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 :)

 

The problem isn't with the caches. You bring your own spin and perception to the issue of caches. Thus only you can find your fun again. Obviously you need to adapt your means and methods or you will never have fun again.

Link to comment

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

 

I enjoy the hunt just as much as being taken to a special location I dont think its a bad thing that not all caches dont take you anywhere special.

Link to comment
I dont think its a bad thing that not all caches dont take you anywhere special.

 

Yes, it is a bad thing. After 20-or-so Wal Mart hides hidden under the same way with the only variant being the location of the light pole, you get sick and tired of it. After 20-or-so newbies (who, ironically, have found only all 20 Wally World Caches in a 10 mile radius) each hide 20 or so micro film canisters in randomn places off the road with no intrinsic or historical value, you get sick and tired of it. Then when a cacher, who has found all 20 Wal Mart Caches and all 20 Multi Caches goes and micro spews 20 caches in a variant of a wasteland, you get sick, tired, frustrated, and peeved.

 

So, now, you have 60 new caches and 60 more finds ...... and the only thing you can do with that is brag that you have those numbers. You can't validate it with a great caching story, you can't really (or at least I hope not) say that you got exercise/historical,geographical insight, nor can you really claim you had a lot of fun. But you can claim you found 60 lame caches. Congratulations.

Link to comment
I dont think its a bad thing that not all caches dont take you anywhere special.

 

Yes, it is a bad thing. After 20-or-so Wal Mart hides hidden under the same way with the only variant being the location of the light pole, you get sick and tired of it. After 20-or-so newbies (who, ironically, have found only all 20 Wally World Caches in a 10 mile radius) each hide 20 or so micro film canisters in randomn places off the road with no intrinsic or historical value, you get sick and tired of it. Then when a cacher, who has found all 20 Wal Mart Caches and all 20 Multi Caches goes and micro spews 20 caches in a variant of a wasteland, you get sick, tired, frustrated, and peeved.

 

So, now, you have 60 new caches and 60 more finds ...... and the only thing you can do with that is brag that you have those numbers. You can't validate it with a great caching story, you can't really (or at least I hope not) say that you got exercise/historical,geographical insight, nor can you really claim you had a lot of fun. But you can claim you found 60 lame caches. Congratulations.

Ummm, or you could use the tools that have been provided for you and filter them out if you don't like them.

Link to comment

I don't know if you use a mapping program like Delorme SA or Microsoft S&T. I get a PQ from geocaching.com and load it into GSAK, then I create the filter I want. Once that is done I then export a HTML file and the data file for the mapping program. Once you do that you can load your mapping program and see where the caches are and pull up the same page that you get from the website telling you about the cache, just not real time. I then plan my route based on the caches that I picked out and let the mapping program get me from cache to cache. Since I always travel with my laptop, I do a new PQ for the area before I leave and load the file to the mapping program. Yes, I do use a Dell Axim 51v in an Outterbox case with BeeLine GPS software, and a GlobalSat BC-337 GPS unit for a paperless solution all in one unit. But with the mapping software and your laptop you can do it without a PDA if you don't have one. Most of the times I have an idea about where the points of interest areas are and look on the mapping software for whats around.

Link to comment

My argument is not of the usefulness of a variety of GPSr programs provided by this site and other programs.

 

My argument is about the recent increase of new uninspired, down-right "lame" caches that bring you to nowhere interesting nor historical and a decrease of well maintained, historical, innovative, and inspired geocaches. Also, new cachers, for whatever reason, have a tendency to find examples of the former than the latter and believe that this is what geocaching is about: not hiking, touring, or sightseeing, but getting as many geocaches as possible. No use of computer programs can correct this.

 

For instance, I took a rough count of all of the caches that have came out this year alone in an 11-mile radius of my house. These are my results ...

 

Micros with a Combined Total of Less than 5 (This Being The Addition of Difficulty and Terrain) -- 24

Medium/Large Containers with a Combined Total of Less than 5 -- 4

Any Container with a Total of More than 5 -- 9

 

Of all of the new caches in the area, about 65% are more or less micros in parking lots, guardrails, or spewn in randomn parts of the woods.

 

I have not been the best advocate for anti-Micro Spewing, but in the last couple of months its gotten more than frustrating. I had an obsession of getting a personal one-day record. After realizing that I was not having fun going from parking lot to parking lot, I stopped and planned my days around a few, good caches. Once in a while, a cache from a long time ago will pop up on my GPS and I'll go for it. But other than that, I have no interest in touring randomn strip mall parking lots, guardrails, or the likes. If that's what this new community (myself included, finding the sight in 2004) as a whole wants to do instead of finding historical locations, beautiful viewpoints, or having a nice hike through a variety of terrains, then fine. But it's disappointing.

