What to do if unable to put back a cache?

May 1

Hello,

what do you do if you grab a geocache, sign it but are unable to put it back into its place and no other way to hide it?

This happened to me recently: The cache was hidden inside a loose protection plastic cap on top of the pole of a sign. I can barely reach it. Once I poked it with my finger, it felt off the pole. After signing the log, I failed to put it back on, because I could not reach the top of the pole. My skills in jumping and climbing are terrible.

In this case, it was possible to just return it to its owner who lives next to it. He is larger than me so he just put it back with his bare hands.

But what if he wasn't at home? It was in the middle of nowhere.

Edited May 1 by _Franky_

11.8k · May 1

23 minutes ago, _Franky_ said:

Hello,

what do you do if you grab a geocache, sign it but are unable to put it back into its place and no other way to hide it?

This happened to me recently: The cache was hidden inside a loose protection plastic cap on top of the pole of a sign. I can barely reach it. Once I poked it with my finger, it felt off the pole. After signing the log, I failed to put it back on, because I could not reach the top of the pole. My skills in jumping and climbing are terrible.

In this case, it was possible to just return it to its owner who lives next to it. He is larger than me so he just put it back with his bare hands.

But what if he wasn't at home? It was in the middle of nowhere.

Part of the challenge of Geocaching is putting it back in place. Assess a cache before you get in over your head (as it were). Return later with a safe way to reach it.

But if you can't place it back where it goes, or even if you do but if it's not quite right, be sure to mention the problem, in your log. You don't have to be very specific in a public log if that might spoil the hide for future cachers. Just say that you couldn't put it back. A Needs Maintenance Log (“Owner attention requested”), would probably be suitable.

Maybe tuck the container in a temporary hiding spot, and then contact the Cache Owner, describing the place where you put it.

Edited May 1 by kunarion

13.8k · May 2

Kunarion had a great answer, but one thing I'd like to add is if someone makes a habit out of leaving caches with issues (it used to happen often when apps first came out...), locals will often 'correct' the problem so they can't access their caches without a PM, rope access, etc.

4.6k · May 2

On 5/2/2025 at 2:37 AM, _Franky_ said:

what do you do if you grab a geocache, sign it but are unable to put it back into its place and no other way to hide it?

Depends on the rating for me. I have not put a rated T1 back high in the rafters where I found it for instance. For starters I couldn't reach to do so, and two, I don't know what was going through the small, cruel brain of the CO to rate a cache 1T and put it high in the rafters of a building, where a handicapped person might think they could find this one and then they couldn't. I put it back at a 1T level, and wrote I put it back to match its rating. The next finder wrote they took ages to find it (as it no longer matched the hint, in the rafters), but said they agreed with the cache move. If anyone says I shouldn't have done this, my reply is that the CO shouldn't have rated it 1T, but rated it realistically.

I have also put rated 1.5T caches back at 1.5T places. How do I know that is not correct and a previous finder put it higher than 1T😀🙄? Just respecting the CO's rating😄, placing the cache to match what they claim it is.

As for correctly rated caches, it's likely better to not retrieve it if you can't return it. Rated 1T or 1.5T, return them to where the average person, who might be female, can reach. As I wrote, respecting the CO's own rating.

Edited May 2 by Goldenwattle

15.4k · May 2

1 hour ago, Goldenwattle said:

I don't know what was going through the small, cruel brain of the CO to rate a cache 1T and put it high in the rafters of a building, where a handicapped person might think they could find this one and then they couldn't.

What was the difficulty rating? I've found elevated caches that had low terrain ratings, because the location you needed to get to was near parking, and perhaps even wheelchair accessible. But they had high difficulty ratings because the CO expected seekers to use a specialized tool to retrieve and replace the cache.

7.2k · May 2

On 5/2/2025 at 2:37 AM, _Franky_ said:

what do you do if you grab a geocache, sign it but are unable to put it back into its place and no other way to hide it?

Last week I did a 2-stage multi. The first stage, a small container holding a laminated strip with the information needed to get the final coordinates, was well-concealed in a rock crevice, but when I got to the final location the cache was sitting out in the open, so unlikely where it was meant to be. There was no obvious hiding place where it could be well concealed, so I pushed it back under the ledge as far as I could and mentioned that in my log, then also messaged the owner with some photos of where I'd found it and where I'd put it.

4.6k · May 3

9 hours ago, niraD said:

What was the difficulty rating? I've found elevated caches that had low terrain ratings, because the location you needed to get to was near parking, and perhaps even wheelchair accessible. But they had high difficulty ratings because the CO expected seekers to use a specialized tool to retrieve and replace the cache.

