Great Cache Site, But No Parking

May 23, 2006

I have a great site in mind for a new cache. The location is part of a popular park in our area, but on the opposite side of a river/dam from the more popular/accessible park entrance & parking areas. There is absolutely no parking in the vicinity of the actual trailhead/accessway; the surrounding neighborhoods are clearly posted as no parking / tow zones.

One could walk from the park's normal parking area around the water obstacle via a bridge (3 mi round trip) just to arrive a few hundred yards from where they began (across the dam). I am concerned this prospect might just be more than most people bargained for in this popular park. The walk would be rather uninteresting, with much of it through local neighborhood streets.

There are other parking opportunities in another adjacent park (baseball, soccer fields, etc.), but this is still .7 mi from the trailhead, requiring the seekers to still walk somewhat conspicuously through the neighborhood to arrive at the trailhead.

Once the seekers arrive at the trailhead the terrain quickly becomes quite interesting and could be a bit of a challenge (steep slopes, rocks, water obstacles = fun) depending where the cache is finally located (but currently just barely inaccessible due to recent rains and surrounding flooding).

There are great views from above the dam, spillway and river from this side that I would love to share with others, especially those that have seen the opposite shore all these years and never knew they could access this side of the park (like me!)..

I scoped out the area last weekend on my mtn bike, so the distances were not an issue. But walking might just plain suck.

Would you place a cache at a location like this?

Thanks!

1.1k · May 23, 2006

I have a great site in mind for a new cache. The location is part of a popular park in our area, but on the opposite side of a river/dam from the more popular/accessible park entrance & parking areas. There is absolutely no parking in the vicinity of the actual trailhead/accessway; the surrounding neighborhoods are clearly posted as no parking / tow zones.

One could walk from the park's normal parking area around the water obstacle via a bridge (3 mi round trip) just to arrive a few hundred yards from where they began (across the dam). I am concerned this prospect might just be more than most people bargained for in this popular park. The walk would be rather uninteresting, with much of it through local neighborhood streets.

There are other parking opportunities in another adjacent park (baseball, soccer fields, etc.), but this is still .7 mi from the trailhead, requiring the seekers to still walk somewhat conspicuously through the neighborhood to arrive at the trailhead.

Once the seekers arrive at the trailhead the terrain quickly becomes quite interesting and could be a bit of a challenge (steep slopes, rocks, water obstacles = fun) depending where the cache is finally located (but currently just barely inaccessible due to recent rains and surrounding flooding).

There are great views from above the dam, spillway and river from this side that I would love to share with others, especially those that have seen the opposite shore all these years and never knew they could access this side of the park (like me!)..

I scoped out the area last weekend on my mtn bike, so the distances were not an issue. But walking might just plain suck.

Would you place a cache at a location like this?

Thanks!

Why would walking just plain suck? Back in the "golden years" of caching (pre mid '04, you know the rest of my Micro Spew rant), Geocaching was not as much a game of convenience and instant grat as it is now. You actually had to WORK to reach your cache targets, and oftentimes that meant (gasp!) a hike of 0.5 miles or (louder gasp!) even more.

Now all my usual sarcasm and ranting aside, here's a constructive tip: Post a couple of options for "known good" parking coordinates, and caveat that with a note along the lines of "cachers may choose to park closer if they're daring or creative; I can only endorse the parking coords I've posted" or some such language. And whether you choose to forewarn cachers that a possibly-extended walk is in their future, or if you just want to let them learn that on their own when they get there, or beforehand when they map out the coords, is up to you.

38.2k · May 23, 2006

I'd definitely place it. .7 mile from parking to trailhead isn't very far. I'd probably add parking coordinates though, to help people out.

May 23, 2006

I assume that you did not create this trail yourself, so it therefore must be a public hiking trail. Do people hike on it? If someone would walk around the lake to hike the trail, then I would think cachers would walk around the lake too. I know I would!

May 23, 2006

I'd probably hunt it, but I try to do most of my caching on foot or bicycle (for the simple reason that I HATE navigating by GPS while driving. Okay, I HATE driving too.) But I'd definitely put a note (maybe in big, bold letters) that there's no parking there. Use a no parking attribute too. What you want to try to avoid is having people park illegally to do a quick grab of the cache and upsetting the neighbors in the process.

May 23, 2006

Why would walking just plain suck? Back in the "golden years" of caching (pre mid '04, you know the rest of my Micro Spew rant), Geocaching was not as much a game of convenience and instant grat as it is now. You actually had to WORK to reach your cache targets, and oftentimes that meant (gasp!) a hike of 0.5 miles or (louder gasp!) even more.

