Jump to content

Tree climbing cache.


TheCacheSeeker
Followers 6

Recommended Posts

Make sure the limbs are able to support weight! You can find a piece of wood that looks similar to the tree bark color, hollow out the top and place the cache in the depression. I've seen one that used velcro to make sure it wasn't knocked down.

It's more fun if getting up in the tree requires a boost, or a step ladder.

Rate the terrain appropriately, probably a 3-4. Add the climbing attribute. This won't give the hide away if there are other trees or objects nearby that can also be climbed.

 

Have fun! I love climbing caches!

Link to comment

I love climbing trees, and I would like to hide a tree climbing cache. Any feedback or advice? :grin:

 

DO IT. I have one hidden in Indiana that's about 25 feet up in a tree. A good distance--enough for me to use ropes and a harness. So here's my advice... When you hide this cache, make sure it's a trek that you're willing to do again for maintenance if/when that becomes necessary. Also, don't usea nail or any object that will damage the tree to secure the cache. I've heard that zip ties work well, but to be honest with you, I simply used brown twine to tie my cache onto a branch, and the twine is still in fine shape, nearly a year later.

 

Also, think hard about your terrain rating. Mine is 25 feet up in a tree, which I would normally give a 3.5-star rating, I would think. It's a pretty easy climb. However, getting to the first branch involves the ability to lift one's own body weight (assuming the cacher is alone), and the highly recommended harness and ropes (but not required) caused me to bump the terrain rating to a 4.5. Perhaps a little high, many would argue, but guess what? It's my cache. And I think the rating is appropriate. :)

 

And of course--be careful. Safety is always first.

Link to comment

I love climbing trees, and I would like to hide a tree climbing cache. Any feedback or advice? :grin:

 

DO IT. I have one hidden in Indiana that's about 25 feet up in a tree. A good distance--enough for me to use ropes and a harness. So here's my advice... When you hide this cache, make sure it's a trek that you're willing to do again for maintenance if/when that becomes necessary. Also, don't usea nail or any object that will damage the tree to secure the cache. I've heard that zip ties work well, but to be honest with you, I simply used brown twine to tie my cache onto a branch, and the twine is still in fine shape, nearly a year later.

 

Also, think hard about your terrain rating. Mine is 25 feet up in a tree, which I would normally give a 3.5-star rating, I would think. It's a pretty easy climb. However, getting to the first branch involves the ability to lift one's own body weight (assuming the cacher is alone), and the highly recommended harness and ropes (but not required) caused me to bump the terrain rating to a 4.5. Perhaps a little high, many would argue, but guess what? It's my cache. And I think the rating is appropriate. :)

 

And of course--be careful. Safety is always first.

 

I agree with going with a higher terrain rating. As finder, I'd rather come prepared for 4.5, and deal with a climb that is mostly 3, than to expect a 3 and find a 4.5.

Remember to rate the cache on the hardest aspect, not the average.

Link to comment

It really depends on what you want to accomplish and your skill level. Some trees are just plain fun to climb. They have twisting branches that offer multiple paths throughout. A higher difficulty rating may be fun on these because the intent is to explore the whole tree. Conversely, your intent on a very high climb may be a spectacular view that can only be seen 50' up. In this case, you may want to place a lower difficulty cache like a metalic bison that can be spotted from the ground allowing the cacher to make one long ascent and enjoy this view for awhile. The best tree caches show evidence that the CO spent a little time at GZ and designed the cache around the tree. Also, sometimes not everyone in a group are climbers. Consider those waiting below before selecting a tree that has nasty surroundings.

Link to comment

For a shortie, tree caches tend to end up in the higher T-ratings. Most often a taller somebody else will be able to reach the first branch, while I will not. And carrying a step ladder long distances is not appealing. Short distances, urban surroundings, I don't mind.

Caching cannot be equally easy to everyone, but if you happen to be as tall as someone in the NBA, keep the lengthwise challenged in mind when you rate the cache. As someone said, a pleasant surprise in the wild is nicer than an unpleasant one!

 

 

Link to comment

I have seen a lot of concern by cachers for damage to trees by the use of metal screws or nails to secure the cache. I think multiple people climbing a tree damages the tree more than that. I have seen trees with lots of bark worn off and broken branches. Choose the tree carefully for easy climbing and strong branches to minimize possible damage

Link to comment

Ive found a few tree climbing caches. One was 18 feet up in a tree w/ a 4.5 T rating. I thought it was quite high but that was before I tried climbing it. BOy, that was a killer.

