Jump to content

Are Micro's Really Caches?


Recommended Posts

I do them if they are where I am, but don't go far out of my way to find them. I would like to see them listed as a separate category.

 

You can become a premium member and use pocket queries to filter them out, or use a 3rd party software like Gsak to filter them, or use the "ignore" feature to, well, ignore them.

 

The problem is you are just eliminating all micros, both okay ones and lame ones. I'm still looking for the "lame filter".

 

Ed

 

Exactly!

Link to comment

I do them if they are where I am, but don't go far out of my way to find them. I would like to see them listed as a separate category.

 

They are a different catagory; size.

 

You can become a premium member and use pocket queries to filter them out, or use a 3rd party software like Gsak to filter them, or use the "ignore" feature to, well, ignore them.

 

The problem is you are just eliminating all micros, both okay ones and lame ones. I'm still looking for the "lame filter".

 

Ed

 

I consider "Size" to be a description and "Micro" to be a category like "Traditional" and "Multi". I would like Micros to be a separate category and carry their own distinctive icon. I also agree that some sort of quality rating would be extremely useful, especially when planning road trips into unfamiliar areas.

Link to comment

I consider "Size" to be a description and "Micro" to be a category like "Traditional" and "Multi". I would like Micros to be a separate category and carry their own distinctive icon. I also agree that some sort of quality rating would be extremely useful, especially when planning road trips into unfamiliar areas.

I don't get it. 'Micro' is clearly a size descriptor. If you were to make it a category, what would you do with puzzle caches that used a micro container? How about multis that use micros for some stages and larger containers for others? A separate category for micros makes no sense, to me.

Link to comment

I consider "Size" to be a description and "Micro" to be a category like "Traditional" and "Multi". I would like Micros to be a separate category and carry their own distinctive icon. I also agree that some sort of quality rating would be extremely useful, especially when planning road trips into unfamiliar areas.

I don't get it. 'Micro' is clearly a size descriptor. If you were to make it a category, what would you do with puzzle caches that used a micro container? How about multis that use micros for some stages and larger containers for others? A separate category for micros makes no sense, to me.

 

you have a point

Link to comment

I consider "Size" to be a description and "Micro" to be a category like "Traditional" and "Multi". I would like Micros to be a separate category and carry their own distinctive icon. I also agree that some sort of quality rating would be extremely useful, especially when planning road trips into unfamiliar areas.

I don't get it. 'Micro' is clearly a size descriptor. If you were to make it a category, what would you do with puzzle caches that used a micro container? How about multis that use micros for some stages and larger containers for others? A separate category for micros makes no sense, to me.

 

But we already have puzzle and virtual multis don't we.... so why not micro multis or micro puzzles?... or for that matter a micro multi puzzle with a virtual final stage requiring a CITO? :blink:

Link to comment

Some of, if the the most challenging caches I have been to have been Micros, now don't get me wrong, I haven't found that many caches however Geocaching is for everyone with many different tastes, not just those who want to climb that mountain or hike that trail. I have gotten a few friends into GeoCaching because of Micros, they find one that is well concealed or has some imagination behind it and say; "Wow, that was neat". Walking around looking for Micros will eventually turn into hiking and climbing for them. Micros are a good stepping stone and a way to get those who would normally say; "I would go but I can't climb that rockface or crawl through that cave" to agree to come along and catch the fever!

Link to comment
May I ask how you're calculating that?

 

I ran a pocket query for the area through Fizzymagic's PQstats program.

 

By contrast here are the stats for Zipcode 07405 (Morris/Passaic/Sussex County NJ)

 

1 ( 0.2%) Large

69 (13.8%) Micro

12 ( 2.4%) Not chosen

10 ( 2.0%) Other

312 (62.4%) Regular

95 (19.0%) Small

1 ( 0.2%) Virtual

 

Wow! I'd love to see those stats for Los Angeles area. Zipcode 90034 perhaps? It'd be almost worth paying up just to do a PQ and get those stats... nah. I'm sure it's 80% micros here.

Link to comment

I also seem to remember seeing something to the effect of "only *you* can affect the quality of geocaching" on the reviewer notes of my published caches. Maybe more cachers should read threads in the forums, or at least follow the guidance in the reviewer notes? ;)

 

Maybe reviewers should start hating micros as much as they hate virtuals.

