Team OUTSID4EVR

quote:Originally posted by Klause Von Kuhn:....SNIP If you really want a good challenge, then try some of the micros in Maryland. There are eight of them on the Patuxant Branch Trail and none of them are easy. Also Team Focallength has some real tough ones as well. If you like multi-caches, then try out the one by Mark II called GOOD LUCK. That one is a killer and there has been less than ten people to ever find it since it was hidden last summer. The challenges are out there Joe. You just need to look for them. Granted they might not be as involved as your latest one, but they're still challenging. By the way, I've not received a complaint about any of mine. All of them are completely covered all the time. Your caches are concealed well. I was making the point that when density of caches increases, the quality (durability of container, uniqueness of hiding spot) tends to decrease. There are fewer cool places to hide caches when the caches are close together. Then it seems that it's "all about the numbers". I like micros. I plan on checking out the ones in Columbia. Variety is indeed important. What I like may not be what someone else likes. But with that said, I have found way too many caches that show no imagination or planning on the part of the hider. They just saw a patch of woods and decided to throw gladware in a tree. That was my gripe.

I always use the cache rating system. This gives me a baseline idea of the difficulty. I then compare my cache location to similar caches in my area. I adjust the rating as necessary. In the end, I feel my ratings are reasonably "accurate". The fact remains that they are all subjective ratings. The only thing we can do to get more accurate ratings is post our opinion in the log in a friendly way. Perhaps the cache owner will get the hint and re-consider his rating of the cache.

1360 White Marsh, MD-

quote:Originally posted by Team GPSaxophone: I think the hider has an obligation to inform seekers of a few things. Is there an entrance fee required for the area? Does the park close at night? Is it on private property? These are the basics and don't reveal anything about a cache's actual hiding spot or difficulty rating. I agree with you here, except for the use of the word "obligation". The burden falls on the seeker of the cache. They can always contact the hider and ask questions. quote:A beach cache that is rated a 2 that turns into a 5 during high tide should require this information from the hider. Explicitly stating that TIDES affect the difficulty of a cache on a BEACH might be giving away too much information on the cache page. This is different from stating the park hours. It's up to the hider to determine this. quote:A mountain cache that is a 2 in the summer but a 5 when it snows is common sense and should not be required on the cache page. Why is this example common sense while the previous example is not?

quote:Posted by sbell111:Sharing park hours does not make the cache easier to find, just less annoying. I agree. I would consider posting park hours if they are not "dawn to dusk" as most parks I have encountered in my region are. As a finder, I would not search for a cache after dark unless I was 100% sure, before leaving home, that the park was legally open at night. That's my responsibility as a finder. GEO: The topic was "A request to cache hiders..." It just seems that the request, as it was presented in the first post was more of a rant/complaint to hiders that choose not to include information on the cache page.

I feel that providing additional information about a cache on the information page is a *courtesy* to finders. It is not *required* that the hider give any information. If you want more information than the hider places online, why not e-mail that person??? On the subject of "dumbing down", I agree with Rich. It's great that geocaching has grown since I started. I would never discourage newbies in any way. On the other hand, cache quality and difficulty has been decreasing, as quantity increases. We, as "veteran cachers" can encourage quality placemants of caches. Let's respect the fact that there are some hiders who would rather leave the responsibility of finding the cache to the finder, rather than giving too much away in the cache description. If you (the reader) wish to be *nearly* guaranteed a find, then confine yourself to caches in which detailed information is given in the description. There are plenty of those around for you.

I have the same complaint, Mike. In my area, many caches are really easy, but the hiders insist on overstating the terrain and difficulty. I have found a few caches in North Jersey (Federal Hill) that provided more of a challenge. There are a couple of caches in the Ramapo State Forest that provide a nice challenge (Billy E.?) by BrianSnat (I think) is worth the trip. My mantra in geocaching has always been "Quality, not Quantity!" I would be happier with fewer caches in the area if they were more thoughtfully placed. It's all about "milestones" and not about a challenging, creative game. Soon enough, many areas of the northeast will be saturated with caches. We will need some sort of additional rating system to highlight the quality caches from the cookie cutter style caches. This has been discussed in the past in the forums, but many people are afraid of saying that a cache is lame. As a result, we have a plethora of easy finds.

