brendan714

Click Here or Here and you will see the required tour. My opinion is that information for virtuals can only be taken from pre-determined points. That might include (but is not necessarily limited to) the posted coordinates and/or pre-determined virtual waypoints. I know I said 'posted coordinates only' above, but I really meant any pre-determined location. Again, saying "take a picture of yourself on this mountain summit" is very different from saying "take a picture of yourself on any mountain summit". One is a pre-determined location (virtual), the other is open-ended location (locationless).

Funny, then, how Groundspeak thought the Brass Cap cache (GC43F3) was locationless, as per the canned email many of us received when we voiced a complaint. Brass Cap Cache: Visit one of the hundreds of pre-determined virtual waypoints and get information off of a survey marker. Multiple logs on the same waypoint were okay, but only the listed waypoints were loggable. GC7B876: Visit one of ??? non-pre-determined locations and get the required info. Any location is loggable if the logging requirements are met. If the Brass Cap Cache was considered locationless, GC7B876 definitely is.

I somewhat agree with you, but under that logic you could argue that a cache that says "take a photo in front of a McDonald's restaurant" is a virtual cache. There is a finite number of McDonald's restaurants, and the location of all of them is probably listed somewhere. That doesn't make it any less of a locationless geocache, in my opinion. It sounds more like a Waymarking category. I would still think that a virtual cache would highlight one specific location (or several specific locations, where information must be obtained from each).

The virtual you posted has a number of pre-determined virtual waypoints that everyone who completes the virtual must visit. Everybody visits the same spots and provides more or less the same information to the owner. The reason I see GC7B876 as locationless is because you can use any location in the area that fulfills the logging requirements. In this case, everybody visits a different spot and provides different information to the owner. New finders are even encouraged to visit places the old finders haven't used. This sounds exactly like the old retired locationless cache type.

I don't see anything wrong with virtual waypoints on the cache page or virtuals with multiple pre-determined virtual stops. But when the stops are not necessarily predetermined and can change for each "found it" log, that's where I'm seeing it as a locationless cache. As bolded above, the guidelines say the location, not a qualifying location. "The location" can only refer to the posted coordinates or pre-determined virtual waypoints. So I don't see how anything other than the posted coordinates or pre-determined virtual waypoints can be used to qualify for the cache?

I might be wrong but I thought a virtual must be completed at the posted coordinates. What if I had a virtual like this: "The posted coordinates are for a mountain summit. Post a picture of yourself on a mountain summit somewhere in Area X." The number of mountains in Area X is finite, but there are potentially dozens or hundreds of unique loggable options. Sounds like a locationless cache, no? If instead it said: "The posted coordinates are for a mountain summit. Post a picture of yourself at this summit." That sounds more like a virtual to me. But I'm no reviewer or guideline expert.

Well on your virtual the posted coordinates don't change, but the location and number of loggable entities certainly does.

Huh, it is a locationless cache. Our local beloved Brass Cap cache got archived and locked permanently for pretty similar logging rules. http://coord.info/GC43F3 I'm surprised this got approved!

Caches with corrected coordinates should also show up on this page with the red circles to help hiders. I recently placed a cache that got rejected because I had no good way of easily plotting puzzle caches I'd already found / solved. I agree that there should be a sticky toggle on the map too.

Sure. Let's do it. While we're at it, let's see what members think about a power trail attribute. Or what members think about recent site updates. Or what members think about anything for that matter.

I would urge you to explore your island - you'll likely be amazed at the cool places you'll find that don't have geocaches.

Geocachers maintaining existing caches are already invested in the game. I'm speaking mostly of newer players. I don't know about the average player, but I didn't really gain a true appreciation of the work put in to maintain geocaches until I hid one myself. If Groundspeak weren't a for-profit company I don't think there's any issue. But since a reduction in players is directly correlated to a reduction in profits, it's bad news. If these trends continue, there will come a day (probably not too long from now if 30% of players are lost per year) that the profits won't match the expenses.