 

Just like Wal-Mart, it's not about the quality --- it's about the numbers.

Link to comment

I don't know if you use a mapping program like Delorme SA or Microsoft S&T.

 

Yup, I have Delorme TopoUSA and have done it that way a couple times on camping trips. It's interesting, but when I did that we spent the whole time staring at the laptop screen instead of out the window. Uhh, kind of misses the point of camping and geocaching if we're just going to stare at a laptop. It was kind of neat though.

 

Besides, it was a whole mess of cables criss-crossing around the car. Plugs/Inverter and AC adapter for laptop power, cable from GPSr to laptop. Trying to keep the laptop from bouncing all over the truck while driving and breaking. Kind of a big mess of hassle to do it that way.

 

I've concluded the mapping software/laptop is best left in base camp to plot our tracks after we're done and re-live all the wrong turns we made along the way.

Link to comment

My argument is not of the usefulness of a variety of GPSr programs provided by this site and other programs.

 

My argument is about the recent increase of new uninspired, down-right "lame" caches that bring you to nowhere interesting nor historical and a decrease of well maintained, historical, innovative, and inspired geocaches. Also, new cachers, for whatever reason, have a tendency to find examples of the former than the latter and believe that this is what geocaching is about: not hiking, touring, or sightseeing, but getting as many geocaches as possible. No use of computer programs can correct this.

 

For instance, I took a rough count of all of the caches that have came out this year alone in an 11-mile radius of my house. These are my results ...

 

Micros with a Combined Total of Less than 5 (This Being The Addition of Difficulty and Terrain) -- 24

Medium/Large Containers with a Combined Total of Less than 5 -- 4

Any Container with a Total of More than 5 -- 9

 

Of all of the new caches in the area, about 65% are more or less micros in parking lots, guardrails, or spewn in randomn parts of the woods.

 

I have not been the best advocate for anti-Micro Spewing, but in the last couple of months its gotten more than frustrating. I had an obsession of getting a personal one-day record. After realizing that I was not having fun going from parking lot to parking lot, I stopped and planned my days around a few, good caches. Once in a while, a cache from a long time ago will pop up on my GPS and I'll go for it. But other than that, I have no interest in touring randomn strip mall parking lots, guardrails, or the likes. If that's what this new community (myself included, finding the sight in 2004) as a whole wants to do instead of finding historical locations, beautiful viewpoints, or having a nice hike through a variety of terrains, then fine. But it's disappointing.

 

Just like Wal-Mart, it's not about the quality --- it's about the numbers.

Unless I am with someone else, who either likes to find those kind of caches, or doesn't mind finding those kind of caches, I don't seek them anymore.

 

The last couple of weekends I have hiked with others when they have gotten 10 or 12 caches, and I have gotten none, because I had already found, or placed the caches. I had a great time. :)

 

I don't worry about the Micro-Spew because those aren't the caches I look for . . .

 

Edit to add appropriate quote.

Edited by Miragee
Link to comment

I think, more caches the better. Save the best for the hunt and filter out the rest with GSAK.

 

As a newbie, it is nice to be able to go out and "cut my teeth" on caches close to my house (with in 4 or 5 miles). I want to be able to do a large number of these caches before I go out and start doing the "adventure" caches. The more I do, the more I start thinking like a geocacher (this was someone elses phrase .. it sounded right on mark).

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.

Is this working again? I am getting the old maps, and using the google map link is just that cache?

Btw, I loved that addition-Im at home now on dialup, so Maybe I need to browswer flush all 3, on all 3 machines to find out- so sorry if this is a stupid question- (but then I'll know to do the same at work X 2 )

 

On topic- I simply avoid bad caches by reading the page, and deciding to do it. I have the luxury of prep time tho with downtime at work, and I dont cache unless the new cache is appealing to me in some way. If its an area I know, I usually can mentally picture the area from the maps. Some, I can mentally imagine (from close sat shots) which tree its in! Hunting in a cool area, that you grew up in isnt always as fun if you know the terrain, and possible hides. In other areas, I only like scenic, cool spots - so I just avoid any others that appear from the maps to be on corners, parking lots etc- Never done a guard rail,wally lot, or any other such micro.

 

I find it hard enough to make time to stop at caches I drive by 2-10 times a month- which are in cool spots, in cool areas...... I have too many things going on to cache sometimes - well most of the time.

 

I do agree tho, I usually pick my eastern of 2 cohabitant states to cache in. Most caches in the area of WI I frequent are Not consumed by the problems you speak of. Mostly bigger containers, mostly woods/scenic/cool.

Im spolied, yet very jealous you have more time to devote.

