Jump to content

Way Way Way Too Many Caches


Recommended Posts

Hi all,

 

I've been geocaching for years now and love to do it when I'm driving around or traveling and find myself with time to kill. I've also introduced geocaching to many of my friends and family to their utter delight and have even been responsible for creating a few cache-a-holics (hello Bwana and little wanderer, yes I'm talking about you)

 

But more and more I get thwarted and frustrated with the vast number of caches out there and particularly the multi-caches, virtual caches, disabled caches and any other cache that requires you to actually log into the internet and look at the page before you can have a reasonable chance to find it.

 

Folks, these cool glitzy features are neat, but they really detract from the original fun of geocaching.

 

Let me explain how I typically start my geocaching adventure:

 

1) I make a quick plan to visit an area. Perhaps I'm travelling and find myself in a new city, Denver, KC, Baltimore...whatever. So I log into geocaching.com, do a zip code search and download 30 or so caches onto my GPS.

 

2) I jump into my car/truck and start hunting. As I near the area I look at my GPS and start going after the caches that are nearby or look like an interesting direction to go.

 

3) I start hunting for the cache

 

The problem is:

 

First of all, there are so darned many caches out there, that downloading 30 caches usually only covers a couple miles.

 

Second, most caches nowadays seem to be "me too" caches. Nothing speical about the location, place, view, al they are is a hiding spot.

 

Third and the most frustrating is the cache itself ends up being a virtual cache, puzzle cache, mystery cache, webcam cache or something that is basically impossible to find unless I've downloaded and printed out the web page, so I end up looking all over the place, hi low and can't find it.

 

Fourth, even if I am looking for a traditional cache, because of so many past failures to find caches (because of #3) I often now just give up if I can't find it right away only to go back and look at the web page and realize that the cache I was hunting for was just well hidden.

 

Folks, the new cool things we've added to geocaching are neat. I'm not saying to get rid of it, but I'd like to propose a way "return to the basics".

 

I think we should have a star rating for geocaches that we can use when you search for geocaches. This would allow us to search for "STAR" caches (change the name if you think of something more catchy) only and avoid all the others. In order for a cache to be a "STAR" cache:

 

1) No more than 1 "STAR" cache per mile or 2. A geocaching.com search for "STAR" caches should cover a decent amount of territory. This is most important near large cities that are overflowing with all kinds of caches. Most GPS units top out at a hundred or so waypoints. This should be plenty for me to download all the geocaches for (for example) the San Diego area, or Denver, or Baltimore or whatever area I'm at and have at LEAST 50x50 mile coverage of geocache waypoints to pick from so I know I'll have geocaches to hunt wherever I find myself. As it is, if I try and download 100 caches in San Diego or Denver, I'll spend an hour doing it and I'll still only cover a 10x10 mile area and have my GPS unit covered with dots. That's too darned many, not spread out enough and too many of them can't be found.

 

2) Traditional caches only and only the type that can be found without a printout of the web page. If the owner has gotten tricky with the location, or the log files show people are having a hard time finding the cache, then it loses it's star rating.

 

3) The cache must be a good point of interest (like the original requirements say). If the owner has just hidden a cache in (for example) the place he and his wife first met and it has no other real significance, then it does not get a star rating.

 

4) No long hikes through difficult terrain. If your cache is up Mount Kilamanjaro then forget it. Golden rule should be if a small child (or maybe I should say a small childs MOM wearing sandals and shorts) can't easily get to it then it doesn't get a star rating.

 

5) No disabled caches. If a cache is dead, then take it off the doggone list! When I do a search these days, I get at least 1 or 2 out of 10 caches that are disabled for one reason or another.

 

I'm not a killjoy. I realize a lot of people are having a lot of fun with the wide variety of special chaches we can do now. I don't want to take any of that away, but I would like to see a way to go back to the fun days when I could just download 20 caches in an area and spend the day bouncing from one to the next with my friends/family. It seems like this has become impossible because the whole cache database has gotten so polluted.

 

I can't be the only one who feels this way. Please...HELP...give me my geocaching fun back again..I beg you :laughing:

Link to comment

Do a quick search on 'paperless'. You'll be glad you did.

 

Basically, you will download the cache pages to a palm pda (any old used one on ebay will do).

 

Still doesn't solve the problem.

