narcissa

The question is just what urban area means. I would not say that I live in a rural area (the second largest city of my country and within 20 minutes of the city centre when walking) though the only region where saturation plays a role is the inner city of the city where I live. There would be space for hundreds of caches in my city and much more in the outskirts and the surroundings which are faster to reach than parts of the city in a large city with 1 million and more inhabitants. None of the oltimers that I'm aware of having left was a fan of hiding caches in inner cities. I never ever meant to say that what I described is the one thing causing a decline in geocaching. I just meant to say that what I described are the reasons why many oldtimers in my area lost interest. That's a completely different thing. What would you say the ratio of "oldtimers" to other cachers is? A good portion of the "oldtimers" here have faded away but there were only a couple dozen of them in the first place, so they're really quite negligible when discussing significant patterns in the overall numbers. Not that it isn't a loss when an oldtimer leaves the game, but this thread is about big changes in the numbers, not personal grievances.

That goes without saying. My point was however that there is still a log of place for hiding caches (and also at nice locations) in the areas I'm familiar with which are outside of city centres and yet the decrease I described can be observed. In the early years 95% of the geocachers in my area had an interest in hiking and visiting interesting locations. That was not at all a niche preference. The focus on numbers certainly has a huge impact on turning away those who care about hiking and locations and that's what I wrote. I simply explained why most that left or almost left in my area left or decided not to hide any longer caches. Saturation did not play a role for any among them. My comment was about urban areas. I didn't claim that saturation might be a factor in rural areas. There are many factors at play, as much as people like to think their personal pet peeve is the one thing that is killing geocaching.

I'm sure there are a few areas where more caches can't be "squeezed" in but i'm also certain this isn't a common situation. It may have a slight effect but i wouldn't think it would cause too much of a decrease in overall activity. I agree that running out of closeby caches to find will slow things down for some. But then again, people that want to find caches will travel to get them. These do contribute but there are other, more important reasons for why the decrease is occurring. I think it would cause a decline actual cache placement over time, or at least contribute to one. I have never tried to suggest that there is a single cause. There are many causes.

In my area noone I'm aware of left or almost left because they did not have enough caches to find - actually these people have typically many more caches at their disposition (of course not more caches they enjoy) than when they started. Among those that I know that stopped to hide caches there is noone that stopped due to saturation. Saturation in urban areas mainly keeps some newcomers to hide even more lame micro caches. The effects of number caching (such as powertrails, cut and paste logs, lots of insincerity and questionable practices, lots of caches just to have more caches) and frustration and increased maintenance requirements caused by improper treatment of caches, spoilers, breaking of laws (like ignoring prohibition signs) have a much higher influence on the development than saturation ever could. It's natural that in areas like mine the exponential growth that we experienced for a while when it came to the number of active cachers did not continue. That's anyhow nothing that I saw positive. What concerns me however is that so many cachers that started years ago (almost all of those that started at the same time than myself, but also so many of those who started considerably later) lost the interest due how geocaching locally developped. Some still happen to visit some mountain caches from time to time, some left completely. Almost none of them hides caches any longer, the very few who still hide caches have tried to find a niche audience like hiking caches in very demanding terrain and in areas where one has to walk very far for coming back with one or at most two finds. I'm not Groundspeak. So I do not have any interest into many new cachers entering geocaching who focus on an aspect of geocaching which I do not care about at all. The potential among newcomers to hide caches that appeal to me is relatively low. So for me it rather would be about not frustrating so many of the oldtimers and motivating them to reconsider hiding caches. If there are no new places to hide caches in a given area, cache placement in that area will naturally decline whether people intentionally quit or not. Your niche personal preferences, while as valid as anyone else's, likely aren't contributing to widespread decline in cache placement or participation.

Not an original thought but saturation is likely a factor in cache placement. To place new caches, many of us in urban centres have to go some distance to find unused space, or try to wedge caches new into places that are already well served. And while I don't cache enough to run out of caches to find close to home, busier cachers certainly do.