I don't intend to make this a cache&dash. I personally prefer long walks when there is a bit of a challenge involved or nice scenery to enjoy. I would stay home if I wanted to walk around some boring old neighborhood.

I like your idea of posting known parking coordinates and leave the seeker to their own devices to find the access point, kind of like I did on last weekend on my bike. I never knew the accessway even existed.

Here is a shot of the area from this weekend. The area in mind is to the lower right of the flooding river. If you squint, you might see another popular cache to the left of the concrete gatehouse.

There is no crossing upstream for several miles. The footbridge is downstream from this spot. Unfortunately, the narrow riverside accessway (public land) downstream on the right side of this picture is NOT reasonably passible due to very steep terrain and very nasty overgrown vegitation. There are houses backed-up to this park atop the banking on this side just out of the frame of this picture. There is a nice island of public land where I want to place this cache on the right hand side of this picture.

Edited May 23, 2006 by markp99

24.7k · May 23, 2006

Figuring out how to get there is half of caching.

Place it. People may suprise you.

2.8k · May 23, 2006

Do it! Nothing wrong with a long walk. And based on the photo, I'd do it!

And like someone else already mentioned, include parking coords (for both the long and short routes), and perhaps points along the "long way around" so people know they are headed in the right direction. Or maybe even a link to a map of the location if one is available.

May 23, 2006

I would hunt it. But I like it when people give the way point to good parking. It sucks to worry whether or not you can park somewhere and with the gas prices, driving around sucks too.

I prefer a small hike, especially when I have my son.

9.1k · May 23, 2006

There's a risk posed by people who are lazy and ignore the "no parking" signs, then complain about the cache owner when they receive parking tickets or have other problems. When I identify a "shortcutting" risk, my solution is to hide a multicache. That way, I am sure that the finder will follow the path that I intended for them to discover. A .7 mile multi with three stages sounds just right here. Place stage one right near the legal parking, stage two in the middle, and stage three at the point you want to bring people to visit.

Also keep in mind the listing guideline section about 'off limits' locations, which includes dams. Your reviewer ought to be able to distinguish between a hydroelectric power dam vs. a stormwater retaining dam, but help him or her with information about the setting. Place the cache well away from the dam structure itself. Ask whether someone coming across your cache might consider it to be an explosive device if placed at that spot.

3k · May 23, 2006

I know exactly the spot you are talking about. I've thought about putting a cache there for some time now. It is truly a great spot for a cache for all the reasons you mentioned.

The reason I eventually decided against it was my concern that regardless of what was put on the cache page, some people would ignore the parking signs and take the short way in. Those parking restrictions were put in place to protect the neighborhood from those seeking access to the nearby school. If I remember correctly, the people in the neighborhood were pretty adamant about getting the signs in place, and are very tuned in to illegal parking.

Since street parking is so closely watched by the neighbors, all it would take is a few people parking illegally to potentially bring some pretty bad press to geocaching in that area, which presumably could threaten all the caches on the other side. That's a bigger responsibility than I personally wanted to take on.

The good news is that the parking restrictions are only for weekday mornings, so the risk is minimized somewhat. There's also an opportunity to create a multi which starts in the park on the same side of the river, and using common objects in the neighborhood (like telephone poles), you could "walk" someone right to the trailhead. This might help keep the cars away from the trailhead near the cache site.

I will say that if you put a cache in there, I'd definitely go for it - parking legally of course! Be aware that there is (or was), a homeless camp in the woods in that part of the park to the northeast of the falls. It can be completely avoided if you put the cache in the right place, but make sure you know where the camp is before you place the cache.

PM me or send me an email if you want to chat about this one - as you can see, I've given it lots of thought!

edit: missing a few words here and there

Edited May 23, 2006 by cache_test_dummies

3.9k · May 23, 2006

I have a great site in mind for a new cache. The location is part of a popular park in our area, but on the opposite side of a river/dam from the more popular/accessible park entrance & parking areas. There is absolutely no parking in the vicinity of the actual trailhead/accessway; the surrounding neighborhoods are clearly posted as no parking / tow zones.

One could walk from the park's normal parking area around the water obstacle via a bridge (3 mi round trip) just to arrive a few hundred yards from where they began (across the dam). I am concerned this prospect might just be more than most people bargained for in this popular park. The walk would be rather uninteresting, with much of it through local neighborhood streets.