As I wrote 1T. It was not a fishing rod cache either, as it was a box to get down. A long stick could knock it down, but then you had to get it off the ground. I used to push someone in a wheelchair and it's very unlikely they could pick up something from the ground. Then the wheelchair person would have to drag themselves from the chair, carry a ladder there, place it and then climb the ladder to return the cache. CRUEL and unemphatic of the CO to make this 1T and get a handicapped person's hope up they could do this cache. If I find these wrongly rated caches, I will move it to match the 1T rating. If the CO doesn't want this done; simple, rate the cache correctly. Wrongly rated 1T caches is a bug bear of mine for the utter thoughtlessness of the CO. Not keen on wrongly rated 1.5T caches either. One example of that, was needing to put a chair on a table and stretch at a dangerous angle from on top of that to reach the cache. NOT 1.5T. Dangerous! The next person took one look and said it was too dangerous and they didn't attempt it; a 'mere rated 1.5T cache'.

Edited May 3 by Goldenwattle

15.4k · May 3

8 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

A long stick could knock it down, but then you had to get it off the ground.

I've never found an elevated cache where using a long stick to knock it down was the right approach. If you need a tool to retrieve the cache, then you also need a tool (perhaps the same tool) to replace the cache.

4.6k · May 4

11 hours ago, niraD said:

I've never found an elevated cache where using a long stick to knock it down was the right approach. If you need a tool to retrieve the cache, then you also need a tool (perhaps the same tool) to replace the cache.

As I said. Simple, rate the cache correctly. You should not need to have to return a 1T cache back up high to the rafters.

15.4k · May 4

7 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

As I said. Simple, rate the cache correctly. You should not need to have to return a 1T cache back up high to the rafters.

And a T1 D5 elevated cache is going to require something more than just a stick to knock it down.

3.2k · May 4

On 5/3/2025 at 4:09 AM, Goldenwattle said:

CRUEL and unemphatic of the CO to make this 1T and get a handicapped person's hope up they could do this cache.

I doubt cruelty was the intent. Much more like the CO simply don't understand proper D/T ratings.

4.6k · May 4

7 hours ago, niraD said:

And a T1 D5 elevated cache is going to require something more than just a stick to knock it down.

If rated correctly it shouldn't require any stick, unless a short stick (or other long tool) is needed as part of the puzzle part (D5) to poke at something, maybe to open the cache. T1, correctly rated, means it's physically easy to get to...once you find the VERY well hidden D5 cache. A cache could be T1 D5 in theory and a person in a wheelchair be able to reach it.

4.6k · May 4

5 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

I doubt cruelty was the intent. Much more like the CO simply don't understand proper D/T ratings.

In a sense it is, not considering others. Especially those who when it is explained to them still choose not to change the rating. I have met those. One I politely mentioned in my log that a person in a wheelchair couldn't get to it. They came back and said it WAS a 1T. Well my car passenger, the person who used a wheelchair didn't agree. A wheelchair user shouldn't have to depend on others to get to a 1T.

15.4k · May 4

4 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

If rated correctly it shouldn't require any stick, unless a short stick (or other long tool) is needed as part of the puzzle part (D5) to poke at something, maybe to open the cache.

The definition of D5 is not just solving a puzzle: "The most extreme mental challenge. Requires specialized knowledge, skills, tools, or significant effort to find, solve, or open."

If a specialized tool is required to find or open the cache, then that is also D5.

7.2k · May 5

6 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

If rated correctly it shouldn't require any stick, unless a short stick (or other long tool) is needed as part of the puzzle part (D5) to poke at something, maybe to open the cache.

I've done a few terrain 1 tree-fishing caches where access to the base of the tree is along a short sealed path or level hard-packed earth. Having watched someone tree-fish a cache some 8 to 10 metres up while seated in a boat on choppy water (and put it back), I think it'd be reasonably possible for someone in a wheelchair on terra firma to do likewise.

Edited May 5 by barefootjeff

4.6k · May 5

19 hours ago, niraD said:

The definition of D5 is not just solving a puzzle:

It can be very much so for a very hard puzzle. But usually it's for puzzle and finding it. If a CO wants to make this clearer, they could give this information. T stands for terrain, not how well the cache is hidden, and yes the tools required. I think there needs to be an extra rating for puzzle caches. Lets call it the P difficulty.

15.4k · May 6

5 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

I think there needs to be an extra rating for puzzle caches. Lets call it the P difficulty.

I would love to see an additional rating for anything not related to getting yourself to GZ (terrain) and identifying the actual cache (difficulty). That additional rating could apply to "get the final coordinates" puzzles, to "open the gadget cache" puzzles, to "figure out how to retrieve and replace inaccessible containers" caches, to challenge caches, and to many other situations where there is a significant obstacle that is neither getting yourself to GZ or identifying the actual cache.

But the time for that was decades ago, and it is unlikely to happen today.

And in the meantime, just because a wheelchair user can get to GZ (T1) doesn't mean that there can't be some other obstacle reflected by a higher difficulty rating.