A cache that is falling apart, leaking, or scattered about the landscape is trash. It little matters who placed the cache. The point as I see it is that tourist caches are placed without a thought of visiting the area to maintain the cache. The approvers should consider the home location of the placer when approving vacation caches. Place a virtual if your're on vacation and feel the urge to bring others to the spot you're visiting. If cache density increases and quality gives way to quantity, geocachers will be seen by land managers in the same negative light as treasure hunters with metal detectors who dig up the ground. Local geocachers work hard to keep a positive spin on geocaching by cooperating with land managers. Tourists may unknowingly screw this up by placing caches where they shouldn't. "Perception is reality"d

In my area (Baltimore, MD) there are many trashy caches. I have determined that two factors are at work here. It has been stated that the number of visits is a factor. I agree. Caches that receive higher traffic because they are accessable usually bring out newbies who don't understand how the game works. I will not put more expensive items in a "beginner's cache" because of the higher risk of the cache going MIA as a result of the finder failing to re-hide it properly. The second factor is the cache container itself. some hiders use cheap Gladware or other temporary containers for their caches, because they hide many of them. I have noticed that the quality of the inside (trade items) is directly proportional to the quality that went in to the cache by the hider. I will not debate the issue of ammo cans, which is controversial in my area, but there are definitely better choices than disposable containers!Ã

I think as long as the caches are quality caches in good locations (and maintained), there is no problem being an active hider. The problem arises when cachers get hiding fever and simply do it for the numbers. Then all you are left with is the gladware in the stump. I have visited yor cache, "Hole in the Wall" in PA. It is in an interesting location and provides a degree of challenge. As long as it can be maintained, it's cool. I have problems with the mega-hiders who dump caches just for the numbers. Remember QUALITY is much better than QUANTITY!µ

I heard from Jeremy's in-laws at the Baltimore-DC picnic in Sept. 2001 that she was recruited to model the new bucket hat. I don't know who the other person is.

I've been through Huron before. (I have reletives there.) What about a microcache? What about DeSmet? There is plenty to see there. There is, if I recall, a cemetary (Laura Ingalls Wilder)with a grove of very old trees nearby. A microcache out there might be an option.

Generally, the lame caches I have visited are in areas that are covered with briars and poison ivy. The geocache location has little scenic value. The cache location does not stand out (the hider just placed it in the bushes). These caches are a waste of time to locate. Accessibility There should be all types of caches for all types of people. Some of the lame caches I have found are not wheelchair accesible, nor are they easy. They are not challenging in a meaningful way either. I don't know who these caches are designed for. Hiding fever I think people who enjoy hiding caches more than finding them sometimes have the urge to just hide a cache. The location of the cache is not the prime consideration. Contents I don't think the contents make a cache lame. The original contents almost always degrade. I never expect to find anything worthwhile in a cache. Sometimes, I am pleasantly surprised. Proximity to other caches There are some newer caches that are placed very close to other caches. One person even placed two separate caches within .25 mile of each other. Why not make it a multi-cache? I guess the point I'm making is that IMHO caches should be placed with some thought and planning. The mega hiders tend to place a bunch of junky caches that they can't possibly maintain. Newbies should wait and find a few high-quality caches before deciding to hide one of their own. There are many examples of fine, quality caches out there! Just read the logs! Peer Pressure Can be Good As a community, we should encourage the placement of quality caches. Obviously, there will be some variation on the definition of quality. I think there is enough group consensus to point hiders in the right direction. I know a finder's rating system has been discussed before...It might help encourage hiders to improve their caches. I wish the "Hide A Cache" page would stress the idea of a thoughtful placement more. Lame caches could hurt the reputation of geocaching If fewer high-quality caches were placed, as opposed to more lame caches, I feel this activity would gain more acceptance by the land managers. The Bottom Line : Quality, not quantity. See this thread for a related discussion. [This message was edited by OUTSID4EVR on July 09, 2002 at 07:45 AM.]