Link to comment

I think someone mentioned it already (as a "top 10% list" but another option is talking with your local group (or local to the area you are visiting) and see if anyone has bookmarks of cool caches. I think lots of people/groups are developing lists of good caches for visitors to the area (and for finding caches along the highway). Also, if there is a cache you like, check to see if it is listed on any bookmarks. Then use that bookmark list to find others.

J

Link to comment

 

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.

 

Just because they didn't agree?

Edited by Kacky
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.

 

What about bridges (or lack there-of)? :rolleyes:

Link to comment
I dont think its a bad thing that not all caches dont take you anywhere special.

 

Yes, it is a bad thing. After 20-or-so Wal Mart hides hidden under the same way with the only variant being the location of the light pole, you get sick and tired of it. After 20-or-so newbies (who, ironically, have found only all 20 Wally World Caches in a 10 mile radius) each hide 20 or so micro film canisters in randomn places off the road with no intrinsic or historical value, you get sick and tired of it. Then when a cacher, who has found all 20 Wal Mart Caches and all 20 Multi Caches goes and micro spews 20 caches in a variant of a wasteland, you get sick, tired, frustrated, and peeved.

 

So, now, you have 60 new caches and 60 more finds ...... and the only thing you can do with that is brag that you have those numbers. You can't validate it with a great caching story, you can't really (or at least I hope not) say that you got exercise/historical,geographical insight, nor can you really claim you had a lot of fun. But you can claim you found 60 lame caches. Congratulations.

 

It took you finding 60 of them before you realized you didn't like them and therefore could ignore them? Wow... :rolleyes:

Edited by VegasCacheHounds
Link to comment

No, I proposed a hypothetical situation which is more or less real instead of being hypothetical.

 

I always wanted to get all of the caches in a 10-mile radius from my house before I went to college. I initially had fun finding puzzles, going on moderately difficult hikes, or searching for intriguing camouflages. Every few weeks a new cache would come out, sometimes it would be good, or sometimes it would be 'meh. But with the exception of one, none of them were parking lot micros. Since maybe February or March of this year, every week at least about one or two new micros in parking lots or thrown off the road appear.

 

It seems everything else is more or less something thrown on the wayside by geocachers who are only finding these parking lot micros and believing that this is what the hobby is about. There is no challenge, no fun, or no value to these caches. Maybe I'm missing the point, but I don't understand how people can actually make an argument to actually keep on spewing caches like these -- with the exception of racking up their numbers.

 

Choose ... would you rather find:

Carey's Mountain or

DC's Wally World?

What's even more sad is the former, which was hidden in early 2002, has only 12 more finds than the latter, which was hidden last month. I do like both cachers, but I don't understand how people can actually choose parking lot caches over hiking caches as their "favorite cache hides" ..... and they do.

Edited by eaglespirit0
Link to comment

... My argument is about the recent increase of new uninspired, down-right "lame" caches that bring you to nowhere interesting nor historical and a decrease of well maintained, historical, innovative, and inspired geocaches. ...

No offense, but I think your results are skewed by your personal bias.

 

Since most people point to micros as the biggest lame offender, lets look at their affect on the game. In one of the anti-micro threads yesterday, Markwell posted a great table of caches by qtr in his area since he started caching. This data was broken down by whether the caches were smallish or largish. Graphing the largish caches gave this result:

7284e729-2e5f-43d8-9675-2a7f0a6bb5e6.jpg

You'll note that the number of largish caches has grown consistently over time. Therefore, micros have not affected the game negatively. Since some people really enjoy 'lame' micros, it could be argued that they have positively affected the game.

 

I'm sure that you will agree that many people enjoy caches that you do not and that you enjoy caches that are not enjoyed by others. Since lameness cannot really be definitively defined, how can we stop lame caches from being placed. Well, here we are in luck. I submit that very, very few truly lame caches are placed. I make this ascertation because no one places caches that he/she believes will not be enjoyed. Further, people tend to place caches they would enjoy finding.

 

Individual caches may or may not be my cup of tea or yours, but these caches are not ruining the game for either of us.

Link to comment

As much as I respect your opinion and you as a cacher, I cannot help but disagree.

 

I understand that my degree of a "lame cache" may be completely different than your degree of a "lame cache". However, I don't understand any reason for actually liking quick cache and dashes that you receive nothing from. I don't understand how someone could choose to avoid caches that require even of a quarter of a mile round trip. I don't understand what the appeal is to find a magnetic hide-a-key in a guardrail or a film canister under a lamp skirt. What I do understand is these caches are quick for those that don't have a lot of time (understandable) or they are good caches to eye up if one wants to quickly boost their numbers for whatever reason.

