Jump to content

Safety vs. difficulty in approval guidelines


vds
Followers 0

Recommended Posts

Where's the line between difficulty and inherent safety ?

 

I recently visitedOh No, Kenny's Dead and didn't even bother attempting it for safety reasons.

 

The cache looks like a MRE container tied to a branch 30 feet up in a pine tree. My opinion is you'd need to be daft (not deft) to try to get it, although a few folks have done so.

 

icon_frown.gif

 

icon_geocachingwa.gif

Link to comment

I see nothing wrong with it. Some people found it and enjoyed it (what's the deal with Lawnmower man claiming a find when he didn't get the cache?).

 

There are caches on the side of cliffs. Dangerous? To some people, but to an experienced climber, they would be easy. By the same token, someone who is good at climbing trees would have no problem here.

 

"It has been my experience that folks who have no vices have very few virtues" -Abraham Lincoln

Link to comment

There is a huge difference between beyond your comfort zone and illegal.

 

I suppose you never climbed a tree when you were a kid? What about all of those hunters that climb trees and spend the whole morning up there--with a gun, no less!

 

The "line" is up to the individual finder. If it's beyond your comfort zone, then it's over your line. But don't try to protect me from something that you are afraid to attempt.

 

CR

 

72057_2000.gif

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by vds:

Where's the line between difficulty and inherent safety ?

 

I recently visitedhttp://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?id=63826 and didn't even bother attempting it for safety reasons.

 


 

Sorry, I'm not seeing the problem. You found a situation you were uncomfortable with, and wisely backed off. But other cachers enjoyed it. I see no reason to call for the cache to be archived based upon your information so far.

 

Ron/yumitori

Link to comment

It's hard to tell scale from the photo, but if the only way to get the cache is to climb, I'd label this one kind of lame.

 

It's not the climb that would worry me, but possible damage to the tree. From the photo those limbs don't look that strong.

 

If there is some clever method to get the cache, then I'd feel differently. I've done a couple of caches almost like this, and they didn't require climbing at all, but rather just keen observation.

 

George

Link to comment

Although this tree doesn't look any worse than some I've managed to climb up in my day, I'd have to say I was younger and more foolish back then too. Certainly, the rating needs to be changed, it's not a 1 for difficulty, it looks like about a 5. At the least, the description should be expanded to forwarn people who go in search of this, that some serious tree climbing is warranted. At the most, caches of this type need careful evaluation, lest someone be foolish enough to attempt it and have a serious fall.

[edited from here, misread a previous post, sorry]

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by CloneZone:

Certainly, the rating needs to be changed, it's not a 1 for difficulty, it looks like about a 5. At the least, the description should be expanded to forwarn people who go in search of this, that some serious tree climbing is warranted. At the most, caches of this type need careful evaluation, lest someone be foolish enough to attempt it and have a serious fall.

[edited from here, misread a previous post, sorry]


 

I've looked into the rating of a cache similar to this one. The difficulty is correct, it's not hard to find. It's the terrain that is difficult and that is correct.

 

As for warning people about what to expect, well, what if you just logged it for them as well? Maybe, post a picture pointing directly to the cache? Tell them exactly what equipment to bring?

 

No, it's up to the cache owner to tell as much or as little about the hunt as he pleases. I've been advised let people know about out of the ordinary hides, but doesn't that tend to take away from the hunt? I think so. I like the "you've got to be kidding me" type of surprise. I've got one that is beyond some people's comfort zone, but if you think it through, it's perfectly safe.

 

Me, I just say look at the ratings and be prepared for anything.

 

CR

 

72057_2000.gif

Link to comment

It’s ridiculous and petty to ask to have this cache archived. I’m not going to get into the “I don’t scuba dive so all underwater caches need to be archived” argument.

 

If you don’t want to climb then don’t. What is even worse is the guy that logged a find without even climbing up to

 

====================================

As always, the above statements are just MHO.

====================================

Link to comment

quote:
What's next, putting one of those little Bison containers in a crack in a Jersey barrier in the middle of construction on I-5, calling it terrain=5, and seeing who's crazy enough to try it ?

Sure, lets do that. Call it "Frogger's Revenge" and to score it somebody needs to get a picture of you being taken away in the ambulance from the traffic cams on the web.


 

Nah, too late. That idea has already been discussed in this thread.

 

If you do not feel that this cache is for you then skip it. Only you can know your limitations, not the cache owner. He@@, the hint even tells you its in the air not on the ground.

 

These changes in latitudes, changes in attitudes;

Nothing remains quite the same.

Through all of the islands and all of the highlands,

If we couldn't laugh we would all go insane

Link to comment

I kind of wish I was in the area - this looks like it would have been fun.