Fewer cache hiders = fewer geocachers invested in the game. It also suggests that the number of new geocaches will plummet (this is already happening in my area). I truly think that these numbers are alarming because what if this trend continues? It's not like it's a slow, steady decline; it's a plummet. I've had the feeling that this was the case, but the numbers confirm it. I would find it surprising that after 17 years of geocaching that saturation is suddenly an issue. In my opinion, it's due a lack of new gameplay. The game hasn't changed at all since I started geocaching about 5 years ago, and I think a lot of geocachers are finding the game stale. The only way I avoid staleness is by combining geocaching with other hobbies (hiking, etc) and geocaching with friends. If my only option was to geocache by myself in my city, I probably would have stopped caching altogether about 2 years ago. There really needs to be a new cache type, new gameplay, new incentive... something!

I have some actual numbers that might partially back up this comment. I took the number of caches in a particular area (numbers on the original post here) and divided by the number of hiders in that same area (numbers on the original post here). This gives the average number of caches hidden per cache hider in a particular year. For my area, see below: 2008 - 3.70 2009 - 3.09 2010 - 2.73 2011 - 2.58 2012 - 3.01 2013 - 2.74 2014 - 3.04 2015 - 3.90 2016 - 3.38 2017 - 1.98 This year gives the lowest average in the past 10 years. Whether or not "more thought is being put into a smaller number of hides" can't be told, but there are certainly fewer hiders placing fewer geocaches near me lately.

I decided to start a new topic on the number of hiders since the previous one I started only talked about caches. Check out these numbers: 2007 - 55 / 124 2008 - 78 / 158 2009 - 109 / 201 2010 - 97 / 241 2011 - 114 / 236 2012 - 102 / 223 2013 - 80 / 196 2014 - 81 / 198 2015 - 94 / 222 2016 - 62 / 172 2017 - 45 / 130 (as of Nov 20, 2017) These are the number of unique hiders in my hometown per year (Calgary, Alberta, Canada). To the left of the slash is the number of cachers who placed 2 or more hides; to the right is the number of cachers who placed one or more. For example, in 2017, 130 different geocachers placed a geocache, but only 45 geocachers placed two or more. And similar stats for hiders in the mountains near my hometown (Division No. 15, Alberta): 2003 - 9 / 28 2004 - 8 / 37 2005 - 16 / 46 2006 - 16 / 50 2007 - 17 / 57 2008 - 16 / 43 2009 - 15 / 47 2010 - 22 / 59 2011 - 29 / 71 2012 - 29 / 68 2013 - 24 / 59 2014 - 22 / 47 2015 - 25 / 52 2016 - 20 / 47 2017 - 13 / 28 (as of Nov 20, 2017) It's rather alarming to see a steady decrease in the number of different hiders in the last 3 years! Both the city and the mountains show close to half the number of hiders in 2017 compared to 2015. Do you see similar trends in your area? If you'd like to check your area, CLICK HERE. Change the relevant selection criteria. The numbers are a bit tedious to comb through, as you have to keep clicking to the next page until no more cachers show up.

I did a search similar to the original post for new caches placed in the mountains near my home city: 2008 - 136 2009 - 95 2010 - 173 2011 - 212 2012 - 331 2013 - 295 2014 - 241 2015 - 258 2016 - 202 2017 - 149 (up to Nov. 20, 2017) Again, there is certainly a decline, but perhaps not as bad as with the urban caches near me. It seems to me like the number of unique geocachers placing hides in the mountains has dropped significantly. I just found a Project GC tool that can help determine that so I'll post those results shortly. EDIT: See new post regarding hiders.