 

I don't like micros, I understand that. But I like micros that have redeeming qualities -- two of my top ten favorite caches are micros because they brought me to somewhere historic / scenic. A lot of other micros are good caches that I will show to friends. But maybe about a quarter of the micros I have found have been those that have been tossed somewhere. What has alarmed me is the increase in new caches like these. True, medium/large sized caches are not disappearing, but at least in my area, they are not being hidden as much as this new micro trend. I counted myself and I believe I posted the numbers in this thread somewhere.

 

I submit that very, very few truly lame caches are placed. I make this ascertation because no one places caches that he/she believes will not be enjoyed. Further, people tend to place caches they would enjoy finding.

I do not believe this: I believe that people place caches on accesibility. It's like micros, if its easy to hide, it'll chalk one up for my hidden record -- I followed that strategy too, before I realized I was contributing nothing to the community other than poorly-hidden micros (that were at least in scenic/historic locations). Too many cachers, at least in my area, have started hiding caches before they've even found five or six. One of them, Elangomat191, is doing a great job at finding interesting and historical locations. However, most of the other ones haven't found anything other than a lamp post or guard rail micro: how can they really know everything, or at least a small portion of the joy of finding caches?

 

I am not trying to make this into an anti-micro argument. What I am trying to do is make this into an anti Micro-Spew argument. Micros do not damage the sport, but an excess of uninspired micros do.

 

-JD

Link to comment

It seems to me that bookmarks are the best direction to go right now. This is a relatively new feature and people are still experimenting with how to use them. I think it would be great if there was a link to a list of public bookmarks. Then you could look for something like, "All South Mountain Caches." You could still run a pocket query and sort out puzzles, virts, and the like. As people create and add to bookmarks, we could eventually cover just about everything anyone would want to look for. As I think about the possibilities, a local group could even post a bookmark, under one members name, of what they consider to be five star, four star, etc. caches in their area.

Link to comment

 

However, I don't understand any reason for actually liking quick cache and dashes that you receive nothing from. I don't understand how someone could choose to avoid caches that require even of a quarter of a mile round trip. I don't understand what the appeal is to find a magnetic hide-a-key in a guardrail or a film canister under a lamp skirt. What I do understand is these caches are quick for those that don't have a lot of time (understandable) or they are good caches to eye up if one wants to quickly boost their numbers for whatever reason.

 

-JD

 

Well, obviously some cachers do have fun with them, otherwise why would anyone bother? Could it purely be the numbers? Sure, but even if so, why does that impact your ability to ignore those caches that have no appeal to you? As pointed out by others, people are still hiding all types of caches, not just 'lame' micros.

 

Heres a different way to think about this: Not all cachers think in the same way. Some of us cache as a way to get out and find a new spot, hike, scenic view, etc. For those people there are caches at the end of great hikes, or at historic locations or such. Some of us cache for the challange of figuring out puzzles and such, for those there are Mystery and Puzzle caches. Some of us are all about the hunt, finding hidden things, even if it is in a parking lot. For those there are 'lame micros' or 'Micro Spew'.

 

To continue my train of thought, smoe cachers get their caching enjoyment from finding thing hidden in spots that the rest of the world doesn't even realize is there, or the rush from trying to nab that micro in a very busy spot without beeing seen.

 

My point is, not everyone cache for the same reason, so not everyone will hide the same type of caches. I love hiding puzzle caches, but as not many enjoy finding them they don't get a lot of hits. Does this meen that I shouldn't hide them? No, because those that have found them really seemed to enjoy them.

Link to comment

I understand that my degree of a "lame cache" may be completely different than your degree of a "lame cache". However, I don't understand any reason for actually liking quick cache and dashes that you receive nothing from. I don't understand how someone could choose to avoid caches that require even of a quarter of a mile round trip. I don't understand what the appeal is to find a magnetic hide-a-key in a guardrail or a film canister under a lamp skirt. What I do understand is these caches are quick for those that don't have a lot of time (understandable) or they are good caches to eye up if one wants to quickly boost their numbers for whatever reason.

I used to agree with you. Two years ago, however, I had a little fender bender that resulted in my mobility being severely decreased. For much of the last two years, a quarter-mile walk has been out of the question.

 

It has given me the opportunity to reevaluate what I like about the game. When you distill it down, the bit that I like is getting out of the house. Everything else is gravy.

 

There is so much to like about caching. While not every cache hide brings me to a great view, shows me a new hide technique, makes me wonder over a new type of container, or takes me to something historic, interesting, yummy, or goofy, many caches give me at least one of those things. Those that don't often challenge me to find and replace them without being spotted. Either way, caches almost all lead me on an adventure. The cool thing is, I often don't know what that adventure will be until I am well on my way.