7.2k · May 6

2 hours ago, niraD said:

I would love to see an additional rating for anything not related to getting yourself to GZ (terrain) and identifying the actual cache (difficulty). That additional rating could apply to "get the final coordinates" puzzles, to "open the gadget cache" puzzles, to "figure out how to retrieve and replace inaccessible containers" caches, to challenge caches, and to many other situations where there is a significant obstacle that is neither getting yourself to GZ or identifying the actual cache

Applying such a system to multis could be a bit tricky, where each waypoint may have some varying combination of difficulty-to-spot and other stuff that has to be done. For the one I'm currently working on, the final is a large 50 cal ammo can which will be sitting in plain sight once you crawl into the rock cavity and turn around. If it was a traditional it'd be close to difficulty 1, but the waypoint objects are smaller and better concealed as they're in more muggle-prone locations, so with everything weighed in, including putting the waypoint information together to form the final coordinates, I've settled on an overall difficulty of 2.5. Splitting that up into "searching" and "other stuff" components wouldn't be straightforward as each location is different, and so wouldn't likely be any more helpful to searchers than the existing D rating.

4.6k · May 6

2 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Applying such a system to multis could be a bit tricky, where each waypoint may have some varying combination of difficulty-to-spot and other stuff that has to be done. For the one I'm currently working on, the final is a large 50 cal ammo can which will be sitting in plain sight once you crawl into the rock cavity and turn around. If it was a traditional it'd be close to difficulty 1, but the waypoint objects are smaller and better concealed as they're in more muggle-prone locations, so with everything weighed in, including putting the waypoint information together to form the final coordinates, I've settled on an overall difficulty of 2.5. Splitting that up into "searching" and "other stuff" components wouldn't be straightforward as each location is different, and so wouldn't likely be any more helpful to searchers than the existing D rating.

I called it P, as I only meant it for puzzles, not all caches.

15.4k · May 6

5 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

I called it P, as I only meant it for puzzles, not all caches.

Whether the new rating is only for puzzles, or for any cache that has an additional obstacle that is neither getting yourself to GZ (terrain) nor identifying the actual cache (difficulty), it isn't going to happen at this point. Groundspeak is barely willing to create new attributes. They won't create new types, and they certainly won't add an entirely new data field.

1.7k · May 6

Respectfully, I take exception with your whole way of looking at this.

To me, it doesn't matter whether I agree with a CO's rating or not. The cache is what the cache is.

For you to say that you don't agree with the cache rating, so therefore you're going to put it where you think it should go at its current rating is just bad caching behavior.

You're not the boss of me or my caches. If you don't agree with my rating, don't do my cache. If you think it's in the wrong place, say that in a log, heck, even file an OAR, but don't presume to 'correct' what you assume to be my mistake.

There's nothing different here from just putting a cache back where you'd prefer it to be. Regarding your point about...

On 5/2/2025 at 5:04 PM, Goldenwattle said:

How do I know that is not correct and a previous finder put it higher than 1T

... well, you could say that about any aspect of a hide that you don't like, can't you?

If this was the reverse situation and the cache was hidden at an objectively easier position that YOU think the T-rating implied, would you take it upon yourself to reihide it in a 'more appropriate' spot?

If you can't put the thing back where you got it, don't take it down!

On 5/3/2025 at 4:09 AM, Goldenwattle said:

If the CO doesn't want this done; simple, rate the cache correctly.

It's not our jobs to police anyone else's listings and take direct action on perceived infractions. It's not...your...cache.

4.6k · May 6

1 hour ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

well, you could say that about any aspect of a hide that you don't like, can't you?

If this was the reverse situation and the cache was hidden at an objectively easier position that YOU think the T-rating implied, would you take it upon yourself to reihide it in a 'more appropriate' spot?

If you can't put the thing back where you got it, don't take it down!

Talking about 1T caches here that DON'T match the hide. If at an easier place it won't effect anyone. But at a higher place it effects people, esp the handicapped, aged and the like. Show some empathy which your comment doesn't indicate. The example I gave was a 1T HIGH in the rafters of a building. How is that 1T? So, you expect a person in a wheelchair to be able to put that back? Common sense needed!!! Sorry, up earlier than usual for a trip and me showing lack of patience for people not understanding and showing empathy for the situation. Rating mean nothing to you obviously. Just put the caches anywhere and call it 1T. High in a tree 1T is good. Well it isn't!

4.6k · May 6

7 hours ago, niraD said:

attributes

😆 Something irrelevant for people like me who use GPSs which don't show them.

1.7k · May 6

49 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

Talking about 1T caches here that DON'T match the hide. If at an easier place it won't effect anyone. But at a higher place it effects people, esp the handicapped, aged and the like. Show some empathy which your comment doesn't indicate. The example I gave was a 1T HIGH in the rafters of a building. How is that 1T? So, you expect a person in a wheelchair to be able to put that back? Common sense needed!!! Sorry, up earlier than usual for a trip and me showing lack of patience for people not understanding and showing empathy for the situation. Rating mean nothing to you obviously. Just put the caches anywhere and call it 1T. High in a tree 1T is good. Well it isn't!