 

For example, I just did a quick search in my own zip code here in San Diego...92129.

 

(Traditional caches only)

 

As I jump to page 10, and look at caches 91 through 100, each cache is still within 5.2 miles of my house.

 

For crying out loud, even if I download 500 caches onto my PDA, GPS whatever, if my family and I find myself driving on the other side of town and want to do a quick cache, I'll turn on my GPS and have no caches to pick from because it's stuffed completely full of caches all centered around our home.

 

I think it's cool that I have so many caches to choose from right near my house, but come on, let's do a reality check. I've lived here for 20 years and trust me, there ARE NOT that many interesting places to go visit within 5 miles.

 

There's simply too many geocaches in the database and no way to weed out the losers (sorry, but there are a lot of loser caches plain and simple).

Link to comment

Do a quick search on 'paperless'. You'll be glad you did.

 

Basically, you will download the cache pages to a palm pda (any old used one on ebay will do).

The files are emailed to you in zip form.....you use GPS Spinner and Plucker to put them on your Palm and GPS Unit. You create the filr yourself and can set the parameters any way you like ...ex. only regular caches found in the last week, etc,etc.

 

If you send me a fax # I'll send you step by step instructions ( which have helped many of us)

Edited by BAMBOOZLE
Link to comment
But more and more I get thwarted and frustrated with the vast number of caches out there and particularly the multi-caches, virtual caches, disabled caches and any other cache that requires you to actually log into the internet and look at the page before you can have a reasonable chance to find it.

 

In the time it took you to write your original post, I could have downloaded 500 caches from the web site, loaded them into both my GPSr and PDA, hopped in the car and gone caching. Paperless is the way.

Link to comment

Paperless is great, but there is still another solution for those that don't have a PDA.

 

Rather than do a basic zipcode search, set up a Pockey Query.

 

You can then use the options you want.

 

Select the type of cache you want...don't let it download virtuals, puzzles, multi's, etc.

 

Select the difficulty levels...when I travel on business, I know I won't have time for long hikes, so I set the terrain level to only download less that, or equal to 2 stars. (Sometimes 2.5 stars.)

 

There is also a box you can check to only download caches that have been found withing the past 7 days.

 

By selecting the criteriea above, you will weed out caches you don't want, and it will also spread your caches out a bit since some of the nearby ones will be ignored.

Link to comment

The other option is to set up a pocket query. You can filter in/out all sorts of things.

 

Active/inactive

found in the last 7 days

size (micro, small, reg, etc)

type (trad, multi, puzzle, etc)

terrain level (greater, equal, or less than x.x)

difficulty level (greater, equal, or less than x.x)

 

There isn't a filter for the quality of a cache though. Maybe that is something groudspeak would be willing to add. You have to set it up so people finding the cache could give it a rating of 1-5 (1-it sucked, 5-great cache.)

 

Of course than means hiders would be at the mercy of other people's opinions and that might lead to some hurt feelings if a hider got several "your cache sucks" ratings. That might discourage them from future hides or it might lead them to put in more effort in the future.... :laughing:

Link to comment

Yep, you would definitely want to set up a pocket query and filter off the Inactive caches, as well as any types/difficulty/terrain that you're not interested in finding.

 

And yes, I understand what you're saying about being able to sort through the junk to find interesting places, but that's the game. What's interesting to someone else might not be interesting to you, since it's subjective.

Edited by ThePropers
Link to comment

At first I dismissed this thread as it really sounds like you are trolling for an argument. However, in case you are actually serious....

 

Just who is going to be qualified to pick the one cache every mile or two that qualifes? Just because you think it might be worthy of a star doesn't mean everyone else will. What happens when a better cache is placed within range of an existing star cache? Does the existing cache lose its star? How is that cache owner going to react? You think we have dissention in the community now? This is just a disaster waiting to happen.

 

the whole cache database has gotten so polluted.

 

What may be pollution to you is opportunity and variety to other people.

 

Seriously, check into becoming a premium member and seeing what you can do with Pocket Queries. Combine them with GSAK and you will be able to filter out all that pollution you don't like.

Link to comment
But more and more I get thwarted and frustrated with the vast number of caches out there and particularly the multi-caches, virtual caches, disabled caches and any other cache that requires you to actually log into the internet and look at the page before you can have a reasonable chance to find it.

