Team Canda

Yeah, I've seen that as well. All of these comments further demonstrate my point: accurately rating D/T is imperative.

The iPhone is convenient for identifying nearby caches on the go (paperless caching), but it is incredibly inaccurate as compared to a handheld GPS when you actually go hunting for a cache. However, if you're new to geocaching, you're probably going to be hunting for easier caches, and for that the iPhone won't be quite as horrible. However, I would recommend NEVER EVER hiding your own geocache by using your iPhone or any other phone compass. If you're going to hide a cache, it's best to always use a handheld GPS unit and to get the coordinates as accurate as possible. Sometimes the phone compasses are only accurate to 500 feet or so - not even close to good enough for hiding. Good luck!!

Agreed. Underrated terrains are dangerous. I wouldn't see the point in overrating a terrain unless you want to discourage people from attempting it. Or...to help people fill up those blank D/T combos on their profiles. Ick.

Agreed. Underrated terrains are dangerous. I wouldn't see the point in overrating a terrain unless you want to discourage people from attempting it. Or...to help people fill up those blank D/T combos on their profiles. Ick.

Oh, and if you read through all the previous posts, you will see that it's already been discussed (by me and others) that there are many factors that go into planning a caching adventure. To recap, factors include location, type of cache, who's going, the weather, people's moods, the equipment on hand, the time of day, and...GASP...yes...D/T ratings. Again, nothing at all is strange about relying, even heavily, on D/T ratings. Indeed it is one of the only things that Groundspeak requires all COs to include, thereby indicating that cachers should rely on them. If an accurate D/T was not important, having them at all would be superfluous, and I'd like to think that the folks at Groundspeak are a lot smarter than that. D/T matters. For safety. For convenience. For respect. Etc. Plain and simple.

Well, first...to each his own. That's what so great about geocaching - everyone has their way and that's fine. Also, this problem is only applicable to this specific series because it's a very large series and when I run my PQ for 4/1+ caches, 75% will be within this series. Clearly, I've learned my lesson and now avoid this series, but that doesn't mean that before I realized the CO's error that it didn't...yes...ruin my experience that weekend. If any other cacher or group was to plan a weekend of caching and used PQs and filtered by D/T (which is perfectly normal to do), they would have this same problem and that would suck for them. Also, the cache description for each cache in this entire series is identical. The CO wrote one description and then copied it to the remaining 75+ cache pages. So there is no way to know what you're hunting for. Reading the logs doesn't always help either, as not too many experienced cachers give away info about hides in their logs. So to sum it up...the only way to know that these caches are easy (and in my opinion quite boring) is to do some and then draw inferences about the entire series. Sorry that's "incomprehensible" to you, but this occurred to many of us in a caching group, and if we're that "incomprehensible" then this hobby really isn't as diversified and accepting as I had thought.

What is frustrating and perhaps irresponsible about this is also the fact that this CO won't receive the email I sent politely questioning these severely overrated caches. So basically, the CO can insulate himself or herself from any geo-responsibility or geo-ethics by creating a sock puppet account to purposely avoid communication. I agree that getting 750 "I found it" emails might get annoying. But there are at least a dozen valid emails that a CO should get...and should respond to. (needs maintenance, cache is missing, GZ is now the site of a police investigation, your caches are rated way too high, etc. etc.) This concept is only AMPLIFIED in this instance because this CO has placed 75+ caches all along the east coast. Clearly, they are not readily available to remedy any cache or container problem, and if they are also ignoring emails, there's certainly no hope. P.S. CO has ignored my polite email.

We have a "cache bag" (a rugged orange backpack) that has most of the things already listed above (minus the gun, alcohol and plant killers). It also has scissors, extra Rite in the Rain logs, a few spare film canisters and bison tubes, tape, etc. We keep a spare notebook in case the iPhone won't work and we need to write ourselves some reminders. Also, some poison ivy wipes, paper towels, etc. As for safety, we are two women cachers and we try to avoid places that seem unsafe or don't have other hikers or pedestrians nearby. No game or recreational activity is worth your safety, sanity or your life, so if something doesn't feel right, we don't go. There's plenty of caches in safe places for you to find! (As a side note, I think a whistle is a good thing to have and I'll be adding one to our cache bag shortly!)

Just last week we found a cache near a marsh, and out crept a fox. I don't know who was more scared...me or the fox! Thankfully he ran off into the woods and my caching partner made the find while I stood guard for any more close encounters!

I'm the same way: I find easy caches a little boring and tend to avoid them unless I'm killing time between an appointment or meeting or something. That's why these 75 caches all rated entirely too high is frustrating. I can't get a good pocket query of nearby hard caches in my area because all of these come up instead. And when I plan an entire day around a geocaching adventure and I expect hard caches, it's a total bummer to find that I've planned myself a day of easy LPCs and GRCs.

