+vds Posted April 17, 2003 Share Posted April 17, 2003 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. Quote Link to comment
+Stunod Posted April 17, 2003 Share Posted April 17, 2003 You did the right thing by not going after the cache if you were uncomfortable. However, others may enjoy this type of hunt. Did you check the terrain rating before attempting it? "Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand." Quote Link to comment
+briansnat Posted April 17, 2003 Share Posted April 17, 2003 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 Quote Link to comment
+Sissy-n-CR Posted April 17, 2003 Share Posted April 17, 2003 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 Quote Link to comment
+yumitori Posted April 17, 2003 Share Posted April 17, 2003 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 Quote Link to comment
+Bill D (wwh) Posted April 17, 2003 Share Posted April 17, 2003 I wouldn't try it - I can't take heights. But I have no objection to it. You do the ones you want to do and leave the rest. Bill Quote Link to comment
+nincehelser Posted April 17, 2003 Share Posted April 17, 2003 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 Quote Link to comment
+Team GPSaxophone Posted April 17, 2003 Share Posted April 17, 2003 There is a reason we have terrain and difficulty ratings. If a 4-star cache scares you, go find some 1/1 rated caches, crybaby! Quote Link to comment
CloneZone Posted April 17, 2003 Share Posted April 17, 2003 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] Quote Link to comment
+Sissy-n-CR Posted April 17, 2003 Share Posted April 17, 2003 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 Quote Link to comment
+Harrald Posted April 17, 2003 Share Posted April 17, 2003 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. ==================================== Quote Link to comment
+wimseyguy Posted April 17, 2003 Share Posted April 17, 2003 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 Quote Link to comment
+HartClimbs Posted April 17, 2003 Share Posted April 17, 2003 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 Quote Link to comment
dsandbro Posted April 17, 2003 Share Posted April 17, 2003 Bring a chainsaw with you and you don't need to climb after the cache. ======================================== "The time has come" the Walrus said "to speak of many things; of shoes and ships and sealing wax, of cabbages and Kings". Quote Link to comment
+Renegade Knight Posted April 17, 2003 Share Posted April 17, 2003 And the issue is? You did't feel save and used your brain and didn't get the cache. You could of fell backwards and cracked your head open while taking the photo. That cache is fine, and you not getting it is fine. Complaining about it? Thats different. ===================== Wherever you go there you are. Quote Link to comment
CloneZone Posted April 17, 2003 Share Posted April 17, 2003 quote: originally posted by Sissy-n-CRI'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. Quote Link to comment
+Stunod Posted April 17, 2003 Share Posted April 17, 2003 quote:Originally posted by CloneZone: quote: originally posted by Sissy-n-CRI'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. "Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand." Quote Link to comment
+Genoist Posted April 17, 2003 Share Posted April 17, 2003 This is a very good example of why I think Physical Caches Should Be Banned Quote Link to comment
+Sissy-n-CR Posted April 17, 2003 Share Posted April 17, 2003 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 Quote Link to comment
+Jamie Z Posted April 17, 2003 Share Posted April 17, 2003 I've always thought the difficulty ratings should be like this (in general, not specifically for this cache): Difficulty: Physical Mental 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 Quote Link to comment
+The Leprechauns Posted April 17, 2003 Share Posted April 17, 2003 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 Quote Link to comment
+Harrald Posted April 17, 2003 Share Posted April 17, 2003 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. ==================================== Quote Link to comment
+Tradboy Posted April 17, 2003 Share Posted April 17, 2003 Just FYI, at no point did anyone specifically state that they thought this cache should be archived. Quote Link to comment
+IV_Warrior Posted April 17, 2003 Share Posted April 17, 2003 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. Quote Link to comment
+flask Posted April 17, 2003 Share Posted April 17, 2003 i hunted one recently that was too high for me to get safely. so i schlepped in a LADDER. worked just fine. it doesn't matter if you get to camp at one or at six. dinner is still at six. Quote Link to comment