 

In the time it took you to write your original post, I could have downloaded 500 caches from the web site, loaded them into both my GPSr and PDA, hopped in the car and gone caching. Paperless is the way.

 

I hear you all. And thanks for the tip! I am going to check it out.

 

I still say that 100 caches within 5.2 miles of each other is totally out of control. I'm glad it's gotten so popular, but this is ridiculous.

 

I'll get paperless, but I'm skeptical it's going to let me weed out all these loser caches unless I pick through them one at a time and I don't want to spend my free time on a pda looking for a needle in a haystack.

Link to comment

You need to download GSAK. It allows you to filter caches based on cache type, size, difficulty, distance form a center point, etc. Problem solved.

gsak.net

 

What 9Key said!

 

I've successfully used GSAK to filter caches for Phoenix, Tucson, Tulsa, Maui, and parts of New York and New Jersey. For the latter, a zip code search turned up 6000 caches within 100 miles and 1000+ caches within 30 miles. I parsed through several of the puzzle and multi caches and selected a few that I wanted to visit. Then I set up a pocket query based on the attributes of caches I wanted to visit within so many miles of my in-laws that featured views and hikes. I loaded that pocket query into GSAK and filtered most micro caches because my daughters like to trade swag. Within thirty minutes, I had a set of 200 caches to load into my Magellan Sportrak complete with difficulty, terrain, and container size in the comment field, fifty of which we got to visit during a ten day stay in the area.

 

Our next step will be to add a PDA to our electronic collection, so we can actually have the cache pages with us (also downloaded from GSAK). We end up taking paperless caching to the extreme by not having any information with us other than what we can stuff into the GPS comment field.

Link to comment

 

Still doesn't solve the problem.

 

For example, I just did a quick search in my own zip code here in San Diego...92129.

 

(Traditional caches only)

 

As I jump to page 10, and look at caches 91 through 100, each cache is still within 5.2 miles of my house.

 

For crying out loud, even if I download 500 caches onto my PDA, GPS whatever, if my family and I find myself driving on the other side of town and want to do a quick cache, I'll turn on my GPS and have no caches to pick from because it's stuffed completely full of caches all centered around our home.

 

 

So, you'd rather look for just the caches closest to your destination? You'd want GSAK.

Or maybe you'd rather figure out caches along the route to your destination? Then use GSAK.

Ok, but you only want traditional regular sized caches that you haven't found yet but were found within the last 3 days and were placed by your favorite hider, JohnnyCacher, who hid them less than 13 miles east from your home? And you want to send them to your GPSr? Yes, GSAK. :laughing:

Link to comment

 

Seriously, check into becoming a premium member and seeing what you can do with Pocket Queries. Combine them with GSAK and you will be able to filter out all that pollution you don't like.

 

Good call, I didn't notice that myself.

 

Flipper, go to the regional forums in the West/Southwest threads. There is a very active San Diego based community that is more than willing to help you figure this out. We are all very nice, but be careful with the pollution comments. Even nice people get their feelings hurt.

Link to comment

Definitely - use Pocket Queries to limit your criteria for caches for which you want to search. No longer are you tied to searching through screen after screen of caches to figure out if it's a high terrain or a multi-stage. Just set your criteria and judge based on that.

 

Remember - Pocket Queries are NOT just for PDAs and paperless. They are advanced criteria-based searches.

 

However, there is another aspect. What if you're either just getting started, or just passing through. There's still a WHOLE LOT of caches around to try to find the best ones to start with.

 

This is precisely why something like this would be helpful. If there were some way to separate those phenomenal caches (whatever cachers use as their own criteria) and flag them, people would be able to search quickly in an area to figure out what they want to try (either first, or limit it to those if you're just passing through).

=================

Consider This:

Let's use a hypothetical cacher - WandaCache, a fictitious cacher that is going to Los Angeles, California for a conference. Wanda's pretty adept at using her GPS and PQs, GSAK and all of the features of the site. She's going to be visiting for a week, with 2 days prior to the conference and 2 days post conference (airfare is cheaper that way). She's got a rental car with unlimited mileage, and she's in reasonably good health.

 

If she does just a Pocket Query for ALL active caches centered around N 34.05281° W 118.24371°, she'd reach the 500 max in 11 miles. But she's going to be visiting the are and can actually drive for 40 miles if it's worth the hunt. She wants these caches to be memorable.

