Tree as an Earthcache

[+Rross1973]

I have been approached by a fellow cacher about a historical tree that is over 350 years old and has some historical meaning as well. Is there any way an Earthcache could be established around a historical tree in nature ??

 

I also have a similar tree that is located in front of a church that has a historical plaque in front of it and for the longest time I have thought of ways to turn it into an Earthcache.

 

Any ideas ??

[+Lostby7]

Never say never...but this would be VERY hard to accomplish. Short of cutting down the tree and finding rare elements in the wood specific to that area I think you'd have an uphill (maybe mountain) battle getting a EC approved based on a tree.

[+Touchstone]

Unless it's petrified, I agree it would be a pretty tough sell. Sounds more Life Science oriented, rather than Earth Science oriented.

 

Good luck all the same

[+HoustonControl]

I created this somewhat tree-oriented Earthcache in an area known for a "lost" stand of bigtooth maple trees. As you can see, though, I focused more on the geology of the area that allowed the trees to survive there. If there's something geologically unique to the area that pertains to the tree, you might try that angle.

[+Lostby7]

If there's something geologically unique to the area that pertains to the tree, you might try that angle.

Exactly....there is usually a way to include stuff that is not the main focus of the listing...but you need good information about something unique (geologically speaking) in the area.

[+Arby Gee]

I have an Earthcache where you walk right past a really awesome tree on your way from one geological point of interest to another. I mention the tree in the write-up and provide a waypoint. (And I get a lot of positive feedback about the tree too). But as for an EC that focuses on a tree itself, I think that would be such a stretch that you'd probably never be able to get it approved.

[+Konnarock Kid & Marge]

I promised myself to avoid these forums because it simply isn't worth it. Anyway, that's neither here nor there 'cause I couldn't resist this topic.

Don't get mad, but you folks are being far too hard on the OP. God loves trees too!

Seriously, if a recently approved EC that is just a flower garden can get approved, why not a tree? After all, I'll bet the tree is bigger than the flowers!

By the way, there is not a rock within sight of the cache if you exempt the small gravel on the hiking trail! Explain that one!

See you guys again in a few months. Have at it.

[+HoustonControl]

I promised myself to avoid these forums because it simply isn't worth it. Anyway, that's neither here nor there 'cause I couldn't resist this topic.

Don't get mad, but you folks are being far too hard on the OP. God loves trees too!

Seriously, if a recently approved EC that is just a flower garden can get approved, why not a tree? After all, I'll bet the tree is bigger than the flowers!

By the way, there is not a rock within sight of the cache if you exempt the small gravel on the hiking trail! Explain that one!

See you guys again in a few months. Have at it.

As you can probably tell by my 75 posts in 5+ years, I usually avoid these forums too. But in my limited experience, I've found folks in the Earthcache forums to mostly be civil toward one another, which is refreshing. I don't think anyone is trying to be hard on the OP, just maybe realistic.

[+Konnarock Kid & Marge]

I promised myself to avoid these forums because it simply isn't worth it. Anyway, that's neither here nor there 'cause I couldn't resist this topic.

Don't get mad, but you folks are being far too hard on the OP. God loves trees too!

Seriously, if a recently approved EC that is just a flower garden can get approved, why not a tree? After all, I'll bet the tree is bigger than the flowers!

By the way, there is not a rock within sight of the cache if you exempt the small gravel on the hiking trail! Explain that one!

See you guys again in a few months. Have at it.

As you can probably tell by my 75 posts in 5+ years, I usually avoid these forums too. But in my limited experience, I've found folks in the Earthcache forums to mostly be civil toward one another, which is refreshing. I don't think anyone is trying to be hard on the OP, just maybe realistic.

 

Houston Control, I totally agree with you regarding folks on this forum being civil. It is some the interlopers, hand-washers and non-earthcachers who venture in and out that I have the most trouble with.

Some look at those who are the one in every crowd as something negative, some look at those in that crowd as showing leadership! Someone once said, "those who can't swim, kill those who rock the boat!" It's all in how you look at the World!

 

Bu I digress so let's get back to the topic. My comment at the other posters being "to hard" on the OP was totally made in jest. Frankly, I agree with them. My only point is when a flower garden is approved as an EC, as recently happened, then there is nothing wrong with a tree being an EC. Honestly, I don't think that either the tree or the flower garden should be earthcaches. Maybe a rock garden, but a flower garden? Many, many months ago there was a thread on the dilution or dumbing down of ECs. At that time my position was that just because there were a lot more ECs approved didn't mean there was a lessening of quality. Now, I'm not sure.

I don't believe in posting the name of caches or cachers which I disagree with, so folks you will have to do your own search. Thanks and now I will abide with and return to my self imposed exile! Bye!

[+geodarts]

Seriously, if a recently approved EC that is just a flower garden can get approved, why not a tree?

 

Flower gardens? I have seen an earthcache made up of a few slabs of cut and polished granite that was brought to a park area as a base for something. After seeing that, I was going to turn my friend's countertops into an earthcache but could not get his approval. So my suggestion involved putting a rock next to the tree and taking it from there.

 

More seriously, there are many earthcaches that seem to have a primary purpose other than geology. I suppose if you throw a little geology into the mix, you have an earthcache. Sometimes that can be a creative and educational thing. Geology can affect everything from life-sciences to history. Certain things happen because of geology. Other things happen in an area that is also geologically interesting - I recently published an earthcache about that. But sometimes it can be a stretch that leaves me scratching my head.

 

Some of the reasons for this might be that earthcaches are the only form of virtual that can be approved, and many are in places where traditional caching is not allowed. Others might only want an icon on one side of their page. Still, why not put a traditional near the tree and use that to tell others about it. Or, with the historical tree and area mentioned in the OP, place a multi using information from the plaque to take people to the tree and then to a traditional. Why force the concept of earthcaches just to have one? Not everything needs to be an earthcache.

Edited June 14, 2010 by mulvaney

[+geoaware]

A submission for an EarthCache based on a tree will not be published.

[+Skull Dragg]

Even if it was a fossilized tree?

 

A submission for an EarthCache based on a tree will not be published.