jochta

Glad you enjoyed it. It isn't exactly what everyone wants from geocaching though IMO. I answered this already. I doubt very much that all 61 would be required to be waypoints to make it a multi. John

Are you taking my total number of caches found as experience? That is a poor judge of experience. True, I don't cache as much as I used to mainly due to the countryside being littered with thousands of thoughtless micros which has spoiled the sport for me; it's becoming harder and harder to sort the wheat from the chaff. All most cachers care about nowadays it seems is that total number. I don't mind micros, I've set a few myself, but when they are just placed for the sake of placing a cache with no noteworthy features whatsoever then I do mind, that isn't enjoyable for me. The sport is a very different beast to how it was 10 years ago IMO. That doesn't necessarily mean it's bad, clearly many cachers like the sport as it is today, it's just less my cup of tea than it was. I am/was more discerning in the caches that I set and seek which doesn't make me any less experienced. I still have great caching experiences, just fewer of them now. My original beef in the OP was the lack of info on 60 of 61 of these caches and it seems several agree with me. Yes, I don't agree with setting 61 cache power trails, it sounds horrid to me but if that's your bag, have fun. I'll be interested to see how many of the 61 are still surviving this time next year, it seems at least one of them may have gone AWOL already. John

A 61-stage multi? I don't think so . I doubt that all 61 would be required. John

It doesn't say you MUST write a description It doesn't say "You may write a description..." though. It says "Write a description...". Sounds like an instruction to be carried out to me A link back to the first might be a bare minimum as a courtesy to those coming across them in a listing. I can understand that that requires manually editing 60 pages and the subsequent maintenance requirement, but if you want to set 61 nearly identical caches then it seems reasonable that there's some pain involved John

Agreed. And I probably won't! Depends which end of the walk you approach them on. If I set my smartphone to show me the nearest few caches and I'm nowhere near #1 I will just get a blank page. I agree it's horses for courses. What floats my boat won't necessarily float the next person's John

A series of 61 micros. #1 http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=e270b817-b958-4520-9bc6-7924fe4d909c The owner hasn't given any details at all on any of the other 60 (I've not looked at them all). Not even a link back to the 1st. Is at least something not required before approval? #13 http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=4aff5605-920b-4ee6-a1f9-1e8581e50811 I assume he has sought and got landowner permission for all 61? But why does it need 61? Must be a nightmare to maintain. There doesn't appear to much information on the area, what to see, what to expect (other than unfriendly dogs). This sort of thing is exactly what is killing geocaching for me. All a bit pointless. In the old days this would have been one multicache or offset cache. John

Good advice in this post regarding placing urban caches, although I'm not a big fan of nanos when a bigger box could have been hidden. Problem with police using GC.com to eliminate a possible bomb as a geocache when a muggle rings them up is the devious terrorist could replace a known geocache with a bomb. They can get to GC.com too. The police would still have to treat it as a possible bomb as the risk of dismissing it as a geocache and being wrong would be too great.

And a terrorist wouldn't wear one? If you see someone wearing one of those and planting a suspicious package you're going to take that badge as read? Just like you could disguise a bomb as a geocache you could disguise a bomber as a geocacher.

I think the police acted properly, café owner spots someone acting suspiciously and hiding an object under a planter in a public place. Was permission sought from and granted by the landowner before this cache was placed? Was a courtesy call made to the café owner to let them know a cache had been placed outside their front door? Was placing a cache under a planter in a public area a good idea? It's also possible that the planter is not a permanent fixture and might be moved in the winter. John

Reply added to other thread. Can't find a delete post button...

I think the point about honest logging is a good one. I've tried to be honest in most of my later finds, and been negative where appropriate. I even started a bookmark list of caches I thought were disappointing. A simple thumbs up/thumbs down feedback when you log would be good. That way other people could read something like "78% of visitors liked this cache". Just very simple, like Amazon review ratings. All it needs is... Would you recommend this cache to other cachers? <YES> <NO>