+DeerChaser & Company Posted April 17, 2003 Share Posted April 17, 2003 If you can't do it or don't what to do, why shouldn't I have that choice? You whinners need to stop trying to control the game Rino 110 MeriGreen 128 Quote Link to comment
+georgeandmary Posted April 17, 2003 Share Posted April 17, 2003 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 Pedal until your legs cramp up and then pedal some more. Quote Link to comment
+Bloencustoms Posted April 17, 2003 Share Posted April 17, 2003 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. "Searching with my good eye closed" Quote Link to comment
+beatnik Posted April 17, 2003 Share Posted April 17, 2003 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 Quote Link to comment
Ron Streeter Posted April 17, 2003 Share Posted April 17, 2003 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. Quote Link to comment
+Allen_L Posted April 17, 2003 Share Posted April 17, 2003 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. Quote Link to comment
+georgeandmary Posted April 17, 2003 Share Posted April 17, 2003 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 Pedal until your legs cramp up and then pedal some more. Quote Link to comment
+Dave_W6DPS Posted April 17, 2003 Share Posted April 17, 2003 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) Quote Link to comment
+mtn-man Posted April 17, 2003 Share Posted April 17, 2003 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. Quote Link to comment
+OzzieSan Posted April 17, 2003 Share Posted April 17, 2003 Just great! Now I am going to have to drive down there and give it a shot. Looks like fun! Just remember. Getting there is half the fun... Quote Link to comment
+Stunod Posted April 18, 2003 Share Posted April 18, 2003 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. "Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand." Quote Link to comment
CloneZone Posted April 18, 2003 Share Posted April 18, 2003 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. Quote Link to comment
+The Weasel Posted April 18, 2003 Share Posted April 18, 2003 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. Quote Link to comment
+evergreenhiker! Posted April 18, 2003 Share Posted April 18, 2003 I'm not doing that one either! A cache isn't worth a broken back. I know my limits...I'm not good at climbing trees. Cache should stay however, but maybe bring it up to a 4.5 terrain. Looks like tree climbng gear would be nice. I haven't been to the site though. Quote Link to comment
+bitbrain Posted April 18, 2003 Share Posted April 18, 2003 Looks like a Super Dooper Cache to me! I'd shinny up that tree! Quote Link to comment
+Sissy-n-CR Posted April 18, 2003 Share Posted April 18, 2003 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 Quote Link to comment
+georgeandmary Posted April 18, 2003 Share Posted April 18, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Sissy-n-CR:(If that's the cache in the photo above.) Knowing exactly where the cache is easy. There is a cache in that photo? Where? george Pedal until your legs cramp up and then pedal some more. Quote Link to comment
+Sissy-n-CR Posted April 18, 2003 Share Posted April 18, 2003 Not sure, but I think this is the cache: I think that's the reason it was posted--to show how high up the tree it was. (Nothing like bright red arrows to point out where a cache is.) CR Quote Link to comment
+Markwell Posted April 18, 2003 Share Posted April 18, 2003 Can I take some of those big red arrows on my next hunt to point out the cache? Dang - I was just going to do the same thing with my MS Paint program, but with a little cyan circle. Markwell Chicago Geocaching Quote Link to comment
+sbell111 Posted April 18, 2003 Share Posted April 18, 2003 I seriously wish that I had reason to travel to the area of that cache. I would love to go for it. Quote Link to comment
do-not-contact Posted April 18, 2003 Share Posted April 18, 2003 Looks like a fun climb to me. If you want you can borrow my belt and climbing spurs but it looks you wouldn't need them(lots of nice branches). Quote Link to comment
+Don&Betty Posted April 18, 2003 Share Posted April 18, 2003 No offense, but climbing spurs are taboo for recreational tree climbing. Technical tree climbing today uses ropes and ascenders etc. with special attention given to not injuring the tree. Quote Link to comment
+Criminal Posted April 18, 2003 Share Posted April 18, 2003 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/ Quote Link to comment
+Sissy-n-CR Posted April 19, 2003 Share Posted April 19, 2003 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 Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
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.