Generally, the lame caches I have visited are in areas that are covered with briars and poison ivy. The geocache location has little scenic value. The cache location does not stand out (the hider just placed it in the bushes). These caches are a waste of time to locate. Accessibility There should be all types of caches for all types of people. Some of the lame caches I have found are not wheelchair accesible, nor are they easy. They are not challenging in a meaningful way either. I don't know who these caches are designed for. Hiding fever I think people who enjoy hiding caches more than finding them sometimes have the urge to just hide a cache. The location of the cache is not the prime consideration. Contents I don't think the contents make a cache lame. The original contents almost always degrade. I never expect to find anything worthwhile in a cache. Sometimes, I am pleasantly surprised. Proximity to other caches There are some newer caches that are placed very close to other caches. One person even placed two separate caches within .25 mile of each other. Why not make it a multi-cache? I guess the point I'm making is that IMHO caches should be placed with some thought and planning. The mega hiders tend to place a bunch of junky caches that they can't possibly maintain. Newbies should wait and find a few high-quality caches before deciding to hide one of their own. There are many examples of fine, quality caches out there! Just read the logs! Peer Pressure Can be Good As a community, we should encourage the placement of quality caches. Obviously, there will be some variation on the definition of quality. I think there is enough group consensus to point hiders in the right direction. I know a finder's rating system has been discussed before...It might help encourage hiders to improve their caches. I wish the "Hide A Cache" page would stress the idea of a thoughtful placement more. Lame caches could hurt the reputation of geocaching If fewer high-quality caches were placed, as opposed to more lame caches, I feel this activity would gain more acceptance by the land managers. The Bottom Line : Quality, not quantity. See this thread for a related discussion. [This message was edited by OUTSID4EVR on July 09, 2002 at 07:45 AM.]

Any liquid placed in a cache could freeze and potentially break the container that holds it. I would say "NO" to any liquid placed in a cache. Of course there are exceptions. A bottle of water could be placed in a popular cache during the warmer months, but the cache owner should check on it before it gets cold.

I don't use insect repellant unless they are totally unbearable. If I did, I would apply it to my arms, neck, and legs. A hat really helps to keep them at a distance. As long as I'm moving, it's not a problem. Once you find the cache, it becomes an issue in some cases. (See my entry for Wilson cache in LA)

The topic is not about the legality of carrying a machete for protection. The point of this thread is not the right to bear arms. The poster was considering it for cutting vegetation. Let's deal with that issue. Geocaching can be seen in a negative light if people begin cutting their own trails through the woods. It would be the same argument if we carried shovels around digging for caches. "Leave No Trace" is simple. No cutting, no digging. If SOME geocachers are destructive, it will be assumed that ALL are. Remember that all of our actions, taken individually, have an effect on the public perception of geocaching. Park managers would have no problem banning geocaching if a machete or shovel was standard equipment. (Or they thought it was!) BTW even if the machete was not used to cut anything, it's the PERCEPTION that counts. You may have a right to do something (another topic), but it could create an unwanted effect.

The topic is not about the legality of carrying a machete for protection. The point of this thread is not the right to bear arms. The poster was considering it for cutting vegetation. Let's deal with that issue. Geocaching can be seen in a negative light if people begin cutting their own trails through the woods. It would be the same argument if we carried shovels around digging for caches. "Leave No Trace" is simple. No cutting, no digging. If SOME geocachers are destructive, it will be assumed that ALL are. Remember that all of our actions, taken individually, have an effect on the public perception of geocaching. Park managers would have no problem banning geocaching if a machete or shovel was standard equipment. (Or they thought it was!) BTW even if the machete was not used to cut anything, it's the PERCEPTION that counts. You may have a right to do something (another topic), but it could create an unwanted effect.