 

This is what I truly love about this game.

Link to comment
... True, medium/large sized caches are not disappearing, but at least in my area, they are not being hidden as much as this new micro trend. I counted myself and I believe I posted the numbers in this thread somewhere.

I was going to say that I disagree with you. You see, I ran the numbers the other day and found that there were more regular sized caches in my area than micros. This was somewhat surprising to me since I currently live in Franklin, TN, just south of Nashville, which has a reputation for being micro-heavy. However, thinking about your post I realize that you are still correct. You see, an ammo box in the woods has a much longer life span than an urban micro. Therefore, if you have an equal amount of micros and non-micros, you likely have more micros being hidden.

 

I submit that, while interesting, this doesn't make a difference. Don't compare the number of regular caches being hidden to the number of micros. Just look at regular caches over time. This will tell you whether there is a problem. Form the previously mentioned review of Chicago-area caches, I suspect that there is no real problem.

I believe that people place caches on accesibility. It's like micros, if its easy to hide, it'll chalk one up for my hidden record -- I followed that strategy too, before I realized I was contributing nothing to the community other than poorly-hidden micros (that were at least in scenic/historic locations). Too many cachers, at least in my area, have started hiding caches before they've even found five or six. One of them, Elangomat191, is doing a great job at finding interesting and historical locations. However, most of the other ones haven't found anything other than a lamp post or guard rail micro: how can they really know everything, or at least a small portion of the joy of finding caches?

I think that their is a certain amount of truth in this. I've long believed that people hide caches in places they know and live. Most people neither know of a bunch of cool places nor live there. However, I submit that those cachers who have only found lamp post and guard rail micros continue to play the game because they enjoyed those caches that they found. Since they enjoy those types of caches, they hide them. This follows from my previous 'there is no lame caches' argument.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

Well, I'll hopefully sidestep the lame cache discussion as I'm another one of those that hunts everything. Kind've comes with the territory when you only have 20 caches left in a 50 mile radius, and your nearest 500 queried takes you out to 94.6 miles. An hour drive just to start a good cache day...

 

I have felt the urge to hunt the "classics" in our state, and one thing that I found useful is an "Oldies But Goodies" query that filters out everything placed after 12/31/01. Here in Wisconsin that leaves me with 53 caches I haven't found. That gives me a nucleus of caches that I want to focus on, and I can build a day around selecting one of those.

 

I don't have a lot of room for opinions that geocaching was better "back in the day", but I do believe that the first cachers out there did get an opportunity to run out and share their favorite spots, neatly removing those places from the list of potential areas for a hide. A lot of really good caches got placed early on and that might help you filter and focus on what you like. There's no old-cache monopoly on the best places, so you'll miss out on some really nice stuff along the way, but give it a try and see what the query results look like.

Link to comment

I used to be in the "too many micros" camp - but I now REALLY try to keep an open mind. Someone once told me "Until you find all of the caches of the type you like to find, you shouldn't have anything to complain about." True enough. If I prefer to hunt non-micros, the site has given me the tools to weed them out. What the site it HASN'T given me the ability to weed out are caches that are full sized caches that waste my time. Let me be a little clearer before everyone jumps down my throat...

 

As many have said, and I believe to be ultimately true (and it's a change to my original thinking), a cache's quality is not directly dependent on the size of the container.

 

This is a game about location. Take a look at the top of the forum: Groundspeak: The Language of Location. Jeremy also said it here just this week: The activity used to be about the journey to discover new locations.

 

I think THAT'S what I miss most about the "good old days" in caching. I used to think it was REALLY great when someone took me to a forest preserve I had no idea was nearby, or to a cool little nook of wilderness in an area I was visiting. It was like I had a personal little tour guide telling me "There's something neat here that no one else knows about."

 

But what I've seen recently are caches placed because "there wasn't one here yet." The idea of bringing someone to a neat location has been lost.

 

It's not really Micro Spew - it's Poor Location Spew

 

HERE'S THE BIGGEST PROBLEM:

 

There's nothing we can do about it.

 

Nothing.

 

 

If someone wants to place a cache that endeavors to do nothing more than bring me to a dumpster behind a gutted old store in an abandoned parking lot, they have every right to post that cache. I also have every right to do everything in my power to avoid those caches (and the right to say it was a bad experience if the cache slipped through my filters).

 

What I can do is lead by example - place caches that stand out as good locations - full of history and beauty. It doesn't matter if I place a 35mm film canister or a 55 gallon drum. The location should be interesting.

 

The problem, as I've stated in this thread already, is that if people actually like my cache, there's no way for these people to single it out as a cool cache other than the logs and bookmark lists (such as the one on my profile). But there's no way to SEARCH these bookmarks.

