Up a tree

June 17, 2011

We found a geocache recently that you had to walk down a long, very steep embankment and then climb a tree to the cache over 12 ft. off the ground. Luckily a cacher had left the cache within reach. Afterwards the cache owner placed the cache back up in the tree. How far off the ground is it OK to place a cache?

June 17, 2011

As far as you want.

2.1k · June 17, 2011

Any height as long as they've got enough permission and rate the cache accordingly.

Disclaimer I've got one about 10 feet up a tree.

June 17, 2011

How far off the ground is it OK to place a cache?

As long as it's rated with the appropriate difficulty level, I don't believe there is a limit.

Incidentally, how was it rated?

38.2k · June 17, 2011

I have one about 25 feet up a tree. I found one almost 40 feet up once. There is no limit.

7.5k · June 17, 2011

Any height as long as they've got enough permission and rate the cache accordingly.

What was the Terrain rating? I would say it should be a 4. Was there anything in the write-up warning people that they'd have to climb 12 feet up a tree?

I do not like tree climbing caches. I fell out of a tree when I was a kid and couldn't breath for a few seconds. Now that I'm in the youth of my old age I sure don't want to risk life and limb for a cache up a tree. If the cache description didn't say anything about climbing and the terrain rating was less then 4 I'd write a note in the log letting the CO know what that the terrain rating was too low for a tree climbing cache with a link to http://www.geocaching.com/hide/rate.aspx :

****

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.)

*****Requires specialized equipment and knowledge or experience, (boat, 4WD, rock climbing, SCUBA, etc) or is otherwise extremely difficult.

1.7k · June 17, 2011

To allow yourself to make sense of what is said, as long as it is legal to do so, a cache can be placed anywhere. A geocache in a nuclear reactor is perfectly fine if said nuclear reactor is perfectly legal to go into.

You could place a geocache on train tracks, so long as your country doesn't have trespassing laws on train-tracks.

You could place a geocache on a archery range, so long as the owners of the archery range give you permission.

A cache inside lava in a volcano? Perfectly fine assuming the area lets you inside the volcano.

The real reason why so many dangerous caches are off-limits is the fact permission would never be granted. No property owner in there right mind would allow you to hide a geocache on the archery range, I don't know of a single country whose train tracks are legal to walk on. It is possible in very one-off situations to gain permission for an exceptionally dangerous cache, there truly is a legal nuclear reactor to visit.

I say the better answer is, you can hide it as high as the property owner will allow you too (Most forests don't even need permission however, and welcome all caches, dangerous or not.)

2.1k · June 17, 2011

Any height as long as they've got enough permission and rate the cache accordingly.

What was the Terrain rating? I would say it should be a 4. Was there anything in the write-up warning people that they'd have to climb 12 feet up a tree?

I do not like tree climbing caches. I fell out of a tree when I was a kid and couldn't breath for a few seconds. Now that I'm in the youth of my old age I sure don't want to risk life and limb for a cache up a tree. If the cache description didn't say anything about climbing and the terrain rating was less then 4 I'd write a note in the log letting the CO know what that the terrain rating was too low for a tree climbing cache with a link to http://www.geocaching.com/hide/rate.aspx :

****
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.)
*****Requires specialized equipment and knowledge or experience, (boat, 4WD, rock climbing, SCUBA, etc) or is otherwise extremely difficult.

I went with a 3 and left it there after talking with the only finder so far. It is GC2W0DT

I included the altitude of the cache in the page.

What changes would you recommend for the page?

I'm more then willing to make changes on it.

1.7k · June 17, 2011

Any height as long as they've got enough permission and rate the cache accordingly.

What was the Terrain rating? I would say it should be a 4. Was there anything in the write-up warning people that they'd have to climb 12 feet up a tree?

I do not like tree climbing caches. I fell out of a tree when I was a kid and couldn't breath for a few seconds. Now that I'm in the youth of my old age I sure don't want to risk life and limb for a cache up a tree. If the cache description didn't say anything about climbing and the terrain rating was less then 4 I'd write a note in the log letting the CO know what that the terrain rating was too low for a tree climbing cache with a link to http://www.geocaching.com/hide/rate.aspx :

****
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.)
*****Requires specialized equipment and knowledge or experience, (boat, 4WD, rock climbing, SCUBA, etc) or is otherwise extremely difficult.

I went with a 3 and left it there after talking with the only finder so far. It is GC2W0DT

I included the altitude of the cache in the page.