 

Before you do anything else, pick a specific tree that you want to place a cache on. Do the usual check (caches within 528 ft) and then climb the tree to see if the branches can support your weight. Remember, some people weigh more than others. Then you can come back later and place the cache.

Link to comment

I agree with going with a higher terrain rating. As finder, I'd rather come prepared for 4.5, and deal with a climb that is mostly 3, than to expect a 3 and find a 4.5.

Remember to rate the cache on the hardest aspect, not the average.

 

Yes, what dorqie said! Rate it at least a 4 and mention that it's a tree climbing cache. Don't make people who are unable to climb trees drive miles just to find out they can't get the cache.

 

I also agree with SeekeroftheWay - make sure the tree can support someone who may weigh 200 pounds.

 

If people are going to need a ladder or ropes, mention it. You want to make the tree-climbing lovers happy, as well as the non-tree-climbers, by supplying the information that will let a person decide if the cache is right for them.

Link to comment

Here is my favorite tree climbing cache.

 

6f85325b-9e3f-4a07-ab9c-51f3904d4d3a.jpg

 

After several people logged a note or DNF because they didn't dare make the climb, I really enjoyed this log by two friends which this is their only find:

 

April 9 by natgiraffe (1 found)

We climbed up, found it, signed our names, climbed back down, realized we forgot to take pictures, and climbed back up.

 

a909d8bd-24f8-4589-a799-f67fa807e473.jpg

Link to comment

Here is my favorite tree climbing cache.

 

6f85325b-9e3f-4a07-ab9c-51f3904d4d3a.jpg

 

After several people logged a note or DNF because they didn't dare make the climb, I really enjoyed this log by two friends which this is their only find:

 

April 9 by natgiraffe (1 found)

We climbed up, found it, signed our names, climbed back down, realized we forgot to take pictures, and climbed back up.

 

a909d8bd-24f8-4589-a799-f67fa807e473.jpg

Exactly what this game needs more of... chicks in trees! :D

Link to comment

After several people logged a note or DNF because they didn't dare make the climb, I really enjoyed this log by two friends which this is their only find:

 

April 9 by natgiraffe (1 found)

We climbed up, found it, signed our names, climbed back down, realized we forgot to take pictures, and climbed back up.

 

 

And to think that some "experienced" cachers would claim it as "found" just because they got to the tree and saw the cache, so they felt entitled to claim it as "found" or had someone else climb the tree and bring the cache to them. :mad:

Edited by Pup Patrol
Link to comment
Lots of cheaters tried to claim smilies on this one: indiana Tree cache

Technically, it's not cheating. Those folks just have a different definition of "Found It" than we do. After all, if they can point it out, they have "found" it... sorta. I took part in a CITO at an island on the Space Coast a while back. Capaldo (or was it Rogue23?) has a cache way up in a tree on the island. With my boogered up knee, I couldn't make the first step. It required lifting your foot up past your belt. Everything past that point was pretty easy. I just couldn't make the first step. Eventually, some kind hearted soul climbed up and passed the cache down to me. I signed the log, passed it back up the tree and logged it as a note. The owner emailed me, saying I should log a find on it, but it just didn't feel like one. He had created a very specific challenge for the cache, and I didn't meet that challenge. Other people who didn't make the climb logged it as a find. I don't consider them cheaters. Apparently, neither does the owner.

Link to comment

Definitely recommend you secure the cache to a limb, either with a chain or a cable or something. If it's small enough, a big zip tie should get around the limb. (Remember to leave some slack, or the limb could grow enough to snap it.) Even caches hidden in tree hollows can fall out -- especially if something lives in there.

Link to comment

Question: If a cache, such as a tree climbing cache, requires tools of the trade, doesn't that automatically make the terrain a 5? If it requires a ladder for ropes? That's what I thought.

 

Most likely a regional standard. We have a cacher that I'm sure free climbed every T4.5 and below that he has hidden. There are few w/ his skills. I'm sure that others have used ropes to hide T4+ terrains. Personally, I think the terrain ratings in the area are fairly consistent because they follow a regional standard. It keeps the skill challenged from getting 25' caches published as T5s.