There are other parking opportunities in another adjacent park (baseball, soccer fields, etc.), but this is still .7 mi from the trailhead, requiring the seekers to still walk somewhat conspicuously through the neighborhood to arrive at the trailhead.

Once the seekers arrive at the trailhead the terrain quickly becomes quite interesting and could be a bit of a challenge (steep slopes, rocks, water obstacles = fun) depending where the cache is finally located (but currently just barely inaccessible due to recent rains and surrounding flooding).

There are great views from above the dam, spillway and river from this side that I would love to share with others, especially those that have seen the opposite shore all these years and never knew they could access this side of the park (like me!)..

I scoped out the area last weekend on my mtn bike, so the distances were not an issue. But walking might just plain suck.

Would you place a cache at a location like this?

Thanks!

Personally, I likely would do so, if the site was really nice, and particularly because it affords a nice long hike -- BUT, to be fair to the owners of the posted properties, and to be fair to any cache seekers, I would assign the cache an appropriate terrain rating, AND I would PROMINENTLY state on the cache, in large bold font, the fact that the obvious means of nearby access are all illegal, and that you strongly recommend against them, and that the ONLY legal means of access which you recommend is to park at xxx site or yyy site and then to hike in via trails.

AND, even more importantly, in light of all the airheads who have entered our sport who actually BRAG that they hunt caches without reading cache listing pages and without reading D/T ratings (some have come close to being shot for trespassing; others have endangered their lives by almost falling off cliffs...), I would consider it an absolute necessity to disclose only the parking area coordinates at the top of the listing page, and only the parking coordinates in the public-viewable Waypoints section, and to disclose the actual hide coordinates only in text format, buried in the body text on the cache listing page, just below the caveats about the posted and no parking zones. This forces folks to read your cache listing page prior to seeking the cache, and it guarantees that anyone who fails to read the cache listing page will, at least, not get into trouble for trespassing, and will end up, instead, sitting in a parking lot with a puzzled look on their faces.

I have used a similar technique to that recommended for some of our extreme caches, where failing to read the caveats on the cache listing page could get a seeker in lots of trouble. One of these caches was an island cache, where the only published coordinates are for a legal county parking area adjacent to the boat ramp; actual hide coordinates are buried in text in the cache listing page, below the warnings, and this is made obvious on the cache listing page. Thus, if a seeker fails to read the listing page, they will end up in a municipal parking lot adjacent to a boat ramp and a soccer field, and no harm done. A few days after this cache was first published, after the FTF, 2TF and 3TF finders had already come and gone, I happened to be passing the parking area at the river on the way to visit my friend Leslie (a non-cacher), and on the way to her house, I stopped off at the parking lot and boat ramp to take a look at the river height, as I was curious about water level due to some recent rains.

As I moseyed around the boat ramp and river's edge in a relaxed fashion, I became aware of a crew-cab pickup truck with out-of-state (PA) plates parked in the parking lot near the boat ramp, and of two older men who had just left the truck, carrying GPSrs, and walking around the perimeter of the parking lot with puzzled looks on their faces; one was also carrying a PDA of some kind. They kept checking readings on their GPSrs and the PDA screen, and their scowls grew deeper. Finally, at one point, to my horror, they even made a half-hearted attempt -- soon abandoned -- to open a heavy sewer manhole cover near the edge of the parking lot (with their bare hands and a cell phone antenna!), and I overheard one of them saying something along the lines of "Well, maybe its in this sewer. Only 90 feet off. That would be psycho. Can't be in the middle of the darn parking lot like my machine says . . ."

I briefly considered approaching them, introducing myself, and explaining that they would really need to read the cache listing page and its attributes, caveats and warnings, in order to ever find this cache, but then my heart and gut told me to leave well enough alone, that some people are best left alone to wallow happily in their wayward habits; it seemed the better part of kindness and wisdom, something along the lines of "Let sleeping dogs lie!". And so, after saying a silent prayer for their safety in their future cache hunting endeavors, I hopped in my car and went on my way to visit my friend. As I drove away, I noticed that they were now both on their hands and knees in the newly-mown grass of the soccer field adjacent to the parking lot, searching for God-knows-what, and constantly referencing the screens of their GPSrs with scowls on their faces. sigh!

