WrongWayRandall

I agree 100% This is my point exactly. Some people WANT to find the easy caches because they find the others too dificult. Not all of us have the experience you have and until we get it, we will not have any idea how to find these more complexly hidden caches. Once we get some experience actualy finding caches, then we will want to find more difficult challenges and start looking up more and more difficult hides. The problem at hand is that people who have no empathy for new players create frustration by making up their own rating system instead of using the standard system that the game creator likely put a bit of effort into designing. If no one is going to use the standard system for rating, then why have it in the first place? If you don't like 1s, then don't hunt them, but at least allow those of us who are starting to have something to get a taste of the game with. All I am asking is for a little common courtesy from the experienced players toward those of us who are new by sticking with the standards already in place. By using the rating system, everyone, new and experienced, will be able to find the caches that are at or near the level of difficulty they can handle. If you don't care to help the new players out, that's fine; that is every players perogitive, but at least do not intentionaly hinder us from having fun too... - Randy

First, thanks to all for the replies. Second, sorry if my earlier post sounded a little harsh. It was meant as a legitimate concern by a new player who feels frustration from some apparent inconsistencies in the game. I did misunderstand the cache types apparently. I had seen the term 'micro' and 'traditional' used in many cache descriptions and assumed that they were two separate types. Thanks for the link. I have a better handle on it now. I will use the pocket wizard to filter out the micros until I get a better handle on them. As to ratings, for a new player (me), a cache that could take multiple visits of 30 minutes or more seems like it would qualify as a 4 or 5 for difficulty rather than a 1 or even 2. I can see terrain being a 1, but not difficulty. I suppose that I will have to read the logs to get a feel for 'my' rating and go from there. Based on the comments of others, it appears that there can be some user variance in the ratings, so thanks to all on that as well. I should be able to get a handle on that aspect. As far as time goes, I don't expect to find every cache in under 5 minutes; that time was based on the amount of time it took me to find many of the 1/* non-multi caches that I have found to date. The time quote was just to show that a micro cache rated 1/2, with no clues, stuck in one specific tree in a forest with heavy canopy cover (signal strength never changes in there) would, at least to someone who is trying to learn something new, not seem intuitive. It would seem more like a 3 or 4 to me at any rate. Perhaps a 2 if there is a decent clue, but it better be a good one. Just so that everyone knows where I am coming from, my experience to date is that most 1/* caches are ammo boxes or other large containers, in a forest/park somewhere with, say, up to a 30 minute hike, hidden under brush or leaves, and able to be be found with simple searching (moving branches or searching a 5-10 foot radius after triangulation). Sometimes a second or third pass is needed, but the total time is often short. I will endeavor to persevere with the online help of others. I don't have the luxury of coordinating with others at this time as I often only have an hour or two to play at any given time and I never know when it will come. That's why I prefer to search for caches that are rated 1, or occasionally 2, on difficulty. Fortunately for me, there is at least one very kind player who has been able to help me via email with some of the more complicated '1/1' caches in my area so perhaps I can take advantage of their generosity again in the future. The only concern I still have is that people who have been playing for some time may have lost the ability to see how a new player would see their cache, or perhaps not have concern for how new players would see it. Either way, some people appear to rate their cache based one their own experience rather than on a fixed scale, which causes frustration to those trying to learn. Again, thanks to all for the help in understanding. - Randy

I am new to the game, but have encountered a lot of frustration recently and am on the verge of putting the GPS back in the canoe. In the last two days, I have repeatedly encountered caches that show up in my search for plain old traditional caches that are micro, on private property but described as being in a 'park', or listed as '1/1' caches but are so well hidden only an experienced player can find them. I understand that there is a large learning curve and that I should not get frustrated but it would be a lot easier for new players if the cache creators would think like a new player when the pick the difficulty level of their cache. Now that I know it is essential to read every recent entry and print off the sheet for every cache before searching I suspect that I can avoid the mis-labeled micro caches, I think things might improve a bit, but my record for the last two days is 3/26, with one being a virtual. Many of these were micros masquerading as traditional sized caches (my fault for not checking), a few appear to really be missing in action (no ones fault), but even though some the cache owners were kind enough to give more detailed hints to the cache, I still couldn't find them; others I spent 30 minutes meticulously searching back and forth in a 20-30 foot grid around the area only to find nothing. My requests are this: 1) Please, give some clue if you think someone who has just started out will have any need of a hint at all. Those who don't need them have the option not to use them, but those us that may need them don't have that option if there is no hint. Not all of us have found hundreds of caches but would still like to have some fun and stick around long enough to develop those skills and become part of the community. 2) Please, list the container type if your cache is not a traditional large container so that if someone does a pocket query for one type of cache it shows up as that type of cache and not as a traditional cache. 3) Please, try to think like someone who is new when you rate your cache difficulty. If you are hiding your cache 1/4 mile through the woods in a tree covered area with poor reception, please bump the difficulty accordingly so that those of us who have not perfected search skills can have some hope of spending the little free time we have searching for caches we will have some hope of finding. 4) Please, leave some idea if stealth is going to be required to get to the cache without arousing suspicion. I tried to find 7 caches today that were not easily approachable in the daylight without looking suspicious. 3 of these were on land that was clearly not public access. I understand that caches need to be hidden well from non-geocachers, but I have found a number of 1/1 or 2/2 caches without difficulty that were well hidden but not to such an extent that more than 1-2 minutes of searching was needed to find them so I know that it can be done. I really enjoy searching for geocaches and I would love to contribute to the community, but it is very frustrating to worry about getting questioned for trespassing or to spend 30 minutes getting to a site and another 30 minutes searching only to find when I return home that it was really a micro and not a large container as listed on the pocket query. OK, the rant is over. For those of you have have endured the entire thing, I appreciate all the hard work everyone has done to make these caches; I just am very frustrated because so many caches in my area seem to be much harder to find than they should have been. Thanks - Randy

I enjoy letterboxing, although there are not many boxes in my area, but I have noticed that many letterboxing people do not like Geocachers at all. I have seen many more hostile attitudes than friendly attitudes when geocaching comes up in the lists. Although I would like to see more boxes in my area, I don't think that combining them would be a good idea. However I do like the unique markers like geocoins and geocards that some people make (sorta similar to letterboxing(?)). I have something like this now and will be making more soon... Randy

Remember, the main goal of the Parks service staff is to protect their park from damaged caused by uneducated visitors. If we don't show them that we are educated visitors and the our intent is to leave the park in better shape than when we came in, they will assume that we are like the rest of the hordes that visit, trash, and leave thier park. The best course of action IMHO is to place caches near to the trail in more remote areas of the park. Then the caches will have less chance of being discovered by non-cachers and will be better received by the park staff. It doesn't hurt to emphasis cache-in-trash-out policy when speaking with park staff either! Just my 2 cents... Randy

I usualy only get to Geocache on Friday and Saturday so it occured to me that I did not know how long would be too long to hold a TB. If I know that I am going to a more distant cache, is one week too long to hold a TB? Personaly, I would not really consider holding for a second week but would rather either return the TB to its previous cache or drop it off as far down the road as I could. Comments? WrongWayRandall

I just started caching this week and after checking out some of the forum and cache pages, I thought that some of the more interesting things to find would be items made by some other cacher, like the small coins some people made. Anything like a token or wooden nickel type item with the geocachers mark or symbol printed or imprinted would be fairly cool IMHO. Even some small item with a sticker like a poker chip would be cheap and have some value of the non-monetary kind. Any comments? WrongWayRandall