Just some food for thought.... That's true regardless of the difficulty level. If the reviewer shrugged off the complaint then it seems unlikely that the puzzle is unsolvable. It may be rated inappropriately but trying to get it archived for that is needless.

It seems unlikely that D1 for any T rating would be a valuable grid space, but who knows. These ratings have always been somewhat subjective. Around here, if the puzzle solution isn't really obvious, the reviewer will ask for more information about it before publication. It is fairly obvious that putting out a tricky cache with a low D rating is far less egregious than trying to have the cache archived for it.

You want to NA it because you can't solve it? That's harsh.

To me, the comparison is not based as much on the device as it is on the software -- really, what I want the device to do. During an 18 mile hike, I used a high capacity/waterproof/rugged android and had well over half the battery available at the end of a long day without charging. I used it the same way that I would have used my Oregon 600, but the caveat is that I generally do not track unless I am on water or bushwhacking off trail. On this trip, my friend kept a track on his 60 csx to record the stats, so I saw no need to do it. Along the way, we stopped an an earthcache that required us to compare graphics that were on the cache page. My friend did not have that on either his gpsr or his phone. But I had the tools to do that, both on my iphone and android, because the apps I used saved the images on the cache page for offline use. Even when I used to cache with the Oregon, I always brought my iphone just for that reason. My preferences have always focused on the maps, display, graphics, and filtering capability of the device, which are largely software issues. Over time, I began to use the Oregon less and less -- now it is primarily a kayaking device since I can strap it on the cockpit's console and map where we are going or track where we have been. Both devices will get you where you need to go for the purposes of this game. Whatever positives you have with either a gpsr or phone may make it the right device for you. Yeah, one of the things that drives me nuts about the phone apps is a very small functionality thing that probably only matters to me, but really really matters and prevents me from even using my phone for occasional caching on the fly. But I get why someone looking for other functionality would prefer a phone over a handheld GPS. what functionality do you miss? which app ? It's not anything missing, it's just a quirk that is present in my iPhone and my Galaxy. I am quite certain that in some fashion they have the same general functionality as my Oregon, they're just not comfortable for me to use. Hmm, well I'm curious by nature. Just wondered what it was, now even more interested since the quirk is cross platform. I'm not buying a $60 US burner phone from a YouTube video to fix it, so don't worry about the particulars. Just a personal preference about navigating to caches a certain way, because I'm old.

First question: Why do you think that "opportunity has been exhausted"? I'd argue that Groundspeak and the hard-working app developers are hoping it's just getting started! Second question: Is a decrease in users really a good thing? If this website were a non-profit, then no issue! But it's a for-profit site. A decrease in users means a decrease in profits. Which could certainly mean bad news for the active players (we are almost like investors in a way, aren't we?). What about for the Groundspeak staff and the website infrastructure? What about investors who are looking for growth on their investments? I don't think it's a secret that a significant investment has gone into the development of the 'official' mobile apps. When there are bills to pay, I just don't see how a decrease in users can ever be a good thing. I don't operate the website or profit from it. What is better for me is when other players behave predictably and respectfully. Mass cache placement has not made the game better for me. Hoards of people who don't understand geocaching culture have not made the game better for me. Most of the site and app developments in the past 5 years have not made the game better for me. There are only so many people in the world who have access to the technology to play this game. There will always be a few people around to tap into, but finding large new groups of customers will require more expansion into non-English speaking parts of the world, and watching for less mature markets where smartphone adoption is still new and exciting. In Canada and the US? I think the game has peaked in terms of popular awareness and adoption. Where in North America will they find new pockets of relatively affluent people who enjoy outdoor activities and technology-based games, but haven't heard of geocaching?

There was a period of immense growth that brought many casual people to the game through app-based geocaching. That growth opportunity has been exhausted. Unless Groundspeak finds another new market to tap into somehow, I think things are going to settle back down to a quieter baseline. That's probably not a bad thing, and will alleviate many of the gripes that people shout about but rarely leave the game over.