This implies that by speaking my mind in a public forum and encouraging polite debate and input, I'm somehow disrespecting a cache or a CO's efforts. That's entirely untrue. The point of these forums is to stimulate conversation and improve the sport, as well as to encourage dialog and the free sharing of ideas. I see absolutely no point in remaining silent when there may or may not be a problem with a cache or a series of caches. And I don't think that makes me rude, wrong or offensive in any way. IMHO.

I find that some COs will underrate terrains when they've hidden a unique cache in a high location (up a tree, up a pole, etc.) because they don't want "give away" where the cache is located. For example, if the cache is hidden up a pole that sits in the middle of a field (an obvious 1 terrain), rating the terrain a 3 would tell you to look up. I don't think overrating is a good idea (haha, you think?) because this still messes up the sport. I take my toddler nieces and nephews to 1 and 1.5 terrain caches...so they are mighty disappointed when we get to GZ and they realize they can't participate. It's a matter of safety and respect to other cachers, including those with children or those with disabilities.

I appreciate all the comments. As to katiesmom's post...I wasn't implying that people didn't enjoy this series. In fact many do enjoy it. However, that doesn't change the fact that the caches are overrated. I've done about ten or so, and I've driven to GZ on about 10 more...only to find that in fact they are hidden in places like the back of parking lot of a convenience store or in an abandoned lot. Muggles have never been a large factor with this series...no more so than any other cache. And there's always plenty of parking too. I think from the fact that just about every cacher in this series says something like, "Easy find," "quick find," "found in a few seconds," etc. makes it pretty obvious that these are not hard. As I've said before, YES I know rating is subjective. But also, ratings exist for a REASON and that reason isn't to skew numbers or to skew your own ability to hide difficult caches. It's there to give cachers an idea of what they're looking for. It's not a science..but it's not a "rate them however you feel like it" either. And a 4.5/1 is not a nano in a stop sign -- I don't care how new you are. As for the sock puppet...it's interesting but my worry still remains with the obscene overrating of the series.

I have experienced this. It's kind of amusing when newbie cachers will say things with such assurance...almost cocky. I've had cachers say, "Cache is missing" or something similar. I always go out and check the next day and post a note confirming the cache is still there. But I must say, it's annoying because I don't normally rush out to check on a cache after one random DNF, but when someone definitively posts "it's gone" in a log...I kind of have no choice but to check, so that I can give assurance to other cachers. And...the cacher's "total number of finds" doesn't show up in the iPhone app (which a lot of people use), so no, you don't always know if the person saying "it's gone" is an experienced cacher or a newbie. And we've all been known to avoid caches when there's been a DNF or two...that's the point. What was more frustrating was when a random cacher posted a DNF and a "Needs Archived" log on my cache, and then proceeded to say in the log that he had "texted" me and that I ignored him. I didn't even know the person...how could he have texted me?? And if he meant he "emailed" me, then he certainly is wrong because I personally respond to every email immediately. I kindly asked him to edit his log, which he didn't...and so I had to remove it. And...the cache was there. However, I replaced it with a fresh container and log to ease any confusion. But what a hassle...all from people who speak with such a guarantee of truthfulness when really, all they mean to say is, "I couldn't find it." Haha, so goes geocaching.

It's a fine line between being a frustrated CO and being an overcached, busy cacher. But as a CO I don't think there's anything wrong with sending an email asking for clarification. This weekend when I went to do a particular cache, the online log on my iPhone said it was just found by a certain cacher that same day. But when I found it and signed it, his name wasn't on the log and it wasn't a new log. So...did he find it months ago, sign the log, and then log it online with the wrong date? Or did he log it without actually signing? Not that it was my business or that it mattered...but it did raise my eyebrows. I think "fake logging" to get your numbers up is kind of sad, but whatever makes you happy, I suppose... Personally, I haven't yet collected the logs from all of my hides in order to check up on the names...and I'm not sure I ever will. But if something seems particularly "fishy" and I'm in the area, I might check and then email the cacher. It protects the integrity of the sport to make sure that the only people logging the cache are people who actually found it.

They're not "super" at all, but they will probably last quite awhile since they're very basic and remotely well concealed from the elements.

EXACTLY! I forgot to mention that! The cacher is brand new (or at least using a new name) and they placed an entire series across the entire east coast. We were just commenting today on how it's going to be impossible for them to maintain them. I know they're new and I would cut them a break, but you can't do a search for nearby caches without 40+ of their caches showing up...all rated too high. I sent a very friendly email explaining how many cachers find this series overrated, and providing a link to rating guidelines. I understand what it's like to be new, but I certainly hope something changes soon. Especially since there's no way to ignore these caches when doing a search and since they're monopolizing my "hard caches pocket query" -- ugh!

Agreed. But I also think that caches that are rated ridiculously high when they are ridiculously easy also "screw" with people's history and raises their difficulty average when they really found a magnetic nano on a stop sign. Not that I care what people's "stats" are...but I'm only saying that because it's the truth. Again, the real issue is that ratings that are so far off can actually ruin the sport for people. Lots of people rely on ratings and plan entire outings based on ratings. I myself will plan an entire weekend based on caches, and I choose those caches based on ratings. When the ratings are off, my trip can be ruined. Or at least spoiled or soured in some way. And I think it's more important that people know what they're getting in to and that caches are rated properly, as opposed to worrying about ruining some hyper-cacher's stats.