Reviewers can effect the quality of geocaching too. If they keep approving micros then there will be one every 528feet in a grid pattern, and no places left for any other caches.

 

Here in LA, you can practically discern the market share of kodak vs fuji just by walking down the nearest railroad track and kicking over a few rocks.

 

That has to be partly the reviewer's fault.

Link to comment

You can become a premium member and use pocket queries to filter them out...

 

ah ha! so approval of excessive micros is just a ploy by TPTB to coerce people into paying up for the ability to filter them! Why didn't I realize that before?

 

The problem is you are just eliminating all micros, both okay ones and lame ones.

 

It'd be well worth it.

Link to comment
Reviewers can effect the quality of geocaching too. If they keep approving micros then there will be one every 528feet in a grid pattern, and no places left for any other caches.

 

Reviewers aren't meant to be arbiters of cache quality. Sheesh, they get enough grief for enforcing the guidelines. Imagine if they started choosing which caches to list based on their prejudices. Also, I don't think its a good idea to have reviewers judge caches they've never even seen (unlike some other websites).

 

Wow! I'd love to see those stats for Los Angeles area. Zipcode 90034 perhaps? It'd be almost worth paying up just to do a PQ and get those stats... nah. I'm sure it's 80% micros here.

 

Its not as bad as you think (though there are a lot of 1/1s):

 

Containers:

1 ( 0.2%) Large

195 (39.0%) Micro

20 ( 4.0%) Not chosen

9 ( 1.8%) Other

113 (22.6%) Regular

128 (25.6%) Small

34 ( 6.8%) Virtual

 

Also...

 

Cache types:

1 ( 0.2%) Letterbox Hybrid

34 ( 6.8%) Multi-cache

409 (81.8%) Traditional Cache

19 ( 3.8%) Unknown Cache

36 ( 7.2%) Virtual Cache

1 ( 0.2%) Webcam Cache

 

Difficulty:

1.0: 150 (30.0%)

1.5: 138 (27.6%)

2.0: 129 (25.8%)

2.5: 39 ( 7.8%)

3.0: 24 ( 4.8%)

3.5: 10 ( 2.0%)

4.0: 9 ( 1.8%)

4.5: 1 ( 0.2%)

 

Terrain:

1.0: 262 (52.4%)

1.5: 70 (14.0%)

2.0: 41 ( 8.2%)

2.5: 31 ( 6.2%)

3.0: 62 (12.4%)

3.5: 23 ( 4.6%)

4.0: 6 ( 1.2%)

4.5: 4 ( 0.8%)

5.0: 1 ( 0.2%)

Link to comment

I don't really like micros, but not because they are not boxes of stuff...I really dislike trading stuff, although I can see how others would like it. To me, the thrill is in the chase. Once I find the cache, I am ready to walk away, except that I feel compelled to sign the log.

 

The reason that I don't like micros is not that they lack swag, but that they are usually not in locations that I would consider interesting.

 

The other day, though, I had a revelation. Micros are EXACTLY like the secret spy message drops that my friends and I used to play with in elementary school! I was head of a spy club (I got in trouble one time for crawling across the back of the classroom to deliver a message). We used Usborne publishing's spy books for kids as our manuals (titles included Tracking & Trailing, Disguise & Makeup, etc.). It was a blast.

 

Maybe I can get into micros after all.

Link to comment

In general I like the more traditional caches best and the ones that involve a bit of a hike and are in a nice location most of all. Took a bit of time for me to place my first Micro however a recently placed one GCTG4A according to the logs, phone calls and emails has proved to be a lot of fun. Another GCV99W is a traditional cache with a Micro twist that gets a lot of nice comments too. Location and creatitivy is what makes a good cache, yes it is a pity you don't really know how a cache will rank until you find it but that is one aspect of what makes the game interesting.

Link to comment

I consider "Size" to be a description and "Micro" to be a category like "Traditional" and "Multi". I would like Micros to be a separate category and carry their own distinctive icon. I also agree that some sort of quality rating would be extremely useful, especially when planning road trips into unfamiliar areas.

I don't get it. 'Micro' is clearly a size descriptor. If you were to make it a category, what would you do with puzzle caches that used a micro container? How about multis that use micros for some stages and larger containers for others? A separate category for micros makes no sense, to me.