 

So, I patiently wait for some form of seeker rating that Jeremy had said would be considered for implementation, and I use my extensive GSAK database to try and find the best caches to find. And I hope for the best when I'm visiting an out-of-town area for finding caches.

 

 

It's supposed to be a gorgeous weekend.

 

 

edited for clarity and grammar

Edited by Markwell
Link to comment

Wow,

 

Interesting conversation this sparked. I've been following it since I posted.

 

I agree that if you like to hunt for guardrail, trashcan micro-caches then bully for you and I have no problem with that or do I want to detract from your ability to do so.

 

But I've been here long enough to remember that the Geocaching guidelines used to say (somewhere along the way they've removed this) that a geocache should be hidden in a place of interest.

 

Now, if they want to relax that because they've gotten requests for more trash-caches I can deal with that too.

 

Personally I don't like those and just want a way to eliminate them. So far I've run 6 pocket queries, downloaded over 1000 caches into gsak and done what I could to try and figure out a way to weed these caches out a little, but I'm still swamped by the sheer volume *sigh*

 

I can't help but find it ironic as I read some of the other topics and spotted a guy who's having all sorts of problems getting his 17 cache multi approved bacause a couple of them are too close together. Another thread has the community in an uproar because people are moving caches around to events and designating "pocket caches".

 

For those of you who feel so strongly that trash-caches should be allowed because some people like them:

Why do so many of you look down your nose at these event/pocket cachers and the other guy trying to "bend the rules"??????

 

I thought this was a popularity contest (isn't that the argument?). Make it possible for people to put caches wherever, however they wish and if you don't like it...tough.

 

Sounds a bit hypocritical to me.

 

(just to re-state it though. I don't care if people plant trash-caches, I just want a way to filter them out and GSAK/pocket queries etc. are only as good as the categories available and there is no category for a trash-cache. That's my point...there should be another category of SOME type).

Link to comment

. . . For those of you who feel so strongly that trash-caches should be allowed because some people like them:

Why do so many of you look down your nose at these event/pocket cachers and the other guy trying to "bend the rules"?????? . . .

As much as we may, or may not like the "trash-caches," they were approved. They are legitimate caches on this site. The other caches were not.

 

The guidelines/rules were being flouted by moving them (no moving caches are allowed anymore) and logging them (logging a "Found It" for a cache actually located in Iraq :ph34r: ). Sheesh! :(

 

I thought this was a popularity contest (isn't that the argument?). Make it possible for people to put caches wherever, however they wish and if you don't like it...tough.

 

Sounds a bit hypocritical to me.

B) I'm confused by your last statement, isn't that what you are complaining about? . . . that people have "put caches wherever, however they wish and if you don't like it...tough." :huh:

 

- - - - - - - -

 

As for the problem of too many caches, I think there are many people who would like to have that problem in their area. <_<

 

Before going out on a cache hunt, read the past logs for caches you might want to look for. The logs should clue you in to which ones are worth finding, thumbsup.gif and which ones you should definitely ignore. B)

 

When I first started, I tried to find every cache that showed up as "Next Nearest" in my GPSr when I went into San Diego to run errands. Now, if I see the cache is in an area I don't want to search, I just drive by . . .

 

Also, as you go out on your cache searches, you will soon figure out which hider's caches to ignore. You can eliminate their caches from your GSAK database. Easy peasy . . . :laughing:

Link to comment

:laughing: I'm confused by your last statement, isn't that what you are complaining about? . . . that people have "put caches wherever, however they wish and if you don't like it...tough." <_<

 

Simple:

 

I've been reading the forum since posting, and it seems to me, many people are quick to criticise people who yank a cache from Iraq, or carry them around in their pocket and log them in at events. Or who place a couple in a 17 stage multi too close together.

 

They quote rules, guildelines, etc. They say that so-and-so isn't following the rules, or "this" or "that" is unethical. But as far as I can tell the only crime any of these "offenders" has commited is doing geocaching a bit differently than others.

 

Meanwhile, I point out that I don't want to take away anyones fun, but would like a way to weed out a particular type of cache because it's very difficult in densely populated areas to find true "Traditional" caches that meet the original standards (which have changed over the years). And some of the same people complaining above, tell me that:

 

I should live-and-let live and just dela with it because the micro-cachers are just having fun

or... I need to get special software, make custom queries and build internal databases, do careful reasearch and read each of the 5,000 logs of caches

or...it would be too difficult or controversial to make a start rating, or a favorites list, or whatever other method I or others here have proposed because that would take away from other peoples fun.

 

Yes, that all seems a bit hypocritical. Maybe it's just me.