I admire your intent, but you're wrong. None of that matters.

The cache and the listing belongs to the CO. Tell him or her that you think it's wrong and suggest a change, file an OAR or report it to HQ, but otherwise, you find a cache, you sign it and you put it back. Unless it's a danger to someone, it's not your job to stand between a CO and cachers.

15.4k · May 6

3 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

The example I gave was a 1T HIGH in the rafters of a building. How is that 1T?

Again, what was the difficulty rating? I've found T1 D5 elevated caches where CO expected cachers to use a tool to retrieve and replace the cache. The paved surface at GZ was wheelchair accessible, and a wheelchair user with the appropriate tool (D5) could retrieve and replace the elevated cache just like anyone else.

4.6k · May 7

12 hours ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

I admire your intent, but you're wrong. None of that matters.

The cache and the listing belongs to the CO. Tell him or her that you think it's wrong and suggest a change, file an OAR or report it to HQ, but otherwise, you find a cache, you sign it and you put it back. Unless it's a danger to someone, it's not your job to stand between a CO and cachers.

So ratings don't matter to you. Let's get rid of them then. No, ratings do matter to many people. They matter. A 1T cache high up in the rafters I will move down. Simple, CO rate them correctly and then they won't be moved. Try thinking of other people won't you, where correct ratings matter.

Edited May 7 by Goldenwattle

4.6k · May 7

9 hours ago, niraD said:

Again, what was the difficulty rating?

I can't remember, but I don't think it was a high D. It was the T that mattered here. If the cache is hard to spot, it can still be an easy T. Of course, if an easy terrain make it's hard to make a high D cache, then it won't be a high D cache, if keeping it to 1T.

1.7k · May 7

6 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

So ratings don't matter to you. Let's get rid of them then. No, ratings do matter to many people. They matter. A 1T cache high up in the rafters I will move down. Simple, CO rate them correctly and then they won't be moved. Try thinking of other people won't you, where correct ratings matter.

So, I'm out.

I've read nothing in your posts that indicate that you've understood what I've said. Instead, We've gotten only statements like the hyperbolic "So ratings don't matter to you. Let's get rid of them then." This is not responsive to my comments and comes off as silly.

Perhaps after some time you could revisit this thread and attempt to eke out what I've been saying. It has nothing at all to do with the validity of ratings, rather the apparent vigilante approach to other people's caches under the misguided idea that YOU'RE directly responsible for protecting other cachers from the perceived misdeeds of what YOU consider to be rogue COs.

In fact, the hobby already has mechanisms in place, as I mentioned above to deal with situations like the one you described, but that doesn't seem to be good enough. You'll just mete out punishments as you see fit.

Your statement, "Simple, CO rate them correctly and then they won't be moved" comes across as an intimidational threat, so I'm out..

Cache on.

Edited May 7 by TeamRabbitRun

4.6k · May 8

16 hours ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

I've read nothing in your posts that indicate that you've understood what I've said.

I understand fully what you have written and can only presume what you wrote is what you meant. This what you wrote and what I commented on.

"I admire your intent, but you're wrong. None of that matters.

The cache and the listing belongs to the CO. Tell him or her that you think it's wrong and suggest a change, file an OAR or report it to HQ, but otherwise, you find a cache, you sign it and you put it back. Unless it's a danger to someone, it's not your job to stand between a CO and cachers."

On 5/7/2025 at 5:21 AM, TeamRabbitRun said:

Tell him or her that you think it's wrong and suggest a change, file an OAR

I have contacted COs about their wrongly rated 1T cache. Very few will alter any thing. They are right, I am wrong. The person in a wheelchair can obviously crawl under the boardwalk to get the cache (one incident I contacted the CO about and nothing changed). Another time I said they would not be able to get down the embankment to the cache and pick it up off the ground. Well the wheelchair user sitting in the car who saw the placement from the car agreed with me, not the CO. They couldn't get it. Neither would some people unsteady on their feet be able to get it. I think I once contacted HQ (or was it a reviewer?) and nothing was done. Some time ago, but I think I got a reply to the effect the rating is up to the CO. (That might have been a cache high on a post.) From my experience it's useless making a complaint. I did have one reviewer change one wrong rating to 1.5T when I described the placement, but from other comments, not sure it they were really meant to that.

Then if the CO doesn't change their rating, the rating stays and the cache stays where someone who can only find 1T caches won't be able to reach it. They need to be corrected when found, or they won't be.

I have had a similar argument with a few people here about removing breaking down caches. Apparently they should be left to rot and turn into micro plastic, because the rotting mess which the CO won't fix, belongs to them. Same mind set!