Personally, I hate caches in cemeteries unless they are old, historical cemeteries. There's just something about rooting around on the ground with my GPS enjoying my hobby while people are or may be mourning nearby that feels...off. And disrespectful. IMHO. I also really, really really really REALLY dislike caches hidden anywhere near poison ivy. I read a cache description the other day where the CO was basically making fun of "wimpy" cachers who didn't like caching in thorns, mud and poison ivy. Like, you're not a "real" or "hardcore" cacher if you don't like romping around in poison ivy. Sorry, I adore the sport, but when I break out in oozing blisters on my arms and legs, and my face swells up so I can't see and I need to go on steroids, (happened last year after caching), I'm not having fun anymore. I wish COs would be a little more careful when placing caches, and either not place them near these things or make the warnings NOTICEABLE. Ugh, I still have nightmares. I actually rather enjoy urban caching, especially during tick season when the threat of Lyme's is raging in the warmer months (which my caching partner caught this year after caching). But I like urban caching that is clever, concealed and creative...not a nano on a lamppost. It's clever containers that make me smile, and it's when the hunt is hard because of the container (not because of the needle in a haystack approach) that I really enjoy it. But hey, to each their own.

Some people may cache this way, but others actually utilize the rating system since it's there for a reason. I select caches based on a multitude of factors, including both the difficulty, the terrain, the location, the weather and my mood. I don't think I'm in any way unusual in wanting to use the rating system that Groundspeak requires COs to use. If the rating system meant nothing, we wouldn't be required to use it when hiding caches. It's no different than when I want to bring along my three year old nephew, and the terrain is rated a 1.5, yet it's clearly a 3 or so. That's frustrating and it can ruin the sport. Difficulty ratings that are inherently off base can also ruin it. And I don't think I'm an exceptionally good cacher or anything of the sort. And I realize that COs often enjoy overrating their caches, and that rating is subjective. I'm just saying that, especially in this case, the caches are by far overrated. And every single log mentions how easy they are. I would think that would ring a bell for the CO to say, "Hmm...maybe this magnetic keyholder in this lamppost in a parking lot isn't really a 4.5." Not the end of the world, but it's frustrating enough to make me think twice about caching on a particular day. AND it ruins the point of making a pocket query. When I do a pocket query, I filter out easy caches and usually do 3.5/1s and above. But when 75 caches in my area are by the same CO and all rated 4s and 4.5s, yet they're ridiculously easy....that just plain sucks!

I would LOVE this feature!

Yeah, with this series in particular I did email the CO, but haven't heard back yet. We'll see how it goes...

Does it bother anyone else when caches are rated entirely too high?? For example, there is a very large series of caches recently placed in our area (70+ caches in the series), and they are all rated as 4/1 or 4.5/1. However, they are all EASY! And I mean universally easy, no two ways about it easy, no room for discussion easy. These are nanos in stop signs, keyholders under lampposts, etc. I haven't spent more than 3 minutes searching for a single one. And no, the caches aren't rated that high due to a "muggle" factor. ((Which by the way is an entirely different frustration that I have -- when EASY caches are rated 4s or 5s solely for the muggle factor)) I know that COs vary with how they rate their caches, but I just think that ratings this far off base present a problem and sort of ruin the fun of caching. We like to go on hard hunts and we really enjoy the more cerebral parts of the sport, and when we see a 4.5/1, we are expecting something clever, challenging and thoughtful...something that isn't a park and grab (unless we're really lucky). Often we'll take an entire weekend and plan to do a bunch of hard caches because we like the more challenging ones. And when we do this, and discover that those "hard" caches are actually extremely simple, easy to find caches, it's disappointing to say the least. Nothing against easy caches...we love those too. But there is a reason for the rating system, and when it's arbitrarily applied, it's no fun at all. It's no different than something being rated a 1.5 terrain when really it requires waders, extensive bushwacking, and is on a 45 degree muddy hill. It's disingenuous and defeats the purpose of having a rating system, and allowing cachers to filter by ratings. Anyway, is anyone else bothered by this? And is there a way to have Groundspeak change the rating of a cache when it's so far off base? (I'm guessing no to the latter). Thanks all!

Hello folks. Anyone know of any difficult caches (4+) with easy terrains (2-) in Philadelphia and the surrounding suburbs that aren't in the woods? I know that sounds like it's very specific...and it is! Trying to avoid the woods for a few months, especially following my recent bout of poison ivy AND a tick bite requiring antibiotics! So.....urban caches, small park caches, cool parking lot caches, etc. are what we need right now, but we still wanna keep the difficulty level up. Just no nature trails, short hikes, bushwacking, etc. I've exhausted all of the known evil hiders in the S. Jersey area, but if anyone knows who the evil hiders are for Philly and the surrounding suburbs (50+ miles), let me know and I'm there! Thanks!

Never mind, fixed.