 

Micro is not clearly a size descriptor in most cases I've seen. It's an entirely different kind of cache with the ease of placement tools because of size and weight. The most important difference is the minimal or nonexistent ability to trade swag. Clearly not a "traditional" cache by definition. Puzzle caches using micros is part of the description of a puzzle cache anyway. The whole idea of a puzzle is that you need to figure out what it might be without a preconception of size, type, etc. Multis using micros for some stages is again part of a normal setup for this seperate class. You brought up the real issue though. Micro includes Nano which doesn't even get it's own size category and the difference between Nano and Traditional is HUGE for many, many reasons! :lol:

Link to comment

Yes, micros are really caches... nano, 35mm, Altoids tin, etc. How they are hidden is the key (as has been stated).

However, plastic AOL CD cases, CD crystal cases, Liquid Ice containers (read: containers that are in no way weather-resistent) should be banned, canned and the Cachers who hide them need to be made to retrieve them and apply them to the Biz Bag (trash) immediately, as they should have been before they ever became geocaches (small "g" intentional). Somewhere along the line some of these less-creative cachers got the idea that it was the quantity, not the quality, of the caches they place that matters. I've seen a CD crystal case hidden under a wet rock with a logbook that was worthless by the time it was first located - the hider didn't even bother to ziplock the log. That kind of cache is just "trash", and even the hider treats it as such... they don't maintain them, instead forcing the reviewers to archive them when nothing is done to keep them up. The hider then just drives down a street and pitches a few more crappy 'micros' out their car window, driving just slow enough to write down approximate coordinates.

I've read in previous forum threads that anyone who hates this type of hide should be able to put them on an ignore list, but how is one to know what the quality or condition of a cache will be until they arrive to see it for themselves?

But maybe my opinion doesn't count... I was the first person within a 100-mile radius to put a 35mm film canister under a parking lot lightpost - years ago. Within six months a nearby community became inundated with them... But I am diligent about maintaining them. I can't count how many times I've replaced filled logbooks in them. Doesn't mean I won't go there to cache. In fact, it is a good lesson in 'what not to do'. And, it gives me something to gripe about... :lol:

Link to comment

In a city or built up area micros are probably the norm as hiding anything larger just aint going to work.But in countryside areas I'd be dissapointed if I didn't find a "box" of somekind.An ammo box in London is a rare item indeed.Although there is one in REGENTS PARK.

Edited by currykev
Link to comment

The first cache was a 5 gallon bucket with trade goodies as we all know. Now it seems like all I have to choose from are micros. They are easy to hide and you don't have to be creative to keep the muggles away. I don't mind the occasional "one for the numbers" but it seems that in central Florida it is rediculous with micros.

 

Most micros that I have seen lately you don't even need a GPSr to find, just look under that lightpole or in that tree or under that power box.

 

What drew me to caching was the hunt and being led to a new place that I haven't been to or some remote park.

 

Am I the only one who feels this way?

 

erikwillke

Not true at all. The first caches were mostly placed outside of populated areas. If you visit those same areas today, you'll still find regular sized caches.

 

Micros are usually the only option in urban areas since larger containers are easily spotted when there are lots of muggles around.

Link to comment

I also seem to remember seeing something to the effect of "only *you* can affect the quality of geocaching" on the reviewer notes of my published caches. Maybe more cachers should read threads in the forums, or at least follow the guidance in the reviewer notes? B)

 

Maybe reviewers should start hating micros as much as they hate virtuals.

Reviewers can effect the quality of geocaching too. If they keep approving micros then there will be one every 528feet in a grid pattern, and no places left for any other caches.

 

Here in LA, you can practically discern the market share of kodak vs fuji just by walking down the nearest railroad track and kicking over a few rocks.

 

That has to be partly the reviewer's fault.

 

The reviewers should not be responsible for determining cache quality. Just because you don't like micros doesn't mean that no one else likes them. Particularly in urban area, micros often provide the best way to hide a cache that doesn't get muggled. I don't like strawberry ice cream. The (ice cream) reviewers ought not approve strawberry ice cream - only vanilla and chocolate make good flavors :lol:

 

There is not a micro every .1 miles along the railroad tracks in Los Angeles. The reviewers here do their job and don't approve caches along active railroad tracks (well, I'll admit to finding a few - but none were 35 mm film cans, so I'd like to know where Headybrew is looking). If he wants to find an ammo can he can go hiking in the Santa Monica mountains and find one of my caches there. (I've also hidden a micro so he'll need to check the cache page first).