 

If the automobile had followed the same development cycle as the computer, a Rolls-Royce would today cost $100, get a million miles per gallon, and explode once a year, killing everyone inside. -Robert X. Cringely, InfoWorld magazine

Link to comment

quote:
originally posted by Sissy-n-CR

I've looked into the rating of a cache similar to this one. The difficulty is correct, it's not hard to find. It's the terrain that is difficult and that is correct.

 

As for warning people about what to expect, well, what if you just logged it for them as well? Maybe, post a picture pointing directly to the cache? Tell them exactly what equipment to bring?

 


 

I will respectfully disagree on the difficulty rating, if you use the suggested rating scale for rating caches difficulty and terrain, the fact that this requires some serious physical exertion qualifies it as a 5 for difficulty, not terrain. It would seem the terrain GETTING to the cache is probably pretty easy. Maybe it's the Latin in me, but terrain (root word terra) means earth, ground, terra firma to me, not flora and fauna. And yes, for a difficult cache, there should be some forwarning of what you're in for; after all, if you assumed it was going to be difficult based on assuming you would need to do some rock climbing and then you get there and you're climbing a tree instead, wouldn't you be P.O.'d if you had lugged rock climbing gear for nothing? The hint of bringing a monkey is ambiguous at best. Do I need a "monkey" to get 5 feet or 30 feet off the ground? A huge difference in my opinion. And certainly, someone clever enough to put a cache 30 feet in the air ought to be clever enough to describe it as such, without giving it away.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by CloneZone:

quote:
originally posted by Sissy-n-CR

I've looked into the rating of a cache similar to this one. The difficulty is correct, it's not hard to find. It's the terrain that is difficult and that is correct.

 

As for warning people about what to expect, well, what if you just logged it for them as well? Maybe, post a picture pointing directly to the cache? Tell them exactly what equipment to bring?

 


 

I will respectfully disagree on the difficulty rating, if you use the suggested rating scale for rating caches difficulty and terrain, the fact that this requires some serious physical exertion qualifies it as a 5 for _difficulty_, not terrain. It would seem the terrain GETTING to the cache is probably pretty easy. Maybe it's the Latin in me, but terrain (root word terra) means earth, ground, terra firma to me, not flora and fauna. And yes, for a difficult cache, there should be some forwarning of what you're in for; after all, if you assumed it was going to be difficult based on assuming you would need to do some rock climbing and then you get there and you're climbing a tree instead, wouldn't you be P.O.'d if you had lugged rock climbing gear for nothing? The hint of bringing a monkey is ambiguous at best. Do I need a "monkey" to get 5 feet or 30 feet off the ground? A huge difference in my opinion. And certainly, someone clever enough to put a cache 30 feet in the air ought to be clever enough to describe it as such, without giving it away.


 

No matter what the latin root implies, difficulty is in FINDING the cache, terrain is in REACHING it. It seems to be rated correctly.

 

homer.gif

"Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand."

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by CloneZone:

I will respectfully disagree on the difficulty rating, if you use the suggested rating scale for rating caches difficulty and terrain, the fact that this requires some serious physical exertion qualifies it as a 5 for _difficulty_, not terrain. It would seem the terrain GETTING to the cache is probably pretty easy...


 

You could be right, BUT it could go either way. If the difficulty is 5, then the terrain is a 1 or 1.5.

 

However, in a discussion in the IRC about something fairly similar, it came down to "It's EASY to lay your EYES on it, but HARD to lay your HANDS on it." Thus the 1/5 rating of the cache we had discussed. With mine, the cache is in plain sight for better than 100'. It's the last 50' that will get you to scratching your head. It's not nearly as easy as simply climbing a tree.

 

I think I still much prefer the difficulty low and the terrain high. After all, it is a severe grade change and you have to use your hands to negotiate the last 30' or so. That, to me, means terrain.

 

CR

 

72057_2000.gif

Link to comment

I've always thought the difficulty ratings should be like this (in general, not specifically for this cache):

 

Difficulty: Physical stargreen.gifstargreen.gifMental staryellow.gifstaryellow.gifstaryellow.gif

 

But that's a different thread.

 

I think this is a fine cache and that it's probably rated correctly given our current rating system.

 

Jamie

Link to comment

Cool hide. I've been thinking of doing one like this myself.

 

Did you know that there is an organization with its own website devoted to tree climbing? (I wonder if they debate whether it's a sport, hobby or recreational activity.) All those tree climbers can't be wrong, so I say that a properly placed cache that doesn't damage the tree is cool.

 

I agree with CR that the high star rating belongs on the terrain side, due to the climbing required. A high difficulty hide would be if the cache were hidden in a birdhouse up in the tree (I've found one of those!) or if the cache container were camo'd with tree bark and paint that matched the color of the tree, or if the cache was tied on the back of a rabid squirrel chained down in a hollowed out spot in the tree....