To me, the comparison is not based as much on the device as it is on the software -- really, what I want the device to do. During an 18 mile hike, I used a high capacity/waterproof/rugged android and had well over half the battery available at the end of a long day without charging. I used it the same way that I would have used my Oregon 600, but the caveat is that I generally do not track unless I am on water or bushwhacking off trail. On this trip, my friend kept a track on his 60 csx to record the stats, so I saw no need to do it. Along the way, we stopped an an earthcache that required us to compare graphics that were on the cache page. My friend did not have that on either his gpsr or his phone. But I had the tools to do that, both on my iphone and android, because the apps I used saved the images on the cache page for offline use. Even when I used to cache with the Oregon, I always brought my iphone just for that reason. My preferences have always focused on the maps, display, graphics, and filtering capability of the device, which are largely software issues. Over time, I began to use the Oregon less and less -- now it is primarily a kayaking device since I can strap it on the cockpit's console and map where we are going or track where we have been. Both devices will get you where you need to go for the purposes of this game. Whatever positives you have with either a gpsr or phone may make it the right device for you. Yeah, one of the things that drives me nuts about the phone apps is a very small functionality thing that probably only matters to me, but really really matters and prevents me from even using my phone for occasional caching on the fly. But I get why someone looking for other functionality would prefer a phone over a handheld GPS. what functionality do you miss? which app ? It's not anything missing, it's just a quirk that is present in my iPhone and my Galaxy. I am quite certain that in some fashion they have the same general functionality as my Oregon, they're just not comfortable for me to use.

Most are of the opinion that you should not replace someone else's cache. Whether or not you log a find is really beside the point.

Geocaching.com is a membership-based website, not a republic. If you want to publish drone caches and you aren't willing to wait for Groundspeak to figure things out, you are free to do so on your own platform.

To me, the comparison is not based as much on the device as it is on the software -- really, what I want the device to do. During an 18 mile hike, I used a high capacity/waterproof/rugged android and had well over half the battery available at the end of a long day without charging. I used it the same way that I would have used my Oregon 600, but the caveat is that I generally do not track unless I am on water or bushwhacking off trail. On this trip, my friend kept a track on his 60 csx to record the stats, so I saw no need to do it. Along the way, we stopped an an earthcache that required us to compare graphics that were on the cache page. My friend did not have that on either his gpsr or his phone. But I had the tools to do that, both on my iphone and android, because the apps I used saved the images on the cache page for offline use. Even when I used to cache with the Oregon, I always brought my iphone just for that reason. My preferences have always focused on the maps, display, graphics, and filtering capability of the device, which are largely software issues. Over time, I began to use the Oregon less and less -- now it is primarily a kayaking device since I can strap it on the cockpit's console and map where we are going or track where we have been. Both devices will get you where you need to go for the purposes of this game. Whatever positives you have with either a gpsr or phone may make it the right device for you. Yeah, one of the things that drives me nuts about the phone apps is a very small functionality thing that probably only matters to me, but really really matters and prevents me from even using my phone for occasional caching on the fly. But I get why someone looking for other functionality would prefer a phone over a handheld GPS.

I subscribed to the blog but did not get the "newsletter" part at all. Now I will have to keep an even closer eye on the A-Team's site as a new souvenir could be announced that I need to plan for! Dude. Settings --> Email Preferences --> Check the box beside "Weekly Newsletter"

If it hasn't been found in years then don't do it. If the container is there but clearly in need of replacement and you're willing to watch the cache page and so on, then it's not always a dreadful idea to replace the container after you've tried to make contact with the owner. But if the container can't be found by anyone then archive it. This only works until someone logs a NM. Once it has the wrench, only the real cache owner can fix it. Yes, but loads and loads of caches have wrenches on that the owner never fixes anyway. Oh, around here you'll eventually get nagged by a reviewer if you don't clear the wrench.