Too much individually ownership (it's mine), rather than community thinking. Maybe it's a cultural difference.

Edited May 8 by Goldenwattle

May 8

image.png.a3525ee515a8a350cabb06b2eeca3720.png
Sounds like the proverbial ‘beating one’s head against the wall’

May 11

On 5/3/2025 at 6:57 PM, niraD said:

I've never found an elevated cache where using a long stick to knock it down was the right approach. If you need a tool to retrieve the cache, then you also need a tool (perhaps the same tool) to replace the cache.

In my region, 1 of 5 is like this.

Other examples of caches I found so far which were difficult to put back into their places:

- Sylvester firework missile > Tip removed > All firework stuff out > Logbook in > Tip back on > Attach magnet > Hidden deep inside a pipe as high as possible
- Not finding a cache and find out later it was hanging in a tree in a way you have to climp that tree to get it
- In general, on the backside of traffic signs and street lights of all kind (using magnets) at >=2 meters. Knocking these off using a stick and throwing them back somehow is the only way I can reach them because I'm small and can't climp.

None of these had any hints like you need to be tall, need tools, need climping etc.

That's why I was asking

Edited May 11 by _Franky_

4.6k · May 12

4 hours ago, _Franky_ said:

Knocking these off using a stick and throwing them back somehow is the only way I can reach them because I'm small and can't climp.

None of these had any hints like you need to be tall, need tools, need climping etc.

This depends on the rating if they are correctly placed. If say a 3T this means it could be difficult to reach and you should expect to need to do some climbing, or bring a boost to stand on, which you probably understand. What's annoying is tall people placing a cache and claiming it's only 1.5T, which might be those you are complaining about, and rightly so. When almost no female can reach it without bringing along a boost and many males can't either.

I wish that HQ would put a definition for 1.5T that the cache needs to be able to be reached with feet flat on the ground by most women and then problems such as you mention would be solved. If women can reach it, so can men. Unfortunately from experience it appears that some men don't register when placing caches that not all people are tall males. Women are people too. Too often I see caches with logs from women saying luckily I had my husband with me, or bemoaning they couldn't reach it. Female cachers should not have to depend on finding a male to take along so as to reach 1.5T caches. It's insulting and annoying! For an Australian women, according to the Bureau of Statistics I am slightly taller than average, so even some caches I have managed to reach - just - I still see many of those logs that a woman needed her husband to reach it, or couldn't reach it.

If placing a 1.5T it would be good if placers checked the average height for women in their country and placed it no higher than someone of that height can reach it with feet flat on the ground to avoid shorter people having a harder time playing the game. This gives some 'wriggle room' and therefore consideration, for some even shorter people being able to stand on tip toes and still reach the cache. In Australia that's a 161.8cm person, as that's apparently the average female height here in Australia (2011-12). (This surprised me as at 165cm (or once that), I considered myself short...now with age shrinking 😒).

Caching should not only be enjoyable and predictable for tall people (that they will be able to reach a rated 1.5T), but predictable for the less tall too, that they also will be easily able to reach a 1.5T. That it isn't predictable is your and many other's problem.

Edited May 12 by Goldenwattle

May 12

For just the issue you are talking about I carry what I call my Geocaching Equalizer with me when out caching. I was driving through Georgia on my way to Florida one year and I stopped to find a cemetery cache. I could see it but couldn’t reach it. I drove into town to a hardware store and bought a 2’ stepladder (.6 or .7 meter), returned to the cemetery and retrieved the cache, signed the log, and replaced the cache. Since then it is part of my TOTTs. I also carry two grabbers in my vehicle. One must compensate.

4.6k · May 12

16 minutes ago, Smitherington said:

For just the issue you are talking about I carry what I call my Geocaching Equalizer with me when out caching. I was driving through Georgia on my way to Florida one year and I stopped to find a cemetery cache. I could see it but couldn’t reach it. I drove into town to a hardware store and bought a 2’ stepladder (.6 or .7 meter), returned to the cemetery and retrieved the cache, signed the log, and replaced the cache. Since then it is part of my TOTTs. I also carry two grabbers in my vehicle. One must compensate.

I do a lot of my caching when travelling; in Australia and overseas. Not as much when home. I can't put a ladder in my luggage if taking a train, plane, etc. When home, I often walk and catch public transport to a cache, rather than drive, so again, can't take a ladder. If I do a road trip, I might be able to take a ladder in my car, but that depends whether I am sleeping in my car of not. On some trips I make up a bed in the back, and I can't sleep with a ladder. I do have a small stool in my car which is useful, and I have also stood on the Esky as it's a strongly built one. (Ice box with food and water.)

