and only shattered my femur and disclocated my elbow. Aside from a 11" bolt and 16 pins in my leg, and being unable to straighten my left arm, I'm fine.

[+bflentje]

Since you were presumably able to make the ascent without tools, it wouldn't qualify as a 5 in my book. Without seeing the tree, I'd call it a 3.

Wow. A 30' tree is only a 3 rating? That's a potentially lethal fall, ouch. Since so many people cache with kids or cache to try and be more active, then I'd hope it would include special warnings. And... many of the gallery pics I've seen of other cachers show larger people such as myself. My fat butt wouldn't ever consider climbing a tree.

 

CAUTION: Failure to pay attention while stepping off this sidewalk could cause you great bodily injury or death. Please comply with all manufacturer recommended instruction for using this sidewalk.

[+ADTCacheur]

really, it all depends what kind of a cacher you are. I've seen caches ranging from 5* for a cache that was a tree leaning on it's side so much you walked up the trunk to get it (only a 5* because it was a tree) to 3* for a cache probably 50' in the air, with no branches for the first part so you have to climb the trunk itself (this one was straight up).

 

assuming it's just an average tree, 30' up, I'd say 4-4.5*

[+_Superman_]

I'd give it a 5/5

 

Gotta love people and their quickness to give a cache a 5 difficulty. What if you climb te tree and the cache is in your face? Whyrate it a 5 on the diff scale? Remember difficulty is the rating to how difficult the cache is to find at ground zero. I would say 4.5 as you have to use your hands to climb but not all will need special equipment.....Then rate difficulty as it should be

[+DragonsWest]

I have a cache in an evergreen that is fairly easy to climb. I gve it 3 stars for terrain. If it is a difficult climb I might adjust it to 3.5 or 4 stars.

 

Should be at least an additional half star for tree having a lot of sap.

[Skippermark]

As others have said it really depends on the tree and the hide. Most tree hides that we've seen are usually rated a 4. If the cache is low or really easy to get to (stepping up a couple low branches), it may be lower. There are also some higher terrain ones that are really challenging to get to.

 

As far as difficulty, it depends on how easy it is to find. If it's visible from the ground, it's a 1, no matter how hard it is to get to. If it's a tiny container somewhere on a huge tree, it could be much higher.

[GeoFamily57]

3/4.5

Edited June 15, 2010 by GeoFamily57

[knowschad]

Wow. A 30' tree is only a 3 rating? That's a potentially lethal fall, ouch. Since so many people cache with kids or cache to try and be more active, then I'd hope it would include special warnings. And... many of the gallery pics I've seen of other cachers show larger people such as myself. My fat butt wouldn't ever consider climbing a tree.

Why should the cache have any special warnings? Wouldn't it be enough to simply see the tree and decide for yourself if you should be climbing it?

[+TJdamon]

I have a cache that i placed 32 ft up a pine tree and I rated it at 2.5/4.5. It's only had 3 finders in the last year but none of them complained about the rating on it.

[+webscouter.]

Put me in the camp that the terrain should be in the 3.5 to 4.5 range.

 

The difficulty should reflect the ease in finding the cache. I would think that if it was a sandwich box sized cache it will be a 1.5 to 2 difficulty.

[+SwineFlew]

I would rate a tree cache a 5 or 4.5 in terrain if you need a tall ladder to get to the nearest limb. If the nearest limb is like 15 to 20 feet from the ground, its a 4.5 to 5 in terrain.

[+wolfslady]

The terrain I would most likely rate a 5 because I don’t think that anything where someone is risking life OR LIMB attempting it without gear (as in a safety rope) should be rated lower. Sure you can rate it lower and there are people who will scoff at you for it, but there are many who will appreciate the fact that you rated it so that they were prepared that they either might have to come back with special equipment or they might decide not to get it at all. I wouldn’t be angry at someone who made one a 4 or 4.5 assuming they warned me on the cache page that a climb was required. But anything lower for 30’ up in a tree no matter how easy it was to climb and you are looking to upset a lot of people who can’t or won’t climb that high.

 

Difficulty is harder without seeing the cache page. If it’s clearly visible and the terrain is rated correctly to indicate it might be that high I’d sat a 2 or 3. If you mark the terrain as a 3 or 4 and it’s hidden so you can’t see it from the ground I’d guess that most people are not going to climb that high even if it’s the only tree around. If they might have to climb 3 or 4 trees to figure out which tree it’s in then I’d say it’s a 5 by default. So yes it could be a 5/5 or it could be a 2/ 4.5 depending upon how you write it up.