Found but unreachable.

August 16, 2016

Has anyone come across a geocache where you just can't reach it? This last week I've found 2 that were both out of reach of my 5foot1 self. There didn't see to be any tools that could help me, one was hooked on a nail and the tree was on a slippy slop and the other was nestled into a tree crook.

The answer is probably no, but I'm going to ask anyway, is this something I can log as a find? I did consider posting a DNF with a mention that I *did* find it but I just couldn't get it in hand because of the of the height difficulty but seemed it would be to nitpicky to do that sort of log.

15.3k · August 16, 2016

I've found a number of elevated caches. I've retrieved and replaced most of them with tools, rather than by climbing.

For one, I visited the cache location to verify that the tool I had in mind would work. Later, I returned with the tool and retrieved and replaced the cache. I logged the first visit as a Note, and the second visit as a Find.

3.3k · August 16, 2016

Spotting the container isn't quite enough. A grabber tool (used to get things from high or deep shelves) is low cost and light to carry. Another option is something to stand on - a 2-step stepladder, a wooden box, etc.

4.6k · August 16, 2016

Has anyone come across a geocache where you just can't reach it? This last week I've found 2 that were both out of reach of my 5foot1 self. There didn't see to be any tools that could help me, one was hooked on a nail and the tree was on a slippy slop and the other was nestled into a tree crook.

The answer is probably no, but I'm going to ask anyway, is this something I can log as a find? I did consider posting a DNF with a mention that I *did* find it but I just couldn't get it in hand because of the of the height difficulty but seemed it would be to nitpicky to do that sort of log.

Post a note or DNF that you "saw the cache" if you want but you didn't "find" it. I logged a few DNFs like that, saw the cache but couldn't or wouldn't retrieve it. No big deal.

5.7k · August 16, 2016

The answer is probably no, but I'm going to ask anyway, is this something I can log as a find?

Nope. It's in the tree for a reason. Climbing it is part of the find. Good instinct to ask rather than just logging it anyway.

August 16, 2016

The basic task in geocaching is finding the container and physically sign the logbook (plus putting it back where it was). If you can't achieve all of that, you shouldn't log a find. Reaching unreachable caches is part of the fun. Some consider ladders and climbing gears as their usual caching equipment.

The Terrain rating is an indicator, if the cache owner intended the cache to be hidden where you can't access it easily or might use a tool. If the cache hide doesn't match the terrain rating in any way, then there might be a problem and you should contact the cache owner (either by mail or indicating by a "needs maintenance" log, depends a bit on circumstances).

There is no shame to log a "Did not find!" (please explain why you didn't find it: it's fun to read and may give the cache owner information if there's something wrong). It's part of the experience and you can come back later and log a legal find without hesitation. Cachers without any "DNF" in their history even may appear a bit shady to me.

Exceptions to the "physical sign the logbook" are some grandfathered virtuals, experimental lab caches, earth caches and event caches (allthough there mostly is a logbook present).

There may be some discussable technical exception, if there is another cause you can't get to the logbook: logbook soggy, logbook missing, container rusted shut or something like that. This requires some deeper insight and has to be treated individually. Real hardcore guideline cachers would log a DNF anyway, others may decide to put a backup log sheet in (after doing basic maintenance, i.e. drying the box) or providing a photo log. But be warned: You have to be very certain to having found the real cache then and not just a piece of random crap. Asking the cache owner for guidance is always a good choice, because he/she is empowered to delete online logs without physical logbook entries (that is part of the guidelines). Putting out a backup container without explicit consent of the cache owner would be a very bad idea, that is called "throwdown" and leads to further problems - so please just don't do that. If unsure, be pride to log a DNF.

Some of my best cache experiences were DNFs.

Have fun!

Edited August 16, 2016 by Ben0w

9k · August 16, 2016

Great thread and responses.

Yeah there are generally accepted minimal requirements for the definition of a "Find" (or equivalent log):

* Physical caches (traditional, multi, mystery, letterbox, Wherigo) - You've ound the container such that your signature is visible in its logsheet/book.

* Earthcaches, Virtual caches - Visited the required location(s), and found any necessary 'things', in order to answer the required questions (Technically, you now only need to send an email with the answers to the questions to log a Find)

* Webcam cache - Be in a photo taken with the listed webcam that's posted with a log (some owners may even allow you to log it Found if you help someone capture the webcam photo they're in)

* Events, CITOs - Be in attendance to log as Attended

There are a few other unique cache types, but they'll fall into one of the above categories. There are interpretations of some of the above types of "Finds" as well, but for the most part, it's common sense and playing with respect to nature, property, laws, and community. Then everyone can have enjoy the hobby

If a physical cache is beyond your ability to sufficiently 'find', then you could post a note or DNF, but you could always contact the CO and explain your situation - they might be willing to let you log it as found; but it's always better to ask first in that case than assume (eg, a bad log could mess other people up if they check the log history).