I guess on my last trip to NZ (returned from four days ago), if I had taken a bigger suitcase I could have fitted my folding stool in it, as I had more weight allowance still available than I needed. 13.5 kilos suitcase going and 10.5 kilos suitcase on return (after dropping off some Bookcrossing books). I did have a rental car to carry the stool. Fortunately I didn't need it, but then I do choose many of what caches I will find before travelling to a place, so wouldn't put a cache that needs a ladder or fishing rod for instance, on my list of to finds.

7.2k · May 12

57 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

This depends on the rating if they are correctly placed. If say a 3T this means it could be difficult to reach and you should expect to need to do some climbing, or bring a boost to stand on, which you probably understand. What's annoying is tall people placing a cache and claiming it's only 1.5T, which might be those you are complaining about, and rightly so. When almost no female can reach it without bringing along a boost and many males can't either.

Curiously, I've found four terrain 1.5 caches that also had the Tree climbing required attribute. One of those, published just a few months ago, was only a short climb of about a metre or so but was then a bit of a stretch to reach the cache hanging out on a branch, so if it was me I would have made it 2.5. Another was in a large fig tree but, after searching all the likely nooks and crannies that could be reached with a short climb, I spotted it sitting on the ground at the base of the tree so I don't know where it was meant to be hidden. Getting back to the OP, in this instance I put it back where I found it and mentioned that in my log, and a few days later the CO came out and rehid it properly. For the other two, they were a while ago and I don't remember how much climbing they required, but I didn't mention anything about it in my logs so it couldn't have been much.

Even more curious are the two terrain 1 caches I've found with the Tree climbing required attribute. Both were in guard rails and nowhere near any trees so I don't know what the intent was with that attribute. Maybe they originally intended them to be tree climbs but changed their mind and forgot to untick it.

Few of my own caches require any reaching up; more commonly they're close to the ground and require bending down or even crawling, something that might be hard for a tall person with dodgy knees. In my most recent multi, still awaiting publication, one of the waypoint objects is in a large tree hollow that's about shoulder height on me when standing flat-footed in bare feet, so I don't think you'd have too much trouble reaching that. It's terrain 3.5, mostly for the rock-scrambling needed to get down to the final, but I did include the No tree climbing required attribute since one of the waypoints is in a tree that doesn't have to be climbed.

4.6k · May 12

3 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

Curiously, I've found four terrain 1.5 caches that also had the Tree climbing required attribute. One of those, published just a few months ago, was only a short climb of about a metre

I once came upon a 1.5T tree climb, although admittedly not a high tree climb. Maybe a 2.5T, similar to what you mentioned. Had a stretch though once you climbed up too. I mentioned it wasn't 1.5T. 'Yes it was', replied the almost beginner geocacher who knew much better than me. Said it was a flat walk to the tree and that's all that need to be considered. I told them, yes a flat walk, but the tree climb must be considered. 'No it doesn't,' they replied; 'You just don't know enough to understand.' (or words to that effect 🤣). So to their extensive (not) experience and warped logic, apparently far greater than mine, a very tall tree climb with a flat walk to it, would also only be a 1.5T.

13 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

require bending down or even crawling, something that might be hard for a tall person with dodgy knees.

Maybe that's possibly why a cache I have hanging low in a bush, is the reason the bush had several branches broken off after a nearby MEGA. I was both annoyed and embarrassed to find the damage. Shocked that some would do this, without either being more careful and thoughtful, or realise they can't do this without damaging the bush and don't do it. (At 70 I have no problem getting to it without damaging the bush.)

20 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

hard for a tall person

Once after struggling to reach some too high lowly rated caches, I did think maybe I should publish a series of 'revenge' caches, that would be much easier for short people, and more difficult for tall people. But never did😆.

Thinking of revenge caches. One I once found was against big people. There was one cache I found (in Melbourne?) that was VERY biased against some body shapes. If was in a gap between two skyscrapers. A VERY narrow gap (claustrophobic) that I (slim) had to edge into sideways. Any rotund person would not have managed. Even when I got to the cache on the ground I stood there thinking, now what, as I couldn't turn to reach the cache. No room to. Some very bendy sideways gymnastics were necessary, with one leg in the air, hoping I could right myself. I'm here, so I obviously managed🤣.

7.2k · May 12

12 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

Thinking of revenge caches. One I once found was against big people. There was one cache I found (in Melbourne?) that was VERY biased against some body shapes. If was in a gap between two skyscrapers. A VERY narrow gap (claustrophobic) that I (slim) had to edge into sideways. Any rotund person would not have managed. Even when I got to the cache on the ground I stood there thinking, now what, as I couldn't turn to reach the cache. No room to. Some very bendy sideways gymnastics were necessary, with one leg in the air, hoping I could right myself. I'm here, so I obviously managed🤣.