 

x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x

.sdrawkcab dootsrednu tub sdrawrof devil si efiL

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by CloneZone:

<<SNIP>>

I will respectfully disagree on the difficulty rating, if you use the suggested rating scale for rating caches difficulty and terrain, the fact that this requires some serious physical exertion qualifies it as a 5 for _difficulty_, not terrain.

<<SNIP>>


 

You're wrong. This is from the Hide a cache page.

 

Difficulty rating:

* Easy. In plain sight or can be found in a few minutes of searching.

 

Terrain rating:

**** 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.

 

====================================

As always, the above statements are just MHO.

====================================

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Tradboy:

Just FYI, at no point did anyone specifically state that they thought this cache should be archived.


 

Actually, the original poster did, here's the log from the cache page:

-----------------------------------------------

April 17 by vds (vds) (301 found)

This one is so far beyond the bounds of safety that it should absolutely be archived in my opinion, but others obviously disagree. We'll call it a didn't bother.

-----------------------------------------------

 

It was posted as a note, but does state in the log that the cache should be archived.

 

Just because you're paranoid DOESN'T mean they're not ALL out to get you.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by georgeandmary:

I wish there was a cache hidden like that in my area. I'm slowly gathering the equipment needed to hide caches like that.

 

george


 

Me too. I've got a bunch of rope, harnesses, carabiners Jumars, etc. slowly expiring in the closet. Too bad all the trees nearby are too short to be worthwhile.

 

eyes.GIF

"Searching with my good eye closed"

Link to comment

quote:
Me too. I've got a bunch of rope, harnesses, carabiners Jumars, etc. slowly expiring in the closet. Too bad all the trees nearby are too short to be worthwhile.


 

I have both a 25' and 40' fiberglass extension pole in my work van. Heavy duty industrial for all kinds of use.

 

I'd probably climb it, but if not, I'd laugh, go home get the poles and come back and do it the easy way.

 

beatnik

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by georgeandmary:

I wish there was a cache hidden like that in my area. I'm slowly gathering the equipment needed to hide caches like that.

 

george

 


 

And who pray tell (in our area George) will go for these? If they already had the equipment, wouldn't they have placed a cache for others to find?

 

As for me, there are still over 1,500 caches within 100 miles of my home (and George's), which I have not yet found, none of which require ropes and pullies to get to.

 

Now if a person HAD all this gear for its intended purpose and enjoyed it, that would be one thing, but I doubt there are that many cachers who are so equipped. Maybe some rock-climbers will become cachers?

 

Ron

 

I've never been lost. Fearsome confused sometimes, but never lost.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Ron Streeter:

As for me, there are still over 1,500 caches within 100 miles of my home (and George's), which I have not yet found


1,500!, sounds like the way hunt a cache there is go to a park, look for a good place to hide a cache, reach in, grab the cache, sign the log no GPS required. icon_biggrin.gif
Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Ron Streeter:

 

And who pray tell (in our area George) will go for these? If they already had the equipment, wouldn't they have placed a cache for others to find?


 

My idea was to hide them in the bay area. Not enough activity in the valley to warrent this type of cache.

 

There are enough adventurous people in the bay area to attempt a cache like that. And if they didn't already have the equipment, I'd venture a guess that they'd be willing to beg, borrow, or steal the equipment to get it.

 

george

 

39570_500.jpg

Pedal until your legs cramp up and then pedal some more.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by georgeandmary:

I wish there was a cache hidden like that in my area. I'm slowly gathering the equipment needed to hide caches like that.

 

george


 

quote:
Originally posted by BloenCustoms:

Me too. I've got a bunch of rope, harnesses, carabiners Jumars, etc. slowly expiring in the closet. Too bad all the trees nearby are too short to be worthwhile.

 

http://angelfire.com/pro/bloen/images/eyes.GIF

"Searching with my good eye closed"


 

I was just wondering how long it would take to get there with a manlift. (Like a self-propelled bucket truck) They crawl along pretty slowly.

 

Anyway, I think that it should be up to to those seeking to decide if they want to make the climb.

 

Celebrate Cache DIversity!!!

 

Dave_W6DPS

 

My two cents worth, refunds available on request. (US funds only)

Link to comment

FYI... we have been told that caches like this are to be approved. It is a 4 cache because it takes special equipment (or a lot of guts without special equipment). As long as it is not illegal then it should be approved.

 

The cache is perfectly fine. The only thing to change is to maybe make the difficulty higher.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by IV_Warrior:

quote:
Originally posted by Tradboy:

Just FYI, at no point did anyone specifically state that they thought this cache should be archived.


 

Actually, the original poster did, here's the log from the cache page:

-----------------------------------------------

April 17 by vds (vds) (301 found)

This one is so far beyond the bounds of safety that it should absolutely be archived in my opinion, but others obviously disagree. We'll call it a didn't bother.