 

So she decides to limit her criteria to what she likes (for the sake of argument), which is Large or Regular sized caches (she's got some travel bugs to move), less than 2.5 terrain and difficulty (she wants to find a good number and not spend all day on one hike), and single stages (Traditional, Letterbox and APE). Given THAT criteria, she would max out at 500 caches from that center point at 29 miles. That's better - it's more of her range of where she can go.

 

But she can't find 500 caches. Now that the criteria is limited, to what you want, how do you find the BEST ones? Reading the logs of 500 caches?

=================

 

If there were a way to tell which caches were chosen as ones that people REALLY liked, then there could also be an automatic attribute, fully searchable through PQs. I'm not saying don't hit the others, but wouldn't it be nice to "recommend" the best in some organized fashion?

Edited by Markwell
Link to comment

At first I dismissed this thread as it really sounds like you are trolling for an argument. However, in case you are actually serious....

 

Just who is going to be qualified to pick the one cache every mile or two that qualifes? Just because you think it might be worthy of a star doesn't mean everyone else will. What happens when a better cache is placed within range of an existing star cache? Does the existing cache lose its star? How is that cache owner going to react? You think we have dissention in the community now? This is just a disaster waiting to happen.

 

the whole cache database has gotten so polluted.

 

What may be pollution to you is opportunity and variety to other people.

 

Seriously, check into becoming a premium member and seeing what you can do with Pocket Queries. Combine them with GSAK and you will be able to filter out all that pollution you don't like.

 

No, I'm not looking for an argument. Honestly.

 

And like I said, I've been geocaching for many many years and I do love it and have recommended it to many others.

 

I've also helped place a cache and we took it very seriously. We looked at geocaching.com's guidelines which told us:

 

1) No caches allowed close to an already existing one

2) Should be a interesting point of interest

3) Cache maintenance

etc. etc. etc. gecaching rules not mine and I agree with them

 

we carefully selected a really neat spot, hunted around for a really good hiding spot and even changed our original location because there just wasn't a good place to locate the cache.

 

All in all we spent a couple days doing it the right way and I think we (I hope anyway) have contributed a little to the enjoyment of others as well. But I think of all the care we took to maintain it and select it and then read through the 100 caches within a couple miles of my house and most of them are just placed under a bush beside a trail (yawn).

 

I don't think it would be too hard to have a voting method of determining if a site gets a star rating. When I log my visits, I have a droplist of choices for "found, didn't find, etc." beside my log entry. It wouldn't be too hard to give seekers a way to vote for their favorite caches so I can search for the top vote getters.

 

But seriously, if you can honestly tell me that you don't think >100 caches within 5 miles of each other isn't too many and we shouldn't be given a way to sort out the non-special ones I'll drop it. I didn't post this to make someone mad, I just wanted to be able to cache again like I did years ago. Of the first 10 caches I visited many years ago, I found all 10 and every one was such a cool spot that I never would have found otherwise. Spectacular views, interesting little memorial to an old mans dog that brought tears to my wifes eyes when she read the plaque, an arch right beside the road that you have to get out of the car to see or you would have driven right by it, historical places...you name it, it seemd like every time I found a cache I was in for some kind of special treat. These days it's just a tuppwerware under a bush 9 times out ot 10.

Link to comment
There isn't a filter for the quality of a cache though. Maybe that is something groudspeak would be willing to add. You have to set it up so people finding the cache could give it a rating of 1-5 (1-it sucked, 5-great cache.)

 

Of course than means hiders would be at the mercy of other people's opinions and that might lead to some hurt feelings if a hider got several "your cache sucks" ratings. That might discourage them from future hides or it might lead them to put in more effort in the future.... :laughing:

It would also be nice to include some sort of trust/distrust system, so I could ignore Cacher Al's quality ratings (he hates the caches I love, and loves the caches I hate) and give extra weight to Cacher Bob's quality ratings (his tastes in caches seem to mirror my own).
Link to comment

If you have too many caches in your area send some this way. I could use some help populating this part of the world. Within 50 miles of my home there are only 36 caches. 6 of those are mine and have been placed in the last 2 weeks.

 

I can understand when your talking about bad caches, but least you've got caches to choose from.