I've encountered a couple of caches like that. One was an EarthCache where the most direct access was through a narrow cleft in the rock that I thought I might get stuck in if I tried it, but fortunately there was a longer walk around that didn't require any squeezing. The other, GCA8RNE, is in a cave along a narrow passageway descending into the hill, but right at the entrance there's a tree growing in it that I couldn't squeeze around. After my initial unsuccessful attempt, I returned another day with a ladder and was able to easily climb down into the passageway beyond the tree, then crawl into the cave and put my name in the logbook.

4.6k · May 12

2 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

cave

I can be mildly claustrophobic, and on a couple of rememberable occasions, badly, so cave and narrow gap doesn't appeal to me. Once this happened when I overdosed on coffee (caffeine), it made my claustrophobia very much worse. Didn't know this could happen. In Hong Kong. With the narrow alleyways, the taxi trip under the harbour, not a place to overindulge I found out on coffee. I was in a bad way and had to leave it up to my companion to direct the taxi driver. In peak hour, slow moving traffic under the harbour, I had my eyes closed.

I have been in caves though, with sensible entrances😄.

7.2k · May 12

1 hour ago, Goldenwattle said:

I once came upon a 1.5T tree climb, although admittedly not a high tree climb. Maybe a 2.5T, similar to what you mentioned. Had a stretch though once you climbed up too. I mentioned it wasn't 1.5T. 'Yes it was', replied the almost beginner geocacher who knew much better than me. Said it was a flat walk to the tree and that's all that need to be considered. I told them, yes a flat walk, but the tree climb must be considered. 'No it doesn't,' they replied; 'You just don't know enough to understand.' (or words to that effect 🤣). So to their extensive (not) experience and warped logic, apparently far greater than mine, a very tall tree climb with a flat walk to it, would also only be a 1.5T.

Unfortunately the Help Centre page on cache ratings is a bit ambiguous on this:

image.png.7f9a689a5873deb77c75a9f68a060e3a.png

At the top it says "Physical effort needed to arrive at coordinates and sign the logbook" but the individual desciprions up to and including terrain 3.5 talk exclusively about the hike.

4.6k · May 12

54 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

Unfortunately the Help Centre page on cache ratings is a bit ambiguous on this:

More than a 'bit'. Very badly worded.

However a tree has a change in terrain height, so can argue at least a 2.5T.

15.4k · May 12

5 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Unfortunately the Help Centre page on cache ratings is a bit ambiguous on this:

At the top it says "Physical effort needed to arrive at coordinates and sign the logbook" but the individual desciprions up to and including terrain 3.5 talk exclusively about the hike.

I recall the description of terrain types including a reference to a climb where you needed to use your hands at one of the higher terrain levels. That made it clear that a cache that requires tree climbing is higher terrain. But that changed when they added descriptions for the half-star ratings.

Still, T2 requires "no significant elevation change" which should eliminate any tree climbing. The "small elevation changes" for T2.5 could conceivably include a small climb, except that T3 specifies "too difficult to ride a bike due to elevation changes" which I would think includes every tree climbing cache. And most tree climbs would match "widely variable terrain" (T3.5) or "significant... elevation changes" (T4) or "potentially hazardous terrain" (T4.5). And of course, if climbing gear is required, that's T5.

Assuming that seekers are supposed to climb up to where the cache is hidden, of course.

3.5k · May 12

On 5/4/2025 at 12:57 PM, Goldenwattle said:

. Especially those who when it is explained to them still choose not to change the rating. I have met those. One I politely mentioned in my log that a person in a wheelchair couldn't get to it. They came back and said it WAS a 1T. Well my car passenger, the person who used a wheelchair didn't agree. A wheelchair user shouldn't have to depend on others to get to a 1T.

I came across one like this also--The cache was under a bridge and it was necessary to either 1) climb over a low (maybe 2 1/2 to 3 feet high) wall, or 2) walk to the end of the wall, go around it and then along a very narrow, slightly precarious track back to the bridge. I also mentioned this in my log and was basically told the same thing. I have since decided that the reviewers should be informed of these situations.

4.6k · May 13

3 hours ago, NanCycle said:

I came across one like this also--The cache was under a bridge and it was necessary to either 1) climb over a low (maybe 2 1/2 to 3 feet high) wall, or 2) walk to the end of the wall, go around it and then along a very narrow, slightly precarious track back to the bridge. I also mentioned this in my log and was basically told the same thing. I have since decided that the reviewers should be informed of these situations.

I'm not sure that the reviewers are meant to change the rating. I have had mixed results there with different reviewers; one saying it was up to the CO and they were not going to change the rating. (Nano high on a post.) However another did change a 1T to 1.5T when I explained the situation. (Low, under a boulder with no space between that boulder and another boulder for a wheelchair to fit. Plus, down low can be difficult or impossible for a person in a wheelchair to reach to as well.)

If someone reads this who knows whether a reviewer can do anything about a cache wrongly rated 1T, can you please enlighten us. I certainty hope, for wheelchair uses and others with other handicaps the rating can be changed. Otherwise, what use is a 1T rating if it can't be trusted?