7.5k · August 16, 2016

1471353451[/url]' post='5603577']
1471337058[/url]' post='5603541']
The answer is probably no, but I'm going to ask anyway, is this something I can log as a find?

Nope. It's in the tree for a reason. Climbing it is part of the find. Good instinct to ask rather than just logging it anyway.

Sometimes climbing is not meant to be part of the find. Sometimes the CO is 6 feet tall and places the cache where it's an easy reach for him so he gives it a terrain 1.5 but forgets that most women (and there are a lot of us who cache solo) can't reach it without a step stool. In that case I will post a DNF and note that the cache is out of each if you are short stature. It may help the next person skip the cache if they are short. It may get the owner to add something to the description with regard to the height requirement.

I usually carry a hiking stick with me and can often knock the cache down with it. Sometimes a long branch will do the trick.

11.6k · August 16, 2016

Sometimes the CO is 6 feet tall and places the cache where it's an easy reach for him so he gives it a terrain 1.5 but forgets that most women (and there are a lot of us who cache solo) can't reach it without a step stool. In that case I will post a DNF and note that the cache is out of each if you are short stature. It may help the next person skip the cache if they are short. It may get the owner to add something to the description with regard to the height requirement.

My caches are not (usually) unreachable, in the cache description I deliberately do not say to bring a step stool, and one of my caches gets logs about height issues. "I'm short and almost couldn't reach it!" completely gives away the hiding spot. If one can in fact reach it, I'd prefer the log not be so specific.

Edited August 16, 2016 by kunarion

7.5k · August 16, 2016

I usually carry a hiking stick with me and can often knock the cache down with it. Sometimes a long branch will do the trick.

It's often not very hard to get an elevated cache using a makeshift tool like a branch. But don't forget that the bigger problem is almost always getting the cache back in place.

Anyway, my answer to the original question is the same: yeah, log a DNF. You can mention the specific problem you had if that doesn't give anything away. There's no reason to even consider logging a find: one less find is not important. And if it's convenient, you can come back later with the right tool.

7.5k · August 16, 2016

I usually carry a hiking stick with me and can often knock the cache down with it. Sometimes a long branch will do the trick.

It's often not very hard to get an elevated cache using a makeshift tool like a branch. But don't forget that the bigger problem is almost always getting the cache back in place.

Yes, getting it back is harder. Throwing it back or using my hiking stick and a branch together usually works but takes several tries.

I have been quite miffed a few times when no where in the description or logs did people mention the height problem. It especially irked me when I did the work for a multi or puzzle.

13.7k · August 16, 2016

...The answer is probably no, but I'm going to ask anyway...

Nice of you to ask. Most don't, and some get upset when their Found It's deleted.

If the terrain rating of one seems higher than the average caches along the trail, there's often a reason for it.

If we had caches similar, we'd have it secured, so something as simple as rain/wind wouldn't be a maintenance issue.

A person who didn't follow the terrain rating/cache page to access it properly may not know it's secured.

If someone was attempting to "knock it down/out", not realizing it's attached because of their "height issue" and did damage, they'd be the topic in the local forums for a while.

Hopefully they're just passing through...

August 16, 2016

Has anyone come across a geocache where you just can't reach it? This last week I've found 2 that were both out of reach of my 5foot1 self. There didn't see to be any tools that could help me, one was hooked on a nail and the tree was on a slippy slop and the other was nestled into a tree crook.

The answer is probably no, but I'm going to ask anyway, is this something I can log as a find? I did consider posting a DNF with a mention that I *did* find it but I just couldn't get it in hand because of the of the height difficulty but seemed it would be to nitpicky to do that sort of log.

I usually cache with my hubby and he always has been able to reach the ones That I cannot reach, being only Five feet tall myself. I would suggest getting a tool designed to reach for things., it's called a grabbing device that comes in several forms. You can find them in stores or online with the items to assist the elderly or handicapped. They usually run from $8-20.

7.5k · August 16, 2016

Has anyone come across a geocache where you just can't reach it? This last week I've found 2 that were both out of reach of my 5foot1 self. There didn't see to be any tools that could help me, one was hooked on a nail and the tree was on a slippy slop and the other was nestled into a tree crook.