Link to comment

YES YES YES...you hit the nail right on the head. I also know of several caches that I would like to highly recommend to others. For instance, if you're in my neighborhood, I've visited most of them at one point or another, there are dozens and dozens of them, but let me tell you there are 2 of them that are really REALLY cool. Plus, it's funny that you gave that example, because I have definitely been that fictitious Wandacache person myself many times.

 

Definitely - use Pocket Queries to limit your criteria for caches for which you want to search. No longer are you tied to searching through screen after screen of caches to figure out if it's a high terrain or a multi-stage. Just set your criteria and judge based on that.

 

Remember - Pocket Queries are NOT just for PDAs and paperless. They are advanced criteria-based searches.

 

However, there is another aspect. What if you're either just getting started, or just passing through. There's still a WHOLE LOT of caches around to try to find the best ones to start with.

 

This is precisely why something like this would be helpful. If there were some way to separate those phenomenal caches (whatever cachers use as their own criteria) and flag them, people would be able to search quickly in an area to figure out what they want to try (either first, or limit it to those if you're just passing through).

=================

Consider This:

Let's use a hypothetical cacher - WandaCache, a fictitious cacher that is going to Los Angeles, California for a conference. Wanda's pretty adept at using her GPS and PQs, GSAK and all of the features of the site. She's going to be visiting for a week, with 2 days prior to the conference and 2 days post conference (airfare is cheaper that way). She's got a rental car with unlimited mileage, and she's in reasonably good health.

 

If she does just a Pocket Query for ALL active caches centered around N 34.05281° W 118.24371°, she'd reach the 500 max in 11 miles. But she's going to be visiting the are and can actually drive for 40 miles if it's worth the hunt. She wants these caches to be memorable.

 

So she decides to limit her criteria to what she likes (for the sake of argument), which is Large or Regular sized caches (she's got some travel bugs to move), less than 2.5 terrain and difficulty (she wants to find a good number and not spend all day on one hike), and single stages (Traditional, Letterbox and APE). Given THAT criteria, she would max out at 500 caches from that center point at 29 miles. That's better - it's more of her range of where she can go.

 

But she can't find 500 caches. Now that the criteria is limited, to what you want, how do you find the BEST ones? Reading the logs of 500 caches?

=================

 

If there were a way to tell which caches were chosen as ones that people REALLY liked, then there could also be an automatic attribute, fully searchable through PQs. I'm not saying don't hit the others, but wouldn't it be nice to "recommend" the best in some organized fashion?

Link to comment

... Of the first 10 caches I visited many years ago, I found all 10 and every one was such a cool spot that I never would have found otherwise. Spectacular views, interesting little memorial to an old mans dog that brought tears to my wifes eyes when she read the plaque, an arch right beside the road that you have to get out of the car to see or you would have driven right by it, historical places...you name it, it seemd like every time I found a cache I was in for some kind of special treat. These days it's just a tuppwerware under a bush 9 times out ot 10.

Have you considered that you may have found the 'cool spots' by now? You see, those caches are still there. Therefore, no new cache is going to bring you back to the spot.

 

(Hey, this is a good response to the micro-spew thread, also. If somebody could copy this response and paste it into Drat's thread, it would help me out.)

Link to comment
But seriously, if you can honestly tell me that you don't think >100 caches within 5 miles of each other isn't too many and we shouldn't be given a way to sort out the non-special ones I'll drop it.
I've been slowly finding all the caches in a few areas (near home, near work, along my commute routes, etc.). I'm almost up to 200 caches, and there are still hundreds more within 5 miles of these locations. I've never considered this a problem.

 

Sure, there have been a bunch of "non-special ones". But there have been a lot of nice ones too, and the ones I like might not be the same ones you or someone else likes. Some people enjoy puzzle caches, others don't. Some people enjoy micro (and nano) caches, others don't. Some people enjoy multi caches, others don't. Some people like 4/1 caches, others like 1/4 caches, others like 4/4 caches, and so on. Your best bet is to figure out what kind of caches you like, what kind of caches you don't like, and to prepare for your caching trips accordingly.

Link to comment

 

Seriously, check into becoming a premium member and seeing what you can do with Pocket Queries. Combine them with GSAK and you will be able to filter out all that pollution you don't like.

 

Good call, I didn't notice that myself.