Link to comment
Not true at all. The first caches were mostly placed outside of populated areas. If you visit those same areas today, you'll still find regular sized caches.

 

Micros are usually the only option in urban areas since larger containers are easily spotted when there are lots of muggles around.

 

That was the case at one time. Now I'm seeing more and more micros in the woods.

Link to comment
What drew me to caching was the hunt and being led to a new place that I haven't been to or some remote park.

 

Am I the only one who feels this way?

Many of us have grown weary of micros and where they have taken us. An early definition of a geocache was a container with a log book, pen or pencil, and trade items. As the containers got smaller the trade items were the first to go. Next the log book shrank to a log sheet on which there was room for only a name & date. Then it became BYOP. Finally, the container itself disappeared so that the "cache" was nothing more than a vinyl magnet "log" attached to most any flat surface. As the size reached the vanishing point, micros became little different from virtual caches; in fact, I have logged several by photographing or describing them--much like virtuals--because the micro-log sheet was unusable and there was no room to add a new one.

 

Today's geocache is often a far cry from the original concept. Geocaching icons have changed from the bucket and ammo can to the film canister and key holder. According to micro supporters it has to be that way because urban areas cannot support full-sized caches. That begs the question: does every pocket park, rest stop, monument, utility box, etc. need a cache? The answer seems to be a resounding "yes!"

 

Variety is desirable and micros have always had their place. The problem with micros is that they are so easy to hide they tend to take over an area quickly and drive out other caches, including quality micros. They spread like weeds, much in the way aggressive, non-native plants take over a habitat. In some cities nearly 70% of caches are now micros and they are nearly everywhere. Micro-cache series comprise dozens of similar caches with identical descriptions; finders sweep through and clone their on-line logs so that even the joy of reading other logs is gone. Quality caches that do get placed off the beaten path often go begging for customers or, worse, become casualties of the cache-n-dash circuit. Variety is gone.

 

Some geocachers are attracted to the large numbers, just as some people succumb to the appeal of fast food: quick, cheap, filling, always available, but little nutrition. The pity is that many of the micros could be larger containers, hidden thoughtfully in interesting places, but why work at hiding when finders line up for anything that's posted? And posted they are by the bunches, so long as they are 0.1-mile apart. Neighborhoods have become ready-made cache machines where all you need is a pen and a few hours to log 50 finds. Rampant cache inflation where 5-figure cachers are now on the leader board.

 

Geocaching became a different game when people started averaging double-figure caches per day, a bit like orienteering races without the elegance. I knew the game had changed course when I needed to put on my reading glasses to find a cache and I found myself asking, "Why is there a cache here?" Those of us who seek quality over quantity are faced with the daunting task of researching hundreds of caches in hopes of finding a few good ones. Sometimes it's even a challenge to find a cache that can take a travel bug. Pocket queries, bookmark lists and other tools help but are time consuming and a major obstacle to the casual cacher. The cache page clutter is starting to look like a tax return.

 

Fortunately, there are many other navigation and treasure seeking games besides geocaching. Increasingly, I look to those for a rewarding hunt.

Edited by bigeddy
Link to comment

As you can see from my joined date, I'm more of a newbie so I don't have as much reference when it comes to 'roots'. With that said, I've never been one to get excited over a happy meal toy and I am way too ADD to actually sit and read through an entire logbook, so I've never really had a problem with micros. Sure, I'm not thrilled when I arrive at yet another lamp post and I hate looking through trashy areas-- but I've found lame regular sized caches in trashy allies and challenging micros in pristine nature. So, for me, it's all about the hunt and the location. I'll most likely enjoy a 4/4 micro (which one of my favorite caches was) far more than a 1/1 large since my favorite hides are high terrain and tricky to find. I'd suggest that, at least in my area, if you are disregarding any cache that says it's a micro you are probably missing out on some pretty wonderful caches-- unless, of course, you're in it for the happy meal toys <_< !

 

Like treasure_hunter said, a cache is a cache. Give me a clever hide in an interesting spot and I'll be happy to hunt for it, regardless of the size or contents!