The answer is probably no, but I'm going to ask anyway, is this something I can log as a find? I did consider posting a DNF with a mention that I *did* find it but I just couldn't get it in hand because of the of the height difficulty but seemed it would be to nitpicky to do that sort of log.

I usually cache with my hubby and he always has been able to reach the ones That I cannot reach, being only Five feet tall myself. I would suggest getting a tool designed to reach for things., it's called a grabbing device that comes in several forms. You can find them in stores or online with the items to assist the elderly or handicapped. They usually run from $8-20.

Keeping in mind that the tool won't help if the cache is zip tied to the tree. If you're an average size woman who caches alone there will be caches that you can't get that most men can and are rated for the average height of a man. C'est la vie.

7.5k · August 16, 2016

Sometimes the CO is 6 feet tall and places the cache where it's an easy reach for him so he gives it a terrain 1.5 but forgets that most women (and there are a lot of us who cache solo) can't reach it without a step stool. In that case I will post a DNF and note that the cache is out of each if you are short stature. It may help the next person skip the cache if they are short. It may get the owner to add something to the description with regard to the height requirement.

My caches are not (usually) unreachable, in the cache description I deliberately do not say to bring a step stool, and one of my caches gets logs about height issues. "I'm short and almost couldn't reach it!" completely gives away the hiding spot. If one can in fact reach it, I'd prefer the log not be so specific.

I see your point about giving away a cache hidden high in a tree.

For a woman with limited time and money and one who caches alone, we might like to be forewarned so we can skip the cache.

It's a tricky issue.

15.3k · August 16, 2016

I have been quite miffed a few times when no where in the description or logs did people mention the height problem.

I'm over 6ft, and I recall one cache that I had to reach for. The hint was "eye level".

It's good to know that there are pro basketball players who go geocaching...

3.7k · August 16, 2016

There have been a couple instances where the hiding spot was a hole or crevice where the cache got permanently wedged or slipped out of reach, rendering it literally unreachable. In those cases, it's usually a 'Needs Maintenance' log.

3.4k · August 16, 2016

Has anyone come across a geocache where you just can't reach it? This last week I've found 2 that were both out of reach of my 5foot1 self. There didn't see to be any tools that could help me, one was hooked on a nail and the tree was on a slippy slop and the other was nestled into a tree crook.

The answer is probably no, but I'm going to ask anyway, is this something I can log as a find? I did consider posting a DNF with a mention that I *did* find it but I just couldn't get it in hand because of the of the height difficulty but seemed it would be to nitpicky to do that sort of log.

At the age of 74 I no longer quite stretch to the 5' 0" I used to be and I have found several caches that I can't reach. Also my tree-climbing years are many years in the past. I keep a reacher-grabber tool in my geomobile, but sometimes that isn't enough so I also have a 2-step folding stepstool. Sometimes the only thing to do is bring along a taller and/or younger person. I have never logged a Find on a cache that I couldn't reach, but sometimes it has taken a couple trips before I had the necessary "tools" to get the job done. When I see it, but can't reach it, I say so in my DNF log; I don't care if the CO doesn't like that much detail in the log--I don't like that they placed it where they could reach it easily but I can't.

9k · August 16, 2016

Yes, if a cache is unintentionally/unexpectedly unavailable, then:

* if it's a temporary holdup (eg, construction blocking access to gz), I wouldn't log a DNF or a NM, but rather a note and perhaps even contact the CO who can adjust the listing or announce accordingly.

* if it's a more permanent problem with retrieving the cache, even if I've visually seen the container (like it's pushed out of reach, or perhaps dropped from its attachment on a bridge, etc, then I would resort to a NM - the CO should be the first to deal with fixing the cache (though I'd be willing to do the work myself if capable and the CO has approved and can verify the result is what they want).

August 23, 2016

Soooo my question is ...

How high is TOO high to hide a cache?

I'm 5'6", and have long arms. I will invest in a little portable stool and grabber thingie. But, is not being willing to climb a tree going to result in numerous DNFs?

4.6k · August 23, 2016

But, is not being willing to climb a tree going to result in numerous DNFs?

Is there a problem logging a DNF if you didn't even get your hands on the cache?

August 23, 2016

Personally I would only mark a cache 'found' if I had it in my hot little hands.

13.7k · August 23, 2016

Soooo my question is ...

How high is TOO high to hide a cache?

I'm 5'6", and have long arms. I will invest in a little portable stool and grabber thingie. But, is not being willing to climb a tree going to result in numerous DNFs?

There is no "too high".

The terrain ratings should tell you what you're in for.

Many of the caches I like best require rope, and equipment to access.

We've done tree caches, river bridge columns, and over-the-cliff edges, with cave and city/town underground caches too.