 

Flipper, go to the regional forums in the West/Southwest threads. There is a very active San Diego based community that is more than willing to help you figure this out. We are all very nice, but be careful with the pollution comments. Even nice people get their feelings hurt.

 

OK, I'll tone it down. What can I say? I'm an old fuddy duddy and more direct than I should be sometimes. I call 'em as I see 'em, but I'm not saying we should delete caches. I just want to be able to find those really cool caches that I know are in the vast database and have them ready when I'm travelling.

 

Keep in mind, that I'm not looking for the caches in San Diego. I just used that search query because it's an example of how dense the caches have become over the years. I have all the time in the world to download those and pick through them and visit them when I have time.

 

Something tells me the solution is to just spin off a separate website. MyFavoriteCaches.com or something where people can post a list of the top 10 favorite caches that they've visited. That way we don't disturb the sensitive community over here.

Link to comment

I think a rating system is a great idea. Establish a five star system, user controlled. Meaning that we, the users, assign ratings just as you would a movie or a restaurant. They could be limited to only one rated cache per square mile, 5 square miles, whatever. If there is a 3 star cache in my area that has been there for a while and then another cache eventually reaches a 4 star rating the 3 star will no longer show in the top ranked category. That way we could all search for the best/highest rated caches within a given area and try to hit the "coolest" ones. Makes good sense to me. :laughing:

 

 

btw, I'm a premium user and I use GSAK and pocket queries. Caches are not as abundant in my area as some but I do use the filtering.

Edited by MossMansClan
Link to comment

[

the whole cache database has gotten so polluted.

 

select it and then read through the 100 caches within a couple miles of my house and most of them are just placed under a bush beside a trail (yawn).

 

Like a lot of others have said Pqs with a premium membership and gsak does wonders.

And being an old San Diego cacher myself, I just had to look and see what caches you have found, all I could see was this one. Now I myself know that there are quite a few nice caches in the area. And as for caches under a bush, I think the majority of early caches I did in the SD area were under a bush :laughing:

Link to comment

Well I'll just add one more thought and try to keep from stirring up the hornets nest any further :)

 

First off. Thanks for the links to GSAK, paperless and whatnot. I really appreciate the help and I'm off now to do exactly what you all have suggested :laughing:

 

Second. I hope my tone didn't come off too negative. I do love caching and even the tupperware under the bush caches are fun sometimes. I wouldn't still be doing it and coming back here if I didn't enjoy it. I'm not however a hardcore type, I just do it occaisionally, don't have a PDA loaded with all the pages and hunt when I have time or am looking for something different to do with friends/family. I rarely have a lot of time to "prep" or "plan" it's almost always done off-the cuff.

 

Third, I think the best solution is to have a rating system so we can all recommend the really awesome caches that we all know about so we can share them. Sure we might get a few bad votes/voters but they'll be outvoted by the rest if we just place a limit to the number of "favorites" everyone gets to have and make the votes positive only, not negative. Maybe everyone gets to have a top 5 list so we can search for the caches with the most votes. Also, if you have more than 5 favorites, then you should be free to change them if you see a cool cache that's not getting the credit that it deserves, switch your vote.

 

Fourth, for those in the less dense areas, I hear you too. I visit my Uncle in New mexico and they only have a few caches to pick from too. But they've planted their own caches for others to enjoy because there's still many neat spots they know about to choose from and have really added to the geocaching community. So you're lucky in a way, you can actually plan caches because you still have lots of spots to choose from and we all are eternally grateful that when we visit your neck of the woods we can visit your spots...so Thank you :huh:

Link to comment

Somehow the vision of yesteryear that you painted doesn't match the stories I have heard from other old timers, but...

 

If your only cup of tea is:

traditional caches

at least a mile or two from another traditional

that can be found by a child and his sandal-clad mother

near an evocative spot

 

(those were your criteria, weren't they?)

 

then I think that shared pocket queries are the route for you to take. Form a "club" of like-minded individuals. Maybe set up a webpage and learn how to use GSAK and create bookmarked lists. As you (and others who share your specific vision) find caches that qualify, just add them to bookmarked lists. Soon you'll have access to nice caches all over the county (world?) that you want to do.

 

Can't be done, you say? A couple of truck drivers started geotruckers so they could find trucker and RV friendly caches.