22.2k · May 13

Reviewers are explicitly authorized to challenge the following terrain ratings as part of the initial review process:

The cache is rated one star for terrain, but the owner did not use the "Wheelchair Accessible" attribute.
The cache is rated one star for terrain, but the owner used the "Not Wheelchair Accessible" attribute.
The cache is rated above one star for terrain, but the owner used the "Wheelchair Accessible" attribute.

Once a cache passes the review process and is published, questions about D/T ratings are best solved through feedback to the cache owner from finders. The reviewer, in most cases, has not visited the cache to create an informed opinion that would contradict the cache owner's assessment.

4.6k · May 13

7 hours ago, Keystone said:

Reviewers are explicitly authorized to challenge the following terrain ratings as part of the initial review process:

The cache is rated one star for terrain, but the owner did not use the "Wheelchair Accessible" attribute.

The cache is rated one star for terrain, but the owner used the "Not Wheelchair Accessible" attribute.

The cache is rated above one star for terrain, but the owner used the "Wheelchair Accessible" attribute.

Once a cache passes the review process and is published, questions about D/T ratings are best solved through feedback to the cache owner from finders. The reviewer, in most cases, has not visited the cache to create an informed opinion that would contradict the cache owner's assessment.

For one cache I marked 1T, on publishing it I had to explain why I rated it 1T, which I was pleased to do. A flat sealed path to the cache which a car could park next to. The easily obtainable cache was at about shoulder height of a sitting person, so not too high or low. This satisfied the reviewer.

Obviously those wrongly rated 1T cache owners never got asked about their cache placements, or they lied, or changed the rating and rated it lower to 1T after publication. It's a shame that the 1T caches can be self rated by the CO. It would be good if only the reviewer could give a cache a 1T after a good description of placement and a photograph from the CO. The CO should be able to change a 1T and give it a higher rating, but not lower a cache to 1T without going through a reviewer. That might correct some of the problems of wrong rated 1T caches. Guidance could be got from wheelchair users what would work. A 1T should be accessible to the wheelchair person without calling on assistance from an able bodied person, to give some dignity. So the cache I found once marked 1T on a path through a forest built for wheelchair users that had a cache that needed someone to go under the boardwalk to actually get the cache for the wheelchair user should not qualify as 1T, as the person in the wheelchair if alone, could not get the cache.

Edited May 13 by Goldenwattle

10.1k · May 14

On 5/13/2025 at 7:12 AM, Goldenwattle said:

For one cache I marked 1T, on publishing it I had to explain why I rated it 1T, which I was pleased to do. A flat sealed path to the cache which a car could park next to. The easily obtainable cache was at about shoulder height of a sitting person, so not too high or low. This satisfied the reviewer.

Ah, yes. In my Geoart, I hid a 5D/1T cache. Less than .2 mile from parking on a paved trail. Cache was at shoulder level for a person sitting in a wheelchair.

4.6k · Thursday at 02:25 AM

5 hours ago, Harry Dolphin said:

Ah, yes. In my Geoart, I hid a 5D/1T cache. Less than .2 mile from parking on a paved trail. Cache was at shoulder level for a person sitting in a wheelchair.

That's a long way for a wheelchair person to physically turn the wheels to get there. Those with electric wheelchairs could manage, but the rest might struggle over that distance. I did a quick Google and according to the AI,

"In Australia, an estimated 14% of wheelchair users utilize powered chairs, according to Australian Building Codes Board (ABCB) data. This means that roughly 25,000 out of the estimated 180,000 wheelchair users in Australia use electric or power wheelchairs."

So most people are still using wheelchairs they have to push physically themselves. 4miles (6.4kms) return does seem rather excessive for a wheelchair user. Very physically demanding for them. I would not call that 1T.

7.2k · Thursday at 02:49 AM

24 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

4miles (6.4kms) return does seem rather excessive for a wheelchair user.

They said .2 miles, not 2 miles.

4.6k · Thursday at 05:10 AM

2 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

They said .2 miles, not 2 miles.

Oh, I missed the almost invisible'.' Never seen miles written this way before. Why write it this way instead of chains, yards or something, and leave out the zero before the dot. Explainable why I missed the . .

Needed to check converters for this; so 352 m one way.

Edited Thursday at 05:29 AM by Goldenwattle

9.3k · Thursday at 06:18 PM

13 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

Oh, I missed the almost invisible'.' Never seen miles written this way before. Why write it this way instead of chains, yards or something, and leave out the zero before the dot. Explainable why I missed the . .

Needed to check converters for this; so 352 m one way.

Ooooo... The pedant in me... :lol:

0.2 miles = metres ???

FEET (or yards) surely?

What to do if unable to put back a cache?

Recommended Posts

Join the conversation