LOST: I got lost once in Louisiana. My wife stayed at the car because of the mosquitoes. I ventured off down the trail. The cache was maybe 100 feet off the trail. I did not even think to mark the trail. I found the cache, quickly wrote the note, and replaced the cache. I then started walking. I got totally confused. Every direction looked the same...flat, thick vegetation, overcast day. I tried to follow the track I had made coming in, but it didn't really work in the thick underbrush. After about 45 minutes, I came upon a trail. Luckily, I chose to walk in the right direction. If it was not a swamp filled with mosquitoes and a snake or two, I probably would have been able to find my way out sooner. I got distracted and disoriented. The Bottom Line: Create a waypoint if you are in an area that is unfamiliar, or has poor visibility. HURT: NO

Cool concept! These are the kind of caches we love finding!

I know a few "power cachers" who have used locationless caches to pad their numbers. Jeremy is going in the right direction by placing some guidelines regarding locationless caches and separating the counts. I think the novelty of locationless caches will wear off for many people once it becomes clear to the geocaching community which type of cache they have found. The game is evolving. Not necessairily a bad thing, BUT... I would really be disappointed if the traditional cache became a dying breed because people choose to "hide" and find locationless caches. Finding a container in the outdoors is (in my opinion) one of the biggest reasons why people get addicted to geocaching. I second the motion that this should not be a "collectors corner" or "geotravel.com". Make a totally separate section for that type of activity.

* Soapbox time!* I have been reading these forums for some time now and have observed that some participants can't help but get into a "battle of wits" with each other, regardless of the topic. It's getting old! *Steps off Soapbox* As far as the issue of coordinate display is concerned, we should look out for the best interest of those playing the game now. Making the display of coordinates an option for each cacher should not "scare" new participants away. Some hiders will chose to show the coordinates, and some will not. It has been mentioned (by me and others) that there are other causes of plundering, besides an unregistered person searching out a cache and taking it. Consider the difficulty of the cache (sitting out in the open for all to see), and the actual cache hider. Some cache hiders piss off others. (Just read these forums!) Some of you may have been targeted. Instead of going around and around with this discussion, look at the goal: We want geocachers to find and hide caches without worry that the cache will be taken. We just want to play the game. A small change in the website *could* help, and probably not hurt.

Could there be a feature added to allow individual geocachers to decide whether they want the coordinates and map of their cache available to the world, or only registered users? This choice could be a checkbox on the submission form. Any thoughts on this?

Only a few posts mention mandatory registration as being cumbersome. The majority of us (just an observation) believe that it's not a bad idea, just that it would be minimally effective. BUT It is a step in the right direction. I feel that the other causes of plundering (besides the unregistered website visitor) account for a far greater portion of missing caches. Maybe there's someone in Rad Dad's area (which has quite a few caches) that enjoys taking them. Maybe someone has a personal axe to grind. In any case requiring registration is not a bad idea. Using the Member's Only function seems like a better alternative. (I currently "protect" some of my caches this way.) [This message was edited by OUTSID4EVR on May 29, 2002 at 12:56 PM.]

I initially felt strongly that coordinates should only be visible after an account is established. Now I'm not so sure that would matter. Here's my reasoning... It seems that the caches that get plundered are generally easy to get to, and easy to find once you are at the site. The people that plunder the cache found it because it is obvious and uncovered, not by taking their GPS and searching for it. There are way too many caches that are just thrown in a stump next to a popular trail. I feel we need to educate people to put some time into their cache by selecting a site that reduces the likelihood of someone stumbling across it. A cache that requires a reasonable hike (foot access only) and is hidden from view is less likely to be plundered. I suppose there are some geocachers who may feel the need to ruin it for others by plundering or taking caches, but the vast majority of missing caches don't disappear because the person is using a GPS.