 

Oh, yeah, I live in a cache-dense area, and I for one am extremely thrilled about it. It increases the chances that I can go out and have the kind of experience that I want to have while caching. Hoorah for diversity!

Link to comment

And being an old San Diego cacher myself, I just had to look and see what caches you have found, all I could see was this one. Now I myself know that there are quite a few nice caches in the area. And as for caches under a bush, I think the majority of early caches I did in the SD area were under a bush :huh:

 

I know, I've been a bit delinquent logging caches back into the website like I should - guilty as charged. :laughing:

 

I've actually spent more time helping my uncle/aunt and friends log theirs than I have myself. If you search for Bwana and little follower you'll see a lot more log entries. I know we're over 100 and I'm sure she's logged most of them.

 

It's not that I don't enjoy it, or I'm lazy. It's just that I browse the site, get the waypoints, visit the spots leave my swag (I have a stash of old coins in my car ready at all times) and then by the time I get home I've forgotten which GC12345 sites we actually made it to that day and balk at going to each one and logging them down like I know I should. But I always sign the book and I always leave something for the next person...do I get partial credit? :)

Link to comment

I know what you are saying. Last week I was traveling to a different part of the state, staying the night at my brother-in-laws and spending the day at a park about 15 miles away. I did a PQ to get the closest 100 caches, figuring that would cover the where I was staying and the area around the park. Got to my brother in-laws and the closest cache on my GPS was 4 miles away. The 100 caches I selected only extended a few miles from the park. Even a year ago it probably would have covered the 15 miles and more.

 

Anyway, I know now to search for more caches in my PQ, but in 5 years I bet 500 caches won't do the trick.

 

As others mentioned, there are ways to deal with this. PQs to filter by terrain/difficulty, type and container. GSAK to slice and dice it even further and a PDA or Pocket PC to hold all the cache pages.

 

Instead of a MyFavoriteCaches.com, check into bookmarks. If you are visiting an area, go to the local forums and ask if anybody has a bookmark list of recommended caches to share. You can also create your own bookmark lists. I just started using bookmarks myself and I find them to be very useful. I wish they were in much wider use.

 

The idea of rating caches (or "star caches") has been brought up frequently here. The problem is ratings are way too subjective. Personally, I'd rate most caches involving a long hike very highly, and a drive and grab very low. Others may feel the opposite.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

I'm surprised no one suggested using Google Maps. Just drag the map around to see where the caches are. If you like parks, look for parks. If you like street corner caches, look for them.

That is absolutely what I do. I couldn't get along without Google Earth at this point. I just pan around looking for woods.

 

On the other hand, all these things are easier when you only go for a few per day out.

Link to comment

I'm surprised no one suggested using Google Maps. Just drag the map around to see where the caches are. If you like parks, look for parks. If you like street corner caches, look for them.

That is absolutely what I do. I couldn't get along without Google Earth at this point. I just pan around looking for woods.

 

On the other hand, all these things are easier when you only go for a few per day out.

This would be great for me...if only Google Maps would recognize the existence of the roads in my area. They don't.

 

And by the time I'm down to the bottom of page 1, I'm looking at using at least two gallons of gas to get to one new cache.

Link to comment
Can't be done, you say? A couple of truck drivers started geotruckers so they could find trucker and RV friendly caches.

 

Mr. Ant thinks to himself: "Ooh, sounds intriguing. Let's google for geotruckers and see their web page". Google's response?

 

Did you mean:
gay truckers

 

:):laughing:

Link to comment

If you have too many caches in your area send some this way. I could use some help populating this part of the world. Within 50 miles of my home there are only 36 caches. 6 of those are mine and have been placed in the last 2 weeks.

 

I can understand when your talking about bad caches, but least you've got caches to choose from.

 

Hey, it's not so bad. I see Devils Lake now has it's first cache (don't all rush out for the FTF now :)) When I was there 2.5 years ago, the only cache for 100 miles was This one which has a whopping 23 visits since being placed in September 2001. But seriously, there are very few people who have your problem, and it sounds like you're doing something about it. Good for you :laughing:

Link to comment

I've cached in areas that are dense (San Francisco Bay Area, where I live) and sparse (Japan, Montana, Wyoming) and I agree that cache density can be overwhelming these days. :laughing:

 

Except when I cache close to home, I just run a mental filter by picking a destination first, then cache in the area and along the way. This also makes picking Pocket Query center points easier. For me, the problem is not with the tools (GSAK, CacheMate, etc.) but with TOO MANY choices.