This is my line of thinking, exactly. I have to carry my phone everywhere I go. I chose it because it's sleek and doesn't take up a lot of space or weight down my purse much. I don't want to gussy it up to look and feel like a Sherman tank. I think it's great that phones have caught up, because they make the game accessible to more people, and it means that over time we'll have much less of the "sorry, placed with iphone" cache coordinate issues. If someone's happy and finding caches with their chosen device, that's great. At the end of the day we're all at the mercy of the person who placed the cache anyway! The rubber that covered the on/off button on my trust old Oregon has worn out, rendering it distinctly not waterproof, so I think I'll be in the market for a new one this year. Accuracy is not one of my shopping criteria.

That's an interesting point you make. I must admit that my initial reaction to this thread was to object to the idea, but on consideration I can't come up with any rational reason why I don't like it. I have no objection to difficult caches, or ones requiring specialist equipment (I've done kayak and tree climb caches using equipment I've bought espescially for tree climbs), and I have no objection to ones requiring additional technology (I've done CHIRP, Wherigo, and wireless beacon cache). I certainly don't hate drones, I have a few friends who use them and I've considered buying one myself, but there's something that I can't put my finger on that doesn't feel right about using drones for caching. I like the idea of caches designed specifically for drones more than I like the idea of someone using a drone for a cache that's meant to be a difficult hike or climb. Not that I would want to stop someone from using a drone to cache, it's just something I kind of smile and roll my eyes at. Crazy kids and their technology, in my day we climbed that tree with our hands and feet! But I really don't think it's the idea of drone caching that is behind the ban. It's all the complicated legality. With all these years of bomb threats, and private property concerns, etc. I can't blame them for approaching the issue with caution. And the fact that you can't place a cache specifically for a drone doesn't mean you can't choose to use drones.

I was going to post all of the relevant information for contacting for notification on the cache page. The multi was going to be easy and could be flown to in a matter of probably three minutes. I have no problems doing work on my cache pages to let people know what they need to know. I just need to be given the opportunity. And if drone caching isn't your cup of tea, no big deal. I don't want to find PowerTrails. That doesn't mean I don't mind if you do it. I think there is a stronger mindset of drone hate out there than I realize. I don't see what the big deal is of flying a drone around in public. I don't see anything here about drone hating. Many jurisdictions are in the process of creating and implementing laws and regulations governing drones. There are some issues and risks associated with using drones. These issues need to be considered if Groundspeak is going to permit drone caches on their site. This isn't a kneejerk ban because someone decided they don't like drones.

I had one experience where there was an old cache that hadn't been found in three years and the container was no longer there. I spoke with the owner who wanted to keep it alive but couldn't put a replacement out at the time and was OK with me putting a throw down and claiming the find. That is the only case that I would feel is worth it to put a replacement but it sounds like the series you are referring to is at its end now. If there's something unique about that series maybe you could set out some new ones with the same theme in reference to the old cache? On a different note it does get disappointing when you get all the way out to a cache only to find you can't log a find on it and there's no one to replace it I think that's why many people do the throw downs in the first place even though it's really not acceptable to do that. Cachers working together is okay. Some of the hardliners will make disparaging comments about this, but realistically we all go through times when life gets in the way of geocaching and it's okay to lean on each other. This is a game that relies on cooperation, and sometimes that means asking a friend for help, or offering help to a friend. No reasonable cache owner or fellow cacher is going to look down on you for claiming a find when you helped with maintenance in an agreed-upon fashion. If the cache owner is absent from the game, it's an entirely different matter.

I don't have a brand recommendation, but I strongly recommend a headlamp so you can keep your hands free in the dark!

If it hasn't been found in years then don't do it. If the container is there but clearly in need of replacement and you're willing to watch the cache page and so on, then it's not always a dreadful idea to replace the container after you've tried to make contact with the owner. But if the container can't be found by anyone then archive it. This only works until someone logs a NM. Once it has the wrench, only the real cache owner can fix it.

Use the "Needs Archived" log to alert a reviewer to the problem. If you want to own a cache in that spot, you can place a new one when the old one is archived.

What, specifically, excites you about these tests? Posting undescribed links doesn't elucidate any kind of point.