I seriously thought of getting their names and nominating them for the Darwin Awards, and then I realized that this was a perfect example of EXACTLY why I had taken the precautions that I had with the cache listing page. You know, I have heard it said by many cachers (particularly Snoogans) that they have never encountered a cacher they would not want to meet, and I always largely agree with that sentiment, but, in this case, well... gee, let me put it this way:

While I am sure these two men may be fine parents, and fine at their careers, and fine at everything else that they do, I really feel that they are not cut out for seeking extreme geocaches (and maybe not cut out for geocaching at all), and, in that setting, it seemed the better part of both prudence and kindness to give them a very wide berth and let them wander the parking area, lost in their illusions. BTW, no one from PA ever filed a DNF at any time that week for that cache, so I have no idea whom these two stellar Darwin Award candidates were! I only hope they do not get themselves killed some day!

1.1k · May 23, 2006

There's a risk posed by people who are lazy and ignore the "no parking" signs, then complain about the cache owner when they receive parking tickets or have other problems. When I identify a "shortcutting" risk, my solution is to hide a multicache. That way, I am sure that the finder will follow the path that I intended for them to discover. A .7 mile multi with three stages sounds just right here. Place stage one right near the legal parking, stage two in the middle, and stage three at the point you want to bring people to visit.

Also keep in mind the listing guideline section about 'off limits' locations, which includes dams. Your reviewer ought to be able to distinguish between a hydroelectric power dam vs. a stormwater retaining dam, but help him or her with information about the setting. Place the cache well away from the dam structure itself. Ask whether someone coming across your cache might consider it to be an explosive device if placed at that spot.

I think your suggestions above are great and right on target. However, I would also comment that it's a fact in today's game of Geocaching (and this one was also true pre mid-'04) that a multi-cache will surely get less visits than a one-stager. I'd still place it per your suggestions if it were me, but it's something for the OP to think about.

9.1k · May 23, 2006

There's a risk posed by people who are lazy and ignore the "no parking" signs, then complain about the cache owner when they receive parking tickets or have other problems. When I identify a "shortcutting" risk, my solution is to hide a multicache. That way, I am sure that the finder will follow the path that I intended for them to discover. A .7 mile multi with three stages sounds just right here. Place stage one right near the legal parking, stage two in the middle, and stage three at the point you want to bring people to visit.

Also keep in mind the listing guideline section about 'off limits' locations, which includes dams. Your reviewer ought to be able to distinguish between a hydroelectric power dam vs. a stormwater retaining dam, but help him or her with information about the setting. Place the cache well away from the dam structure itself. Ask whether someone coming across your cache might consider it to be an explosive device if placed at that spot.

I think your suggestions above are great and right on target. However, I would also comment that it's a fact in today's game of Geocaching (and this one was also true pre mid-'04) that a multi-cache will surely get less visits than a one-stager. I'd still place it per your suggestions if it were me, but it's something for the OP to think about.

I'd rather get 10 great logs per year on a nicely designed multicache than to get 50 TNLN logs per year on one of my microcaches at popular tourist spots in my city. Even more so if the logs on the micro talk about parking illegally. But that's just me.

Edited May 23, 2006 by The Leprechauns

1.1k · May 23, 2006

There's a risk posed by people who are lazy and ignore the "no parking" signs, then complain about the cache owner when they receive parking tickets or have other problems. When I identify a "shortcutting" risk, my solution is to hide a multicache. That way, I am sure that the finder will follow the path that I intended for them to discover. A .7 mile multi with three stages sounds just right here. Place stage one right near the legal parking, stage two in the middle, and stage three at the point you want to bring people to visit.

Also keep in mind the listing guideline section about 'off limits' locations, which includes dams. Your reviewer ought to be able to distinguish between a hydroelectric power dam vs. a stormwater retaining dam, but help him or her with information about the setting. Place the cache well away from the dam structure itself. Ask whether someone coming across your cache might consider it to be an explosive device if placed at that spot.

I think your suggestions above are great and right on target. However, I would also comment that it's a fact in today's game of Geocaching (and this one was also true pre mid-'04) that a multi-cache will surely get less visits than a one-stager. I'd still place it per your suggestions if it were me, but it's something for the OP to think about.

I'd rather get 10 great logs per year on a nicely designed multicache than to get 50 TNLN logs per year on one of my microcaches at popular tourist spots in my city. Even more so if the logs on the micro talk about parking illegally. But that's just me.

Yep, that's just you. And me. And many others. But you also know that our game, esp with the advent of Micro Spew (you know the rest of my rant on this) has become a large percentage of Numbers Ho's who wouldn't go after a multi if their lives depended on it.

Their loss. This cache the OP has proposed is why many of us got into this game "back in the day".

May 23, 2006

Personally, if I was seeking this cache and got a little frustrated with the parking/hiking aspect of it, seeing the view would make up for it. Hide that cache!