Link to comment
Lots of cheaters tried to claim smilies on this one: indiana Tree cache

Technically, it's not cheating. Those folks just have a different definition of "Found It" than we do. After all, if they can point it out, they have "found" it... sorta. I took part in a CITO at an island on the Space Coast a while back. Capaldo (or was it Rogue23?) has a cache way up in a tree on the island. With my boogered up knee, I couldn't make the first step. It required lifting your foot up past your belt. Everything past that point was pretty easy. I just couldn't make the first step. Eventually, some kind hearted soul climbed up and passed the cache down to me. I signed the log, passed it back up the tree and logged it as a note. The owner emailed me, saying I should log a find on it, but it just didn't feel like one. He had created a very specific challenge for the cache, and I didn't meet that challenge. Other people who didn't make the climb logged it as a find. I don't consider them cheaters. Apparently, neither does the owner.

 

Techically, it IS cheating. Of course, a cache owner could allow smilies for "finds" even if the finder never got within a mile of the cache, that's his right. But if you don't SIGN THE LOGBOOK, it ain't a find...at least according to the guidelines as published by Groundspeak.

Link to comment
Lots of cheaters tried to claim smilies on this one: indiana Tree cache

 

Technically, it's not cheating. Those folks just have a different definition of "Found It" than we do. After all, if they can point it out, they have "found" it... sorta. I took part in a CITO at an island on the Space Coast a while back. Capaldo (or was it Rogue23?) has a cache way up in a tree on the island. With my boogered up knee, I couldn't make the first step. It required lifting your foot up past your belt. Everything past that point was pretty easy. I just couldn't make the first step. Eventually, some kind hearted soul climbed up and passed the cache down to me. I signed the log, passed it back up the tree and logged it as a note. The owner emailed me, saying I should log a find on it, but it just didn't feel like one. He had created a very specific challenge for the cache, and I didn't meet that challenge. Other people who didn't make the climb logged it as a find. I don't consider them cheaters. Apparently, neither does the owner.

 

Techically, it IS cheating. Of course, a cache owner could allow smilies for "finds" even if the finder never got within a mile of the cache, that's his right. But if you don't SIGN THE LOGBOOK, it ain't a find...at least according to the guidelines as published by Groundspeak.

 

He *did sign the logbook. They just passed it down to him.

 

On a similar find, I went caching with a team. Whoever found the cache would write all names on the log. We all had separate accounts and names. One cache was spotted way up in a tree. One person went up and got it and signed all our names as usual. I logged it as a find.

 

Do you expect every person present to take turns climbing the tree to be able to log as found? I don't. I could have climbed the tree as well, but another person did instead.

Link to comment
But if you don't SIGN THE LOGBOOK, it ain't a find...at least according to the guidelines as published by Groundspeak.[/b]

There are a few geocachers who, despite evidence to the contrary, continue to insist that the part in the guidelines which reads, "Physical geocaches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed." is a stipulation that the reverse is also true. Specifically, that you cannot log a cache as "Found" until the logbook has been signed. There have been countless incidents discussed in these forums, with input from Reviewers and even Lackeys, suggesting that your interpretation is not necessarily accurate. The latest one I remember, (still hunting a link), revolved around wet logs which could not be signed, and drifted a bit to discuss caches that were rusted shut, whose logs could not be signed.

 

In both cases, (wet logs/rusty caches), it was deemed acceptable to log a find if the seeker could otherwise demonstrate to the owner's satisfaction that they did, indeed, locate the cache in question. Obviously, incidents such as those are exceptions, but by their very existence, they demonstrate that the "rule" you hold to so dearly is just a guideline. AKA: A suggested course of action. Since it is not a "requirement", failing to follow that guideline cannot be "cheating".

 

Even the dictionary disagrees with you:

 

cheat [cheet] –verb

1. To defraud; swindle

2. To deceive; influence by fraud

3. To elude; deprive of something expected

4. To practice fraud or deceit

5. To violate rules or regulations

 

Number 5 is as close as you can get to your interpretation, but since the guidelines are neither rules, nor regulations, it really doesn't apply. So long as the seeker accurately describes their attempt, (so there is no intent to deceive), numbers 1 through four don't apply either.

 

But you are certainly free to maintain your belief if doing so brings you comfort. B)

Link to comment

Guess what? There's going to be a new tree climbing attribute in the release today! :grin:

 

Neat! I hope they add a kayak/canoe one too. I'm going to place a cache that requires those, but boats will be too big.

 

 

Canoes and kayaks are boats. :anitongue:

Link to comment

Guess what? There's going to be a new tree climbing attribute in the release today! :grin:

 

Neat! I hope they add a kayak/canoe one too. I'm going to place a cache that requires those, but boats will be too big.