Link to comment
... But I've been here long enough to remember that the Geocaching guidelines used to say (somewhere along the way they've removed this) that a geocache should be hidden in a place of interest.

I'm truly sorry to be so blunt, but who made you the arbiter of what location is worthy for a cache?

... trash-caches ... trash-caches ... trash-caches ...

Perhaps if you didn't wear your bias so blatently, I could have more respect for your opinion. I doubt it, though since so many people have posted to this thread ways to help you out. These aren't good enough for you, however. Instead, you would prefer if you were emailed daily lists of caches that meet your approval. I'm sorry, that's not going to happen.

 

In your area, figure out who hides caches that you don't like. Ignore those. Take a look at a map. Caches that are placed in areas that you don't wish to cache in get ignored. Build a PQ that further eliminates caches that you don't like.

 

Beyond this advice, get over it.

Link to comment

Also, as you go out on your cache searches, you will soon figure out which hider's caches to ignore. You can eliminate their caches from your GSAK database. Easy peasy . . . :laughing:

 

How easy is it to do that if you are going out of town and want to go find a couple cool caches while you are there? Am I supposed to memorize which are the good cache hiders in Oakland too? Baltimore? Salt Lake City? The other reason I'd like this feature is because I travel and would really like to be able to quickly downlaod some points onto my GPSr (cool caches, not trash-caches) and have them ready when I have an impromptu trip out of town.

 

Not so easy peasy, especially if the trip is short notice which in my case, it often is.

 

When I get back home, it often strikes me as a real shame I didn't have a way to find some of the cool gecoaches in that city I just came from while I was there. I can almost always find an hour or so to kill before my plane, but that's not enough time to do all the stuff everyone suggests.

 

Last Month I was in Washington DC and had 3 hours to kill while waiting to pick someone up at the airport. How many geo-cach-a-holics around here would kick themselves at a missed opportunity like that? I'm not a diehard, so I don't lose sleep over it, but I do think it's kind of a shame.

Link to comment

Beyond this advice, get over it.

 

OK, tell ya what. I've got a couple frequent flier free tix on SW airlines. I'll give you a round trip to any city they fly to and you have three hours. Paid for. Wouldn't it be neat if you could download a few geocaches onto your GPSr so you can find some neat spots?

 

Now, I don't care who the arbiter of cool or trash is. I just think it would be neat if one could do it.

 

Now maybe you understand the question/suggestion.

 

If you still don't. Then fine. You get over it.

 

(I only used my area of San Diego because I know how saturated it has become with little caches, the the same rules apply to every other major city I'm sure. I'm not just limiting this request to my home city)

Edited by Flipper
Link to comment

If you are flying somewhere, just create a PQ based on the coordinates of the airport. Load that into GSAK on your laptop, which you are taking with you anyway . . . Right? :laughing:

 

Now, during the flight, filter those caches by the distance from the airport you could reasonably get to by taxi, or rental car, in the amount of time you have.

 

There shouldn't be too many caches in that list and you can read the cache description and the logs while you are flying . . .

 

From that information, you should be able to decide which caches to look for.

 

I recently took a road trip and had more than 2000 extra caches in my GSAK databases. Out of all those caches, I only looked for 58 and only found 47, but I had a great time. Did I miss some really great ones? Maybe, but I also found some great ones. Part of the allure of Geocaching is the adventure of the unknown. :ph34r:

 

Too many caches . . . what a complaint . . . <_<

Link to comment

OK, tell ya what. I've got a couple frequent flier free tix on SW airlines. I'll give you a round trip to any city they fly to and you have three hours. Paid for. Wouldn't it be neat if you could download a few geocaches onto your GPSr so you can find some neat spots?

PQs work perfectly for this, in my opinion.

 

I haven't done too much traveling lately, but it wasn't verylong ago that I was out-of-town more often than I was home. Between PQs, GSAK, and looking at which caches others liked, I haven't been let down.

Link to comment

Comments on numbers from my perspective as an experienced and jaded cacher:

 

a. Cache Inflation - Like the OP, I also think there are way too many caches and that most of them are of the ho-hum variety. I call it cache inflation. Great for power cachers but a real disincentive for those of us who do just a few caches now and then. Comments pointing to queries, quality or cyclic complaining greatly underestimate the problem.

 

b. Fast-Food Caching - Micros have a direct bearing on this because they are so easy to assemble and hide compared to standard caches. As an example of Micro Spew™, one local cacher threw out 36 nearly identical hides (all film canisters, identical log sheets, even the same cache description) in a small area. Of course, most of the on-line logs are quick cut-and-paste now... "on our 1000 caches-in-a-week vacation. thanks for a great hide!"