 

P.S. - Did you know that there is a micro hidden inside the Hollywood Bowl that often contains tickets to upcoming concerts? <_<

Edited by Cache Heads
Link to comment

I do them if they are where I am, but don't go far out of my way to find them. I would like to see them listed as a separate category.

 

They are a different catagory; size.

 

You can become a premium member and use pocket queries to filter them out, or use a 3rd party software like Gsak to filter them, or use the "ignore" feature to, well, ignore them.

 

The problem is you are just eliminating all micros, both okay ones and lame ones. I'm still looking for the "lame filter".

 

Ed

 

I consider "Size" to be a description and "Micro" to be a category like "Traditional" and "Multi". I would like Micros to be a separate category and carry their own distinctive icon. I also agree that some sort of quality rating would be extremely useful, especially when planning road trips into unfamiliar areas.

 

I agree with edscott completely! Micros, almost by definition, are incapable of holding any trade items and are therefor like virtuals or locationless in that their only purpose is the hunt. Here in the Raleigh, NC area, micros are a plague that, coupled with the propensity for listing caches as being much easier than they really are, makes me hate them with a passion. Were they listed as a category along with a special icon, it should be easy to "ignore" them all. I also agree with the person who said that listing the cache size should be required.

Link to comment

You want to talk about a boring day of caching. I did 17 today and almost all of them were micros and several were only a few feet from where you park. A few of them I could of almost reached out of the window to get them :lol: At least I have that area cleaned out now. None of them that I did today even had much of a walk to them. The longest walk took maybe 5 minutes.

Link to comment

I don't know if I agree with the premise of this thread. There has been a movement of late to eliminate creative extensions of caching by those who want a more "purist" form of caching I suppose. I liked the idea that caching was growing and evolving and definitely don't care for the present paradigm of "it has to have a log to sign" and the natural extensions of that thinking.

 

Sure, I don't like it that there are way too many micros in some areas but eliminating them all together is going too far. It really goes back to creating a cache and using a container that works elegantly in its' environment and is in some sense proportional.

 

Hate to say it but here is where a cache rating system to be of great benefit. It would allow participants to vote out lame caches on a case by case basis opening the territory up to hopefully better ones.

Link to comment

Micros are fun for some people.

 

I am handicapped. Over the last 2 years, my ability to walk, never good to begin with, is limited to less than 500 feet. Those "detestable" micros only a few feet from the car are heaven to me. It means I can play this game too.

 

If you dont like them, dont do them. Like others, Ive seen good and bad micros. Ive seen good and bad regular sized too. Instead of focusing on size, and getting rid of the micros, all cachers should focus on quality. Micros can have just as much quality to them as a regular sized cache. A regular sized cache can be just as bad a hide as the lamest micro.

 

If you have to sign a logbook, its a traditional cache. You can be creative in finding trinkets to leave. Ive left sig items and TBs outside of the cache for some micros, within the hiding place of the micro. They have never been lost. You can find small trinkets to leave. Unusual or foreign coins, small sig items etc work.

Edited by Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking
Link to comment

A well hidden micro holds a lot more appeal than a regular full of junk hidden under a pile of rocks. Often the best places to go, that take you places you wouldn't normally go, can only hold a micro. Above Circular Quay overlooking Sydney Harbour, on the Sydney Harbour Bridge, a lookout over the Blue Mountains etc.

Link to comment
Micros, almost by definition, are incapable of holding any trade items and are therefor like

 

Odd, every micro but one that I've placed had trade items.

 

If you dont like them, dont do them.

 

Ding! I should become a professional clairvoyant. Madame BrianSnat. Nah, that wouldn't work.

 

Sure, I don't like it that there are way too many micros in some areas but eliminating them all together is going too far.

 

Eliminating them is not even part of the debate. Why add to the noise by introducing an argument about something that isn't remotely on the horizon?

Link to comment

I've only found 2 micros so far. One took me to a park I drove by a thousand times but never bothered to stop and enjoy the river view. The other was a parking lot hide which I thought was extremely clever.

 

I file the whole thing under different strokes for different folks. And of course there's those (I pretty much include myself in this group, so far at least) who like a little of every sort of cache.

 

But I guess this is the never ending debate.

Link to comment
If you dont like them, dont do them.

 

Ding! I should become a professional clairvoyant. Madame BrianSnat. Nah, that wouldn't work.