So really, there's no limit.

Folks who don't/can't access that type of cache simply ignore them.

11.6k · August 23, 2016

Soooo my question is ...

How high is TOO high to hide a cache?

I'm 5'6", and have long arms. I will invest in a little portable stool and grabber thingie. But, is not being willing to climb a tree going to result in numerous DNFs?

That depends on the cache, and the cachers. "Lex Luthor" which requires a 20-foot ladder (specified in the cache description and rated accordingly), has 27 finds and one DNF.

But, yeah, it was archived perhaps partly due the requirement of Geocachers to have a quick park and grab.

Edited August 23, 2016 by kunarion

13.7k · August 23, 2016

Is the Space Station too high ?

1.4k · August 23, 2016

Is the Space Station too high ?

Nah, it's 5 because special tools are required.

4.6k · August 23, 2016

Is the Space Station too high ?

That's just a massive guideline violation. (commercial, interact with staff, no correct coordinates...)

August 25, 2016

Is the Space Station too high ?

That's just a massive guideline violation. (commercial, interact with staff, no correct coordinates...)

Except for the guideline that states, Groundspeak can do what they want. Actually, this one cache at least doesn't set a bad example and excludes other space stations from beeing equipped with a cache ... so far.

Back to the "too high" question. I have a cache near my home which I can't access due to my lack of climbing ability. So I simply ignore it. You don't have to find every cache.

This one doesn't get a DNF from me, since I won't even try to access it. Another one I recently approached was on an island in a lake, we stopped 200m away and decided to leave the site because our boat seemed not to be sufficient to land there (and muggles infested the accessible side). I put a note on the cache listing, thanking the owner for encouraging us to make the nice trip. No find, no real try on site (so no DNF in my book) but a cool journey. A DNF is not a shame, I use it when I honestly search for a while ("long enough" as defined individually on circumstances) and can't find a stage, a container or a logbook. So simple.

August 26, 2016

Soooo my question is ...

How high is TOO high to hide a cache?

I'm 5'6", and have long arms. I will invest in a little portable stool and grabber thingie. But, is not being willing to climb a tree going to result in numerous DNFs?

That depends on the cache, and the cachers. "Lex Luthor" which requires a 20-foot ladder (specified in the cache description and rated accordingly), has 27 finds and one DNF.

But, yeah, it was archived perhaps partly due the requirement of Geocachers to have a quick park and grab.

August 26, 2016

Since I am of an advanced age, and a newbie, I will need to acquire a better understanding of the difficulty rating, for future caches. Younger folk than i can climb or skydive for the 'too high for me' caches.

Remember, fellow catchers, this sport is for everyone ... not just lithe, strong young persons. One day, if you are lucky, you may be geocaching at my age. My 2cts worth.

13.7k · August 26, 2016

Since I am of an advanced age, and a newbie, I will need to acquire a better understanding of the difficulty rating, for future caches. Younger folk than i can climb or skydive for the 'too high for me' caches.

Remember, fellow catchers, this sport is for everyone ... not just lithe, strong young persons. One day, if you are lucky, you may be geocaching at my age. My 2cts worth.

You're correct, this hobby includes all, but all caches aren't for everyone.

I don't believe you need to look at the Difficulty rating, but Terrain.

Difficulty is how hard it is to find/spot.

Terrain tells you what it takes to get there to find/spot it

13.7k · August 26, 2016

Remember, fellow catchers, this sport is for everyone ... not just lithe, strong young persons. One day, if you are lucky, you may be geocaching at my age.

Stalked your profile...

Are you in for a surprise when you attend your first event. :laughing:

August 27, 2016

Since I am of an advanced age, and a newbie, I will need to acquire a better understanding of the difficulty rating, for future caches. Younger folk than i can climb or skydive for the 'too high for me' caches.

Remember, fellow catchers, this sport is for everyone ... not just lithe, strong young persons. One day, if you are lucky, you may be geocaching at my age. My 2cts worth.

You're correct, this hobby includes all, but all caches aren't for everyone.

I don't believe you need to look at the Difficulty rating, but Terrain.

Difficulty is how hard it is to find/spot.

Terrain tells you what it takes to get there to find/spot it

August 27, 2016

Thank you for clarifying. ☺

August 27, 2016

Remember, fellow catchers, this sport is for everyone ... not just lithe, strong young persons. One day, if you are lucky, you may be geocaching at my age.

Stalked your profile...

Are you in for a surprise when you attend your first event.

August 27, 2016

Hahaha! I like surprises!

Found but unreachable.

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Join the conversation