Link to comment
Can't be done, you say? A couple of truck drivers started geotruckers so they could find trucker and RV friendly caches.

 

Mr. Ant thinks to himself: "Ooh, sounds intriguing. Let's google for geotruckers and see their web page". Google's response?

 

Did you mean:
gay truckers

 

:):laughing:

Yes, that is funny! I noticed that myself, and teased my beloved husband about it (He is a moderator over there). Well, they are a happy bunch, I guess. (You did noticed that the first URL listing was for geotruckers, though, didn't you?)

Link to comment

. . . I can't be the only one who feels this way. Please...HELP...give me my geocaching fun back again..I beg you :laughing:

As many have said, you can get your Geocaching fun back by using Pocket Queries and GSAK. But, don't filter out all the Micros or you will miss a very fun one at this location not too far from where you live. :)

 

13fd02a1-24fb-4295-8873-d17051ed5d61.jpg

Link to comment

OK...just to follow up.

 

Did a couple of pocket queries and moved them into GSAK to help trim down and manage the results.

 

I suppose this will work (kind of), but I'm still left dealing with hundreds and hundreds of potential candidates and am having a pretty tough time trying to figure out how I might be able to sort by a "cool factor" and avoid having caches on my gps that can't be found by coordinates only.

 

As I was going through my modified query it didn't take long to find an example of a cache (it was the 7th cache on my simple, traditional, easy filter) that has no business in my query. A cache called "How's your geography" that supposedly a regular cache, easy find easy terrain large container.

 

But look at the description and guess what? Right there it says "The cache is not at the listed coordinates" and gives you a little puzzle to figure out the genuine location.

 

Very cute, and I'm sure a lot of people would really enjoy that one, but excuse me, if that's not a puzzle cache I don't know what is. And how can it be called easy? What good is going through all these extra steps, sorting through the listings only to still end up with the same results - (caches that I have no chance of finding unless I printout/read the description)?

 

OK, this time I'm done complaining...I promise. Thanks again for the suggestions.

Link to comment

. . . I can't be the only one who feels this way. Please...HELP...give me my geocaching fun back again..I beg you :laughing:

As many have said, you can get your Geocaching fun back by using Pocket Queries and GSAK. But, don't filter out all the Micros or you will miss a very fun one at this location not too far from where you live. :)

 

13fd02a1-24fb-4295-8873-d17051ed5d61.jpg

 

Wow...I recognize that area from the pic. Gorgeous spot....That one is now loaded onto the gps so it's ready and waiting for me.

 

Thanks

Link to comment

OK...just to follow up.

 

Did a couple of pocket queries and moved them into GSAK to help trim down and manage the results.

 

I suppose this will work (kind of), but I'm still left dealing with hundreds and hundreds of potential candidates and am having a pretty tough time trying to figure out how I might be able to sort by a "cool factor" and avoid having caches on my gps that can't be found by coordinates only.

 

As I was going through my modified query it didn't take long to find an example of a cache (it was the 7th cache on my simple, traditional, easy filter) that has no business in my query. A cache called "How's your geography" that supposedly a regular cache, easy find easy terrain large container.

 

But look at the description and guess what? Right there it says "The cache is not at the listed coordinates" and gives you a little puzzle to figure out the genuine location.

 

Very cute, and I'm sure a lot of people would really enjoy that one, but excuse me, if that's not a puzzle cache I don't know what is. And how can it be called easy? What good is going through all these extra steps, sorting through the listings only to still end up with the same results - (caches that I have no chance of finding unless I printout/read the description)?

 

OK, this time I'm done complaining...I promise. Thanks again for the suggestions.

I don't get any Puzzle caches in my PQs. I simply cannot figure them out. :laughing:

 

My PQs are for Traditionals, Virtuals, and Multis. Since I don't have a cell phone, I leave off the Web Cam caches as well.

 

Check out my rudimentary GSAK tutorial. :)

 

If you find out you don't like the hiding style of certain cachers, you can tell GSAK to not bring those caches in the next time you reload your database. That is handy . . . :huh:

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...