 

Lol, Ive never understood why people complain bitterly about micros, then say they do all of the micros in their neighborhood. That is not logical to me. They must do them, yet complain about it. If we dont care for a style of cache, or a cachers style of hiding caches, we just quietly ignore them. We dont feel compelled to do them and complain about it.

Link to comment

 

Sure, I don't like it that there are way too many micros in some areas but eliminating them all together is going too far.

 

Eliminating them is not even part of the debate. Why add to the noise by introducing an argument about something that isn't remotely on the horizon?

 

Pardon me but I thought that was the OP's original argument. The OP's thread title was "Are Micro's Really Caches?" If one agrees with this ascertion then it would follow that if micros aren't really caches what are they doing here? Again I disagree with the purist's extensions that seems to come into to play here. We saw recently a great number of caches being archived because of the "no log book to sign" argument. Are we now going assume that if a cache cannot hold trinkets (as of course micros can to limited extent) they are not caches?

Edited by Bill & Tammy
Link to comment

 

Sure, I don't like it that there are way too many micros in some areas but eliminating them all together is going too far.

 

Eliminating them is not even part of the debate. Why add to the noise by introducing an argument about something that isn't remotely on the horizon?

 

Pardon me but I thought that was the OP's original argument. The OP's thread title was "Are Micro's Really Caches?" If one agrees with this ascertation then it would follow that if micros aren't really caches what are they doing here? Again I disagree with the purist's extensions that seems to come into to play here. We saw recently a great number of caches being archived because of the "no log book to sign" argument. Are we now going assume that if a cache cannot hold trinkets (as of course micros can to limited extent) they are not caches?

If I remember correctly those caches were not archived but temporarily disabled until a log book could be added.

Link to comment

 

Sure, I don't like it that there are way too many micros in some areas but eliminating them all together is going too far.

 

Eliminating them is not even part of the debate. Why add to the noise by introducing an argument about something that isn't remotely on the horizon?

 

Pardon me but I thought that was the OP's original argument. The OP's thread title was "Are Micro's Really Caches?" If one agrees with this ascertation then it would follow that if micros aren't really caches what are they doing here? Again I disagree with the purist's extensions that seems to come into to play here. We saw recently a great number of caches being archived because of the "no log book to sign" argument. Are we now going assume that if a cache cannot hold trinkets (as of course micros can to limited extent) they are not caches?

If I remember correctly those caches were not archived but temporarily disabled until a log book could be added.

 

Sorry should have been more clear, I was addressing locationless caches (and the creation of new virtuals) in that statement, not caches where a log was missing.

Link to comment

I guess we've been lucky so far, albeit only 3 "finds" so far, but the caches in our area seem to be good hides, good locations, and yes, one took us almost 30 minutes scouring the creek beds only to find that the true location was 0.100 off on a coordinate. I started to get upset about that, but then realized that I had had so much fun looking with my wife (bugmama42) that it wasn't worth getting upset about!

I can see where micros might be a pain if the creator didn't use a little thought, and that's why we haven't run out and created one yet. We've got a great location (NNE corner of Denver, LOTS of open spaces and woodlands), yet I don't want to just "create another cache" just to say I've done one.

heheh One actually led us up the WRONG side of a 10' creek, and we had to double back and re-try after a half mile hike... But that in itself was worth it, cause we got to see a HUGE owl take flight on the wrong side of the creek, not 30 feet from us.

If it's numbers you're after, maybe this isn't the pastime for you. If it's getting out and sharing something new and unique in this world of instant gratification and cheap thrills, then keep on keepin' on!

Just my $.15 (adjustment for inflation since the first years I heard that term)...

We do a fair amount of travelling, and I'm planning on getting my wife a GPS before her birthday just so she has one of her own. I hope the fun of this never ends!!

Link to comment

 

Sure, I don't like it that there are way too many micros in some areas but eliminating them all together is going too far.

 

Eliminating them is not even part of the debate. Why add to the noise by introducing an argument about something that isn't remotely on the horizon?

 

Pardon me but I thought that was the OP's original argument. The OP's thread title was "Are Micro's Really Caches?" If one agrees with this ascertation then it would follow that if micros aren't really caches what are they doing here? Again I disagree with the purist's extensions that seems to come into to play here. We saw recently a great number of caches being archived because of the "no log book to sign" argument. Are we now going assume that if a cache cannot hold trinkets (as of course micros can to limited extent) they are not caches?