2.6k · May 23, 2006

Personally, I think a cache like that sounds great. Yeah, there are times I'm like the quick and easy ones just to scratch that cache itch. Having first learned about Geocache in Alsaka, where anything up to a 1 your 2 mile hike in is a one star, and even some of the urban caches require a 1 mile round trip hike; I love the chase as much as catch. It makes a cache that much more rewarding when you have to plan the trip out, not just grad the cords and go. I understand that many caches and cachers are in area that don't lend themselves to the creative use of topography to give the hunt that little something extra. But hey, If you got it use it.

May 23, 2006

I have a cache that requires a parking fee with no free parking nearby; as long as you post the parking situation, I don't see what the big deal is. The exercise getting to the cache will be good for you!

May 23, 2006

Based on the picture, it would be a great cache spot! Most of the caches in my area involve hikes, so that wouldn't deter me and I like it when there are parking coords on the cache page.

I have discovered that many cachers ignore the parking coords if they can find a closer spot. We have a cache that the parking area is about a quarter mile away. We put the parking coords on the cache page and told people not to park along the road (it is a narrow, curvy, country road and can be very dangerous) or in front of the gate to the nearby resort. Yet people park there anyway. Some have discovered that closer doesn't mean easier though, because it is an almost vertical climb to the cache from that point. Carabiner Cache

May 23, 2006

Hide it, they will come.

May 23, 2006

If the cache is good enough the walk doesn't matter. I tackled a movie location cache located in the quarry where the "Killer Rabbit" scene from "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" was filmed. Access was down a single track country road with no parking for miles. It was a long walk but worth every yard.

May 23, 2006

Just a couple of thoughts:

Place the cache. Some people won't come to it because of the walk/parking etc. It's their loss. Those that will seek it will have a nice reward.

I enjoyed the comments and story by Vinny and Sue Team (long quote here); but I have some very respectful comments. I appreciate the efforts you put into the caches you described; but I am an adult. We cachers aren't perfect but most of us try. Sometimes we get tickets when we goof up. That's part of being an adult. If the cache is a long hike, the number of cachers seeking it will be rather small and so will the risk of someone parking illegally. It is the cache owner's responsilbity to carefully explain this, however. Again, I'm not flaming; I do respect your ideas and really like your concern for fellow cachers and the sport.

As stated, a multi would also help if the terrain supports it. But, why not a couple of other caches. I own a series of caches up a mountain side nearby and cached a different series this weekend where there originally was only one cache at the top. Now there are nine more on the way up to each. Some challenging, some less so; but all with terrific views and wildlife experiences. Because they are hiking caches, many bypass them; but some are going up the hills because there are ten and not one. Just a thought.

3.9k · May 23, 2006

Just a couple of thoughts:

Place the cache. Some people won't come to it because of the walk/parking etc. It's their loss. Those that will seek it will have a nice reward.

I enjoyed the comments and story by Vinny and Sue Team (long quote here); but I have some very respectful comments. I appreciate the efforts you put into the caches you described; but I am an adult. We cachers aren't perfect but most of us try. Sometimes we get tickets when we goof up. That's part of being an adult. If the cache is a long hike, the number of cachers seeking it will be rather small and so will the risk of someone parking illegally. It is the cache owner's responsilbity to carefully explain this, however. Again, I'm not flaming; I do respect your ideas and really like your concern for fellow cachers and the sport.

As stated, a multi would also help if the terrain supports it. But, why not a couple of other caches. I own a series of caches up a mountain side nearby and cached a different series this weekend where there originally was only one cache at the top. Now there are nine more on the way up to each. Some challenging, some less so; but all with terrific views and wildlife experiences. Because they are hiking caches, many bypass them; but some are going up the hills because there are ten and not one. Just a thought.

Thanks for your comments and feedback, and yes, I fully understood from first reading that you were not complaining nor flaming! Thank you for sharing your observations!

Oh, and I like the idea of the progressive multistge cache design, where the first stage is near legal parking, and where each stage draws the seeker closer along the trail to the cache! Thanks!

May 24, 2006

Thanks to all for the excellent comments.

I like the idea of a multistage to bring the cachers from valid parking to the trailhead and then thru the park to the final.

I've not placed a multi, nor have I found anything but basic/simple multi's so far. I think Ill ponder this option for a while and get a few more multi's under my belt so I can evaluate the good and the bad and make a multi that I would find interesting and rewarding

Cache test dummies, I will definitely call upon you for advice on this area. Glad to see you also saw its potential.

markp99

Great Cache Site, But No Parking

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Join the conversation