No. I've basically given up paying any attention to new ones published near me, the majority are thoughtless micros placed just for the sake of placing yet another cache. I have around 60 unfound caches within 5 miles of my home coordinates, I really can't be bothered separating the wheat from the chaff anymore. We started in 2003, taking the children to new places, their excitement at opening the cache (they still occasional mention one or two memorable ones they did back then). Finding new places on our doorstep we never knew existed. Learning some new local history. Discovering places to hide caches and researching them. The joy of sharing a place I love with others. If a new cache alert popped up I knew it was a new cache close by worth visiting and I'd mark it down for visiting when I could. I had 100% completion on everything within 10 miles. Now when a new cache alert pops up (and it might be 10 or more in a go) I'll give the ones with interesting names a quick gander (i.e. the ones that don't start Such n Such a series number X") and usually be disappointed to find no description, no facts and it's yet another micro or nano. We still enjoy caching when we are on holidays though and the vast majority of new finds we get are those now. They still give us the chance (with careful weeding) of finding places to visit in a place we've not been to before. The utter pointlessness of some new cache hides winds me up. With a little research (Google) the placers could flesh out the cache page with some interesting titbits about the place, things to look out for whilst there etc. Just seems lazy placing. Now so many are "Here's another micro, I don't know anything about this place, I just stuck a cache here, enjoy.". Pointless taking children to them as any inquisitive question they might have about the place can't be answered. Multicaches. They don't get visited anymore. OK if we're in a hurry we'll filter them out too and it can be annoying to follow a long multi and not find the cache at the end (been there and done that). I'm not bothering to reinstate any lost/damaged/muggled multi I set now, yes this compounds the problem but I see no point in putting time and effort into maintaining them if no-one is going to bother visiting. Number whores. Yes It's fun getting to a milestone and a little pat on the back is a nice and warm feeling. We've set out to meet milestones in certain ways. Now it's how big can I get that number for some and that's all the game is. The pointless caches are set to feed them. I'm sure it never used to be as obsessive and I've always generally ignored the "Well done on getting to n,000 caches X" threads as it feeds them too IMO. They are some of the things that have changed for me. And I bet the stock reply will come out at some point "It's a game, play it anyway you like" - I've heard that answer for nearly 5 years now. John

Our very first cache was a micro too! http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...g=&numlogs= 20th September 2003 hidden under a small wooden disk. Maybe this discussion is focusing on size too much, it's the recently increasing lack of thought and effort that goes into some hides that annoys me more. The majority of these do seem to be micros and nanos though... As has been said above, a micro placed with thought is better than a big box dumped anywhere. John

Agree 100%, I've enjoyed some superb microcaches. And I've found pointless big boxes in the countryside too. There's never going to be an easy answer and in an ideal world, every cache would be brilliant, be exciting and interesting, the finder will have researched the location and be excited to share it with others etc. Sadly, I think this ideal is becoming further and further away. John

Maybe it has been removed already until permission for placing has been sought? Of course, and that's why I've stayed out of it until now and quietly semi-retired from geocaching. It's a game (one I pay an annual fee to play mind) and can be played in any way you like within the rules set. Doesn't mean that the current way it is played is better than it used to be though (and maybe you wouldn't like how we used to play it) and like all games, rules are adapted and changed to keep the game current and interesting for everyone. John

This is a very good point, and is the crux of the matter, however most of the people who place "pointless micros" (to quote a previous thread) are the ones least likely to read the posts here. I have recently seen a proliferation of these set by cachers with only one or two finds, so they obviously have no idea was geocaching is really about. Shame. Do you think there's a solution? Nano and microcaches without adequate description of the location, without adequate purpose are banned? Blanket ban on nanos and micros? Difficult I guess. I've used micro containers where it has proven difficult to hide a bigger box, although maybe if I'd tried harder I could have. But they are placed where the location is worth visiting with description on the cache page. I wondered if the proliferation of nanos and micros was partly laziness, no need to maintain contents as often, easy to hide, no need to buy contents etc. I've visited micro cache locations and seen several perfect places within feet to hide a bigger box and wondered why the hider didn't bother. And, as another poster commented, I can see that anyone starting the hobby recently will only see new micros and nanos and assume that's what the hobby is, and places more as that is what they know. Only us oldies from the early days remember what caching should be all about. John

Thanks for the replies. I can assure you that it is in a graveyard... http://www.bench-marks.org.uk/bm11549 I have visited it, I know exactly where it is, I know exactly where the cache is. In fact you can see the drainpipe in the photo I took when I logged the Flush Bracket... http://groups.msn.com/OSBM/wallbracketsthe...mp;PhotoID=3876 Double standards? I can photo it but you can't cache there? I didn't say you couldn't visit it, it's a 'public' place after all. If it was a worthwhile cache, had appropriate permissions or used the FB as part of an offset to a big box of goodies I wouldn't have even brought the subject up. Benchmarking is more about discovering, logging, cataloguing and maybe saving the surviving Flush Brackets. Sticking a nano behind a drainpipe on a church next to recent graves just for the sake of adding another geocache so the number whores can add one to their found total does however wind me up a bit. John