That seems like a fairly generalized statement with no proof with which to back it up. I, personally, am part of that counterargument - I have and regularly use a geocaching phone app, and know many active, responsible cachers who do the same.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your previous post made it seem like you think the focus of the GC blog should be more geared towards on 'fun for the whole family' rather than the occasional physically challenging / technical cache and associated "numbers". Seeing the fascinating high terrain caches on the blog really appeals to me (much moreso than, say, church micros). But I think both are important and relevant to different people. One of the biggest reasons lately is that I tell them all about these cool geocaches hidden in the mountains, then they download the app and can't see anything higher than a 1.5 terrain (ie they see absolutely nothing in the mountains). But it seems like that will hopefully be fixed at some point? I still think the vast majority of outdoor enthusiasts around here have never even heard of geocaching. At least that's the impression I get. Word of mouth only gets so far. And to have potential new users download the app only to be disappointed certainly doesn't help.

Well it certainly doesn't work if you don't try. I can post on one of the Facebook groups I mentioned above looking for a partner and have dozens people my age respond within hours. Yet I know of only two other people in my entire city who are around my age that both hike and geocache. To me, that's a problem. That said, I've made some very good middle-aged friends! To fault HQ for trying to entice younger and/or more outdoorsy adults is totally wrong. It has nothing to do with numbers. Anyway, back on topic, I think that enticing new players to the game and rewarding them for quality or interesting hides could be one more way to help reverse the decline in new caches that appears to be happening.

What is wrong with that? I disagree that it is about numbers. I actually think that this could be a good thing, and is perhaps a way to entice newer, younger, more energetic players to the game. It seems to me that the majority of geocachers in my area are 40-50+ years old (certainly the most active players are). I'm legitimately shocked when I run into another geocacher my age (mid 20s). We have an active outdoor community in my area. There are 9,000 people in our local Facebook mountain scrambling group. Yet I am one of about 10 geocachers who scrambles mountains. There are 3,000 people in our local Facebook rock climbing group. Yet I am the only geocacher in my area who rock climbs. Tack that on to the tens of thousands more who aren't in one of those two online groups. Seems like there's a ton of untapped potential there given the number of outdoor enthusiasts. Sure, I think it's important to show it's a family game as well, but there really needs to be some more active, younger adults too, in my opinion.

Is that game actually still popular in some places? It's all but dead in my city (most have between 2 and 10 finds, and the majority of the finds date back several years). Given the popularity of a certain virtual-reality phone game has also seemed to die to nothing, I'm not sure either of those games have attributed much to the decline in my city.

Wow, it really seems like a huge decrease in caches this year almost everywhere. I suppose Project GC also tracks this information on their Overview page. I attached the new hide stats for Canada and the US. But it sure seems like a lot of our home towns are experiencing a close to or greater than 50% decline in caches compared to last year.

Pocket queries fail because they don't show archived caches. Use the link below and fill in your location, distance and desired year: Link! I just realized my 2017 number should be 257 caches, not 203. I forgot to add the 54 caches I've found! Still well less than half the average from the past 10 years.

I was out geocaching with a friend last night, when we both mentioned how it's felt like there haven't been very many geocaches published lately in our city of 1.2 million+ compared to last year or the year before. That led me to do some searching. Here is a list of the number of geocaches published per year in my city over the last 10 years: 2008 - 585 2009 - 622 2010 - 659 2011 - 608 2012 - 671 2013 - 537 2014 - 602 2015 - 867 2016 - 581 2017 - 257 (up to Nov. 10, 2017) So we aren't imagining things - there are far fewer new geocaches this year compared to the average. I know that the year isn't over yet, but November and December is typically a slow time for geocaching here. Some obvious possible reasons for this might be that there are fewer unique hiding spots, fewer geocachers, geocachers who aren't willing to hide new/more caches, and/or a lack of new or different gameplay elements to entice hiders. Have you noticed this around you too? EDIT: Use THIS LINK if you'd like to check your own area. Change the location, distance and year.

Regardless of the past, ALRs, etc, the truth is that a new icon "earned significant support from the community". Clearly geocachers want it.