-----------------------------------------------

 

It was posted as a note, but does state in the log that the cache should be archived.

 

Just because you're paranoid _DOESN'T_ mean they're not _ALL_ out to get you.


 

The original poster has edited his log. it was logged as "This cache should be archived". I guess the overwelming support of the cache caused him to go back and change it.

 

homer.gif

"Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand."

Link to comment

quote:
Harrald wrote:

You're wrong. This is from the Hide a cache page.

 

Difficulty rating:

* Easy. In plain sight or can be found in a few minutes of searching.

 

Terrain rating:

**** 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.

 


 

Harrald, I would respectfully disagree with your statement about me being wrong. IF YOU USE Geocache Rating System, and you recognize that climbing a tree such as this is, for the large majority of people, a serious physical challenge, you will see that DIFFICULTY should be rated a 5, even if it IS in "plain sight".

 

quote:
from the Geocache Rating System:

Difficulty rating: 5

* Easy. In plain sight or can be found in a few minutes of searching.

** Average. The average cache hunter would be able to find this in less than 30 minutes of hunting.

*** Challenging. An experienced cache hunter will find this challenging, and it could take up a good portion of an afternoon.

**** Difficult. A real challenge for the experienced cache hunter - may require special skills or knowledge, or in-depth preparation to find. May require multiple days / trips to complete.

***** Extreme. A serious mental or physical challenge. Requires specialized knowledge, skills, or equipment to find cache.


 

Likewise, for terrain, I've never found it necessary to have specialized equipment or knowledge to climb a tree, but it CAN be extremely difficult, so terrain could equally be a 5 on that basis, although I would tend to rate on the terrain to get to the tree, not the tree climb itself. Just all in how you want to interpret things I guess. BUT, it doesn't mean it's wrong.

Link to comment

IMO, the big issue here looks like, what harm will come to the tree after you get 50 or so people trying to climb it? Like it was mentioned earlier, (and can be seen in the pic) that the limbs look a little small. I think a cache like this will eventually cause more harm then good. I guess I respect nature more than boosting my own ego to add another cache to my records.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by CloneZone:

...that climbing a tree such as this is, for the large majority of people, a serious physical challenge, you will see that DIFFICULTY should be rated a 5, even if it IS in "plain sight".


 

Only problem with this logic is there never could be a 1/5 unless the sole reason of the T5 is equipment requirement.

 

When they're are talking about "a serious mental or physical challenge" in the difficulty, it's meant for finding the cache, not getting to the cache. Or to put it another way, knowing exactly where the cache is. A serious physical challenge could be having to climb a tree to see if it's the right tree. (Exceptionally evil thought noted away for future reference: multiple decoy cache boxes up in trees in area, only one the real deal.)

 

But in this case, you can see the cache, it's in plain sight. (If that's the cache in the photo above.) Knowing exactly where the cache is easy.

 

quote:
Likewise, for terrain, I've never found it necessary to have specialized equipment or knowledge to climb a tree, but it CAN be extremely difficult, so terrain could equally be a 5 on that basis, although I would tend to rate on the terrain to get to the tree, not the tree climb itself. Just all in how you want to interpret things I guess. BUT, it doesn't mean it's wrong.

 

There are a lot of things that CAN be hard, but I think in this case a reasonably fit and equipped person could retreive this cache with little problem.

 

This is an area of nuances, but I do feel 1/4 is the best way to rate something like this.

 

CR

 

72057_2000.gif

Link to comment

I see VDS has started a thread on this as well. I want to make one thing very clear, his asking to archive the cache should not be viewed with condescension. That is his opinion and he has the right to say it. I have a great deal of respect for all the local cachers who have the big find count, and have hidden great caches themselves. I don’t want anyone to think I’m upset or angry with VDS for anything in his log, I simply didn’t agree and said as much.

 

I’m sorry to see the “surprise” of this cache getting blown. You would have had to see me standing there, looking up, and shaking my head. The hiders are a great couple who have done an awesome five part night cache. Having done their first, I was only slightly surprised to find this one where it is. I met them both on my night cache (#4), great cachers.

 

If anyone was interested, the climb was difficult but the worst part was trying to hold on while opening the very full cache container. (Decon kit) I’m not superhuman, crazy, or cache-obsessed. I just wanted it more. The branches would easily hold a 180# man or woman, IMHO.

 

http://fp1.centurytel.net/Criminal_Page/

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Criminal:

I’m sorry to see the “surprise” of this cache getting blown.


 

Well, we could remove the reference to any particular cache. I think the discusion is valid and should stay, but I think we should try to recover the surprise element for future cachers. The pictures could probably even stay as they look like a generic tree that could be anywhere. The pictures are tied to a log and I don't think you can get to a cache, or a log for that matter, from a picture.

 

CR

 

72057_2000.gif

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 0
×
×
  • Create New...