What changes would you recommend for the page?

I'm more then willing to make changes on it.

How about, "elevation off ground level" rather than "elevation". I honestly don't have a single clue how far off my local area is off the ground, it could be 500 feet, or 3,000 feet, I still wouldn't be able to tell the difference. I assume locals don't know the local elevation either.

2.1k · June 17, 2011

Any height as long as they've got enough permission and rate the cache accordingly.

What was the Terrain rating? I would say it should be a 4. Was there anything in the write-up warning people that they'd have to climb 12 feet up a tree?

I do not like tree climbing caches. I fell out of a tree when I was a kid and couldn't breath for a few seconds. Now that I'm in the youth of my old age I sure don't want to risk life and limb for a cache up a tree. If the cache description didn't say anything about climbing and the terrain rating was less then 4 I'd write a note in the log letting the CO know what that the terrain rating was too low for a tree climbing cache with a link to http://www.geocaching.com/hide/rate.aspx :

****
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.)
*****Requires specialized equipment and knowledge or experience, (boat, 4WD, rock climbing, SCUBA, etc) or is otherwise extremely difficult.

I went with a 3 and left it there after talking with the only finder so far. It is GC2W0DT

I included the altitude of the cache in the page.

What changes would you recommend for the page?

I'm more then willing to make changes on it.

How about, "elevation off ground level" rather than "elevation". I honestly don't have a single clue how far off my local area is off the ground, it could be 500 feet, or 3,000 feet, I still wouldn't be able to tell the difference. I assume locals don't know the local elevation either.

Many GPS's show the elevation.

1.7k · June 17, 2011

Any height as long as they've got enough permission and rate the cache accordingly.

What was the Terrain rating? I would say it should be a 4. Was there anything in the write-up warning people that they'd have to climb 12 feet up a tree?

I do not like tree climbing caches. I fell out of a tree when I was a kid and couldn't breath for a few seconds. Now that I'm in the youth of my old age I sure don't want to risk life and limb for a cache up a tree. If the cache description didn't say anything about climbing and the terrain rating was less then 4 I'd write a note in the log letting the CO know what that the terrain rating was too low for a tree climbing cache with a link to http://www.geocaching.com/hide/rate.aspx :

****
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.)
*****Requires specialized equipment and knowledge or experience, (boat, 4WD, rock climbing, SCUBA, etc) or is otherwise extremely difficult.

I went with a 3 and left it there after talking with the only finder so far. It is GC2W0DT

I included the altitude of the cache in the page.

What changes would you recommend for the page?

I'm more then willing to make changes on it.

How about, "elevation off ground level" rather than "elevation". I honestly don't have a single clue how far off my local area is off the ground, it could be 500 feet, or 3,000 feet, I still wouldn't be able to tell the difference. I assume locals don't know the local elevation either.

Many GPS's show the elevation.

Oh, I thought you realized what I was saying. The issue is that people have no way of knowing it's in the tree before they get there.

9.2k · June 17, 2011

I went with a 3 and left it there after talking with the only finder so far. It is GC2W0DT

I included the altitude of the cache in the page.

What changes would you recommend for the page?

I'm more then willing to make changes on it.

Given the description

Hiking up Horse Gulch would be an ideal approach.
Watch for mountain bikers on their way down.

Hike and Mountain bikers on their way down I'd expect that was why it was a 3* anyway, it sounds like it could be steep! Never mind a climb at the site to retrieve the cache.

And 'Elevation' is a bit misleading...

2.1k · June 17, 2011

I went with a 3 and left it there after talking with the only finder so far. It is GC2W0DT

I included the altitude of the cache in the page.

What changes would you recommend for the page?

I'm more then willing to make changes on it.

Given the description

Hiking up Horse Gulch would be an ideal approach.
Watch for mountain bikers on their way down.

Hike and Mountain bikers on their way down I'd expect that was why it was a 3* anyway, it sounds like it could be steep! Never mind a climb at the site to retrieve the cache.

And 'Elevation' is a bit misleading...

So should I up it a 1/2 a star or a whole star?

Any text suggestions (I'm not an overly verbose person).

9.2k · June 17, 2011

I went with a 3 and left it there after talking with the only finder so far. It is GC2W0DT

I included the altitude of the cache in the page.

What changes would you recommend for the page?

I'm more then willing to make changes on it.

Given the description

Hiking up Horse Gulch would be an ideal approach.
Watch for mountain bikers on their way down.