 

 

Canoes and kayaks are boats. :anitongue:

 

There's caches here that require a kayak or canoe, because the water is too shallow for a boat.

 

There are some caches that need a boat because the water is too rough, and distance too far, for a kayak.

 

I never refer to my canoe as a boat. Lol.

Edited by SeekerOfTheWay
Link to comment
I never refer to my canoe as a boat. Lol.

 

I do, and I know lots of other people who do also. So as far as I'm concerned, "boat required" is quite accurate for canoe/kayak caches where larger boats wouldn't work.

 

But maybe that's because I'm not a native speaker of English, and in German the distinction between boat and ship is quite clear. I never understood those frequent silly dialogues in movies, where one person says "that's a big boat" and the other replies "it's not a boat, it's a ship" or something along those lines. :huh: Sounds like there could be a common misconception in English.

Edited by dfx
Link to comment
I never refer to my canoe as a boat. Lol.

 

I do, and I know lots of other people who do also. So as far as I'm concerned, "boat required" is quite accurate for canoe/kayak caches where larger boats wouldn't work.

 

But you wouldn't know if a larger boat, or kayak was required by the attribute. It has to be written in the cache page.

 

This makes it harder to search for kayak only caches by attribute. I ran a PQ of boat required aches and I couldn't do many of them. Because I don't have a boat.

 

I don't tell people, "I have a boat." I say I have a kayak.

Edited by SeekerOfTheWay
Link to comment
But you wouldn't know if a larger boat, or kayak was required by the attribute. It has to be written in the cache page.

 

This makes it harder to search for kayak only caches by attribute. I ran a PQ of boat required aches and I couldn't do many of them. Because I don't have a boat.

 

I don't tell people, "I have a boat." I say I have a kayak.

 

That's probably a regional problem. Around here, if a cache says boat required, it's either somewhere inland, in which case a canoe will do just fine, or it's in such a remote area that it's quite obvious that you need a larger motorized boat of some sort and that it wouldn't pop up in a regular PQ anyway. But yeah, "boat" is a very broad term, and clarification in the description is definitely needed in all cases. Maybe a distinction between "paddle cache" and "motorized boat required" would make sense. Then again, you can put a trolling motor on a canoe and motorize it that way. Anyway, technically even this is a boat, even though I wouldn't call it that. :laughing:

Link to comment

I suppose it is regional. Here we have the gulf, intercoastal, mangroves, lakes, ponds, canals.

 

My mom and I fell out of our canoe after it was rocked by boat wake and swamped. It was in a pass and there were strong currents. It was my fault because I'm new to the water. I saw other boats...real boats...all around but didn't think much of it.

 

We had to be rescued, and it was scary for a minute. I got the caches. Also got lectured about taking a canoe out in rough boating waters.

 

Falling out of canoe cache log

Edited by SeekerOfTheWay
Link to comment

Techically, it IS cheating. Of course, a cache owner could allow smilies for "finds" even if the finder never got within a mile of the cache, that's his right. But if you don't SIGN THE LOGBOOK, it ain't a find...at least according to the guidelines as published by Groundspeak.

Cue TOZ and his explanation of the guidelines... Oh wait, Clan Riffster beat him to it.

Link to comment

 

Neat! I hope they add a kayak/canoe one too. I'm going to place a cache that requires those, but boats will be too big.

 

 

All kayaks are boats. Not all boats are kayaks, though.

 

Ditto for canoes.

 

Lol, true. But not all boats can get to all "boats required" caches.

Edited by SeekerOfTheWay
Link to comment

Neat! I hope they add a kayak/canoe one too. I'm going to place a cache that requires those, but boats will be too big.

 

 

All kayaks are boats. Not all boats are kayaks, though.

 

Ditto for canoes.

 

Lol, true. But not all boats can get to all "boats required" caches.

 

Tru dat. I like at least 24 inches of water under my jet intakes, though if I am sure it is just mud on the bottom I can go as low as 12.

If there are rock around, I will anchor nearby and jump in and swim to it. Not worth scratching the gelcoat.

cbe8076a-4d8f-4c8d-a5d7-401006e3ca28.jpg

Link to comment

 

Neat! I hope they add a kayak/canoe one too. I'm going to place a cache that requires those, but boats will be too big.

 

 

All kayaks are boats. Not all boats are kayaks, though.

 

Ditto for canoes.

Depending on where you are from just about anything that floats is a boat. ie Washington State ferrys are usually called Ferry Boats even if they are techincally a ship. :ph34r:

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...
Followers 6
×
×
  • Create New...