If I remember correctly those caches were not archived but temporarily disabled until a log book could be added.

 

Sorry should have been more clear, I was addressing locationless caches (and the creation of new virtuals) in that statement, not caches where a log was missing.

 

Let's be clear about the usage of the English language here regardig the word "cache", as well as about the more unique usage of the term among members of the geocaching linguistic community. A cache is a secret or hidden container which contains items. A thing is not a cache unless there is a container with something (logbook, etc.) in it. Thus, to me, and to most users of the English language, and to most members of the geocaching community, a virtual is and was never a "cache" but rather a location or a waypoint or a "special spot". I personally am very glad that most of those latter critters (virtuals, locationless) got moved to another site with a far more appropriate name and focus.

Link to comment

What drew me to caching was the hunt and being led to a new place that I haven't been to or some remote park.

 

It's nice to find some bigger caches, I agree.

But if we want regular size or bigger caches perhaps you and I should contribute more to caching community by placing those and so showing example to others???

Link to comment

... If it's numbers you're after, maybe this isn't the pastime for you. If it's getting out and sharing something new and unique in this world of instant gratification and cheap thrills, then keep on keepin' on! ...

You have three finds and you're already pulling out the 'my way or the highway' argument? :laughing:

 

Can't micros take a person to 'something new and unique'? I know that when I travel to new cities, I like to do a little tour of micros and virts to show me around. Its great fun and I get to experience the city in ways that I never would normally.

Link to comment

"Let's be clear about the usage of the English language here regardig the word "cache", as well as about the more unique usage of the term among members of the geocaching linguistic community. A cache is a secret or hidden container which contains items. A thing is not a cache unless there is a container with something (logbook, etc.) in it. Thus, to me, and to most users of the English language, and to most members of the geocaching community, a virtual is and was never a "cache" but rather a location or a waypoint or a "special spot". I personally am very glad that most of those latter critters (virtuals, locationless) got moved to another site with a far more appropriate name and focus."-Vinny and Sue Team

 

While it is true for pure linguistics sake that virtuals and lc's aren't by strict definition "caches" they are/were a popular extension of geocaching and opened the hobby up a bit more to those who are physically unable to make lengthy treks back into the woods. But I am not going to rehash that argument here, what's done is done I suppose. The main thing is I didn't want us to limit caching anymore by this "purist" attitude of the defintion of what really makes a cache.

 

In my area most of the parks and outdoor recreation areas that allow caches are getting to a saturation point. Also, most of the cachers here just aren't placing new caches. So, to stay involved in caching I am forced to travel outside my area, gas is expensive so that is limiting as well. Maybe instead of coming up with arguments on why we need to uselessly eliminate caches we need to think more on how we can make caching more inclusive and also place consideration on being good stewards are responsible users of our fuel rescources.

 

I, for one am thinking timed caches would help and I can go into those arguments if you wish. I think I can come up for some pretty darned good reasons why in this vein of thought.

Edited by Bill & Tammy
Link to comment

The first cache was a 5 gallon bucket with trade goodies as we all know. Now it seems like all I have to choose from are micros. <snip>

What a load of carp

 

Try caching out of the city for once. The further you go, the fewer micros you will find.

 

I ran a pocket query centered on one of my "somewhat remote" caches (about 50 miles outside of Albuquerque). The percentage of micros compared to all other sizes has actually decreased for 4 straight years!

 

Run a pocket query to exclude micros. If you aren't finding the size caches you want it's no one's fault but your own.

Link to comment

The first cache was a 5 gallon bucket with trade goodies as we all know. Now it seems like all I have to choose from are micros. <snip>

What a load of carp...

 

Interesting that you mention carp. I was visiting a friend the other day, and she has one very ancient and large Koi in the pond in the forest behind her house. Koi, of course, are a kind of carp. But, what do carp have to do with geocaches?

Link to comment

... Can't micros take a person to 'something new and unique'? I know that when I travel to new cities, I like to do a little tour of micros and virts to show me around. Its great fun and I get to experience the city in ways that I never would normally.

Of course :ph34r: The good :lol: The bad :laughing: : The Ugly :lol:

Your argument appears to be that there is nothing worth seeing in an urban environment. How sad for you.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...