Hike and Mountain bikers on their way down I'd expect that was why it was a 3* anyway, it sounds like it could be steep! Never mind a climb at the site to retrieve the cache.

And 'Elevation' is a bit misleading...

So should I up it a 1/2 a star or a whole star?

Any text suggestions (I'm not an overly verbose person).

Can't find for looking... Did you say 10 feet up the tree?

1/2 star and a cryptic hint? "Out on a limb" "No need to go out on a limb" type thing...

Or 3* with cryptic hint...

Edited June 17, 2011 by Bear and Ragged

18.9k · June 17, 2011

Here is an official Geocaching site video that shows a precarious tree climb as part of a cache:

2.1k · June 17, 2011

Given the description

Hiking up Horse Gulch would be an ideal approach.
Watch for mountain bikers on their way down.

Hike and Mountain bikers on their way down I'd expect that was why it was a 3* anyway, it sounds like it could be steep! Never mind a climb at the site to retrieve the cache.

And 'Elevation' is a bit misleading...

So should I up it a 1/2 a star or a whole star?

Any text suggestions (I'm not an overly verbose person).

Can't find for looking... Did you say 10 feet up the tree?

1/2 star and a cryptic hint? "Out on a limb" "No need to go out on a limb" type thing...

Or 3* with cryptic hint...

It is a step up into the juniper tree, then at arms reach. So about 10 feet off the ground, but close in to the tree.

It isn't too hard to spot once you get there, as it is a fake apple painted blueish purple.

I'll up it to a 3.5 and add a hint. Humm, must ponder the hint choice.

Edit: The mountian bikers note is just a reminder that Horse Gulch is mainly a biking area.

Edited June 17, 2011 by MooseJawSpruce

7.5k · June 17, 2011

Given the description

Hiking up Horse Gulch would be an ideal approach.
Watch for mountain bikers on their way down.

Hike and Mountain bikers on their way down I'd expect that was why it was a 3* anyway, it sounds like it could be steep! Never mind a climb at the site to retrieve the cache.

And 'Elevation' is a bit misleading...

So should I up it a 1/2 a star or a whole star?

Any text suggestions (I'm not an overly verbose person).

Can't find for looking... Did you say 10 feet up the tree?

1/2 star and a cryptic hint? "Out on a limb" "No need to go out on a limb" type thing...

Or 3* with cryptic hint...

It is a step up into the juniper tree, then at arms reach. So about 10 feet off the ground, but close in to the tree.

It isn't too hard to spot once you get there, as it is a fake apple painted blueish purple.

I'll up it to a 3.5 and add a hint. Humm, must ponder the hint choice.

Edit: The mountian bikers note is just a reminder that Horse Gulch is mainly a biking area.

Can someone who is 5'2" get it without bringing a ladder with them (many women cachers and some men would be under 5"5"). Can they step up into the juniper tree and then reach up to retrieve it? At least let someone who's shorter know that they may not be able to get this cache without taking along a taller person, or equipment like a step stool or ladder.

2.1k · June 17, 2011

Can someone who is 5'2" get it without bringing a ladder with them (many women cachers and some men would be under 5"5"). Can they step up into the juniper tree and then reach up to retrieve it? At least let someone who's shorter know that they may not be able to get this cache without taking along a taller person, or equipment like a step stool or ladder.

Yep, that is how I got it into the tree.

June 17, 2011

My favourite cache series in our area involves several tree climbs. The highest one took me to the point where survival instinct took over and I wouldn't go any further. I then spotted the cache at eye level. Great fun. I suppose my survival instinct kicks in at about 30 feet up.

19k · June 17, 2011

In general, it can be placed no higher than the tree.

June 17, 2011

My record is 18ft up a tree.

June 18, 2011

I have this cache located 34ft up in a tree Climb Tree, Find Cache - EXTREME!. I love the pics of the cachers up the tree.

Edited June 18, 2011 by slukster

6k · June 18, 2011

There's one over in the Santa Rosa that is about 60'.

June 18, 2011

There is a similar one near Coeur d'Alene, ID that has caused a ton of issues for some people.

http://coord.info/GCNEA0

It's funny to read about, however it's not one I plan to do.

June 18, 2011

I found one that was on an abandoned gas station highway sign pole 20 feet up. I'm just glad it wasn't at the top. Somewhere around 50-60 feet.

I'm thinking of heading to Dubai and putting one on top of a tower there. Now that would be entertaining...

Up a tree

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Join the conversation