I still geocache on and off and I still browse the forums occasionally. I've not been very active recently as I've become a bit disillusioned with the sport I used to love. I've not commented on anything either, one person's chalk is another person's cheese after all. In danger of being labelled Mr Grumpy again, a cache approval this evening has eventually perked me into saying something publicly. I'm referring to the recently approved cache GC1G68M (Benchmark Flush Bracket S6433). I know this location intimately as my sister's remains are buried a few feet away, within sight of the Flush Bracket. I would be interested to know whether the placer had sought appropriate permission to place the cache in a graveyard (although the cache is hidden behind a drainpipe on the church wall) as detailed in a recent thread on the forums. http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=198133 "Proof of permission is required for PHYSICAL CONTAINERS" I actually wouldn't mind so much if the cache had any point to it, like some details about the church and why you might like to visit it. Or a comment about respecting the surroundings as it's a place of worship, remembrance and mourning. I wonder if my sister's two small children will mind a stranger or group of strangers rummaging around behind a drainpipe 6' away while they are visiting their mother's resting place? Just placing a nanocache next to a Flush Bracket when there is a perfectly adequate existing system for finding and logging them (http://www.bench-marks.org.uk) is just like the vast majority of new cache alerts I receive nowadays, i.e. geocaching just for the sake of it. Whatever happened to the boxes of goodies for the children to rummage through (yes, you can still find them occasionally)? Descriptions of unusual places you would never think of visiting? Learning something new from the cache description? Things to look out for on the way? I'm sure the cache placer will read this and say "Why didn't he just drop me an email? What a grumpy basket." and he's probably right and I'm probably a bit cross and maybe I should sleep on it. But I think this is a big problem facing geocaching generally and worth airing. I see too many new caches placed without thought or care, placed without researching the location (this one doesn't even tell the finder what a Flush Bracket is for) and placed without sharing knowledge to what used to be a young and inquisitive audience who want to learn about the places they visit. It's just a numbers game now. What a sad way for such an exciting and interesting hobby to go. John PS A much better use of Flush Brackets in geocaching IMO would be to use the number as part of an offset cache. Some trigpoints are used (they have exactly the same brackets) in the same way. I've toyed with doing this myself before but not got around to it.

Check out this thread in the main forum. TPTB are looking at sorting the problem. It seems that it's not so much of a hardware problem, more of a software/programming one. They have called in the services of some more experienced designers who are currently looking at the situation. Good news, thanks for the pointer. Hopefully things will improve soon.

I'm getting a bit fed up of the abysmal performance of the geocaching.com website now. Timeouts virtually every time I visit, whatever the day or time. Not sure why I renewed my premium membership last week. Maybe they should invest some of our money in some better servers?

Interesting, so it's just icon whoring then I rarely look to see what's in a cache when we visit, so coming across a geocoin or TB is usually a nice surprise and pleases the children.

Of course, if it was only a matter of getting rid of the TB I could have just stuck it one of my caches at the end of the road. The point was to go for a walk in a new area, visit a cache we hadn't done and drop the TB whilst we were at it. It was when trying to achieve this (what I thought would be simple) specific aim that I discovered that the vast majority of nearby new caches were smalls or micros. Hence the post....

Since I'm on here might as well get another bugbear off of my chest I expect this topic has been done to death, so ignore me if it has... Since the recent proliferation of geocoins I have noticed the following behaviour. Visiting a cache you have already done just to grab a geocoin that was placed there a few hours earlier. Isn't that a bit selfish?

Hi Tony! We were looking for something quick to take the children out on. Yes we do have plenty of more brain-challenging caches still to do/finish

So, long time since I've been in here! Still doing the odd cache now and then, we picked up a big TB when we were on holiday and was looking for a nearby traditional cache we hadn't done to stick it in. I knew loads of new caches had been placed close by so I thought no problem. I was wrong. Of the nearest 40 unvisited caches only 11 were described as regular or larger and only 2 of those were traditional!! Of the smalls very few said what the container was so we didn't know whether the TB would fit. Of the unvisited 15 were micros. Nearly all of the 40 were placed in 2006. OK, so I've placed micros and smalls as well but maybe we are placing too many? And a description of the container on the cache description would be helpful. PS. I couldn't easily find a description of what the different sizes actually mean. Shouldn't the little symbol on the search page be clickable to a help page like the cache type symbols are?