 

c. Planning Overload - Pocket queries, bookmarks and Google maps help only if I have access to a computer and the time to weed through the results. Even then it is considerable effort when all I want to do is locate a few appropriate caches. Plus, all these different tools create their own demands when I would rather be doing other things, like actually finding a cache. When the planning takes longer than the hunt I start to lose interest.

 

d. Swiss Army Syndrome - GSAK is fine for processing and organizing large numbers of caches but it requires technical savvy and it runs only under Windows which I don't use. Even if it did run on my platform of choice, it still requires many steps and is overkill for much of what I do. Like any database tool, it is only as good as the data which, unfortunately, are full of omissions, errors and inconsistencies. In the end I still have to read individual cache pages and logs.

 

e. Too Much Technology - PDAs, smart phones and paperless caching work well for some caches but no so well for hunts that involve calculations, complicated instructions, photo hints, poor formatting of the cache page, bad weather, remote areas, low batteries, and aging eyes. I use all the latest technology but sometimes it gets in the way of enjoying the hunt. Plain old paper has its place.

 

f. Spontaneity Lost - Finally, there are the times I am on a trip with the unexpected opportunity to do some caching and I try to research nearby possibilities. This can be frustrating when the majority of caches are one of the 3 M's--micro, mystery or multi--and the real-time search tools require me to scan a long list to pick out appropriate hunts. More times than not I just give up and do something else.

 

Groundspeak's listing system has struggled to keep up with escalating cache numbers. A patchwork of new tools help but have added much complexity to the game. We need more accessible and integrated search techniques that adapt to our individual needs.

Link to comment

I must agree with the way way too many cahces. It seems like caches are placed anywhere and everywhere. I try to find and unusual location of place of interest. I have 1 in a cave, 1 in a mine, 1 at a plane crash site, 1 that is a formula based on other caches and 2 that is just there.

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

 

Actually - I think they kind of enhance it based on the topic at hand.

 

The day I registered at Geocaching.com, there was one cache within 10 miles of my home. There were nine caches total within 20 miles of my home, and 14 caches in the entire Chicagoland area and suburbs. I didn't have to worry about which caches I wanted to find. Of those 14 caches, I could travel to 12 of them within 45 minutes, and the two outlyers were still under an hour.

 

But then people discovered Geocaching.

 

There's so many caches out there now, that I have 279 caches within 10 miles of my home instead of 1. There are 858 caches total within 20 miles of my home instead of 9. At the region that used to only contain 14 caches (the entire Chicagoland area and suburbs) has 2,231 caches.

 

These cool glitzy features are neat - but their ability to filter and sort allow me to get back to the original fun of geocaching instead of detracting from it.

 

ANALOGY TIME:

(remember that no analogy is perfect)

 

If I go to the library and there are only 14 books to read, I'm not going to have a hard time reading these books. I can look at each title and read the ones that interest me, ignoring the ones that I don't want to read. But if that library is a university library, I want some type of card catalog (or computerized search) to be able to tell me where the books are that I'm looking for.

Link to comment
<snip> Groundspeak's listing system has struggled to keep up with escalating cache numbers. A patchwork of new tools help but have added much complexity to the game. We need more accessible and integrated search techniques that adapt to our individual needs.

As a Premium Member, you can very specifically select the caches you want to see using Pocket Queries. If you only want to find Regular-sized caches, or larger, select those options.

 

If you only want to find caches that involve hikes, choose to get a PQ based on a Terrain rating of 2.5 or above.

 

If you are going on a road trip and only want simple, easy drive-by caches, create a PQ for Difficulty 1.5 and Terrain 1.5 caches.

 

It's easy to select only the caches you want to see. In "my world," Puzzle caches don't exist. I don't get them in my PQs for my Default database. :lol:

Link to comment

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 :lol:

1. Please become a premium member and explore all the alternatives available to solve your problem of so many caches in your southern California community. :) or 2. Move to a small town such as Estill Springs, Tn and just enjoy Geocaching as it "used to be". Yea right!... :D Anyways Good luck and good caching... :lol:

3. :lol::):D

Link to comment
As a Premium Member, you can very specifically select the caches you want to see using Pocket Queries. If you only want to find Regular-sized caches, or larger, select those options.

 

If you only want to find caches that involve hikes, choose to get a PQ based on a Terrain rating of 2.5 or above.

 

If you are going on a road trip and only want simple, easy drive-by caches, create a PQ for Difficulty 1.5 and Terrain 1.5 caches.

 

It's easy to select only the caches you want to see. In "my world," Puzzle caches don't exist. I don't get them in my PQs for my Default database. <_<

Pocket queries are often mentioned as the answer to cache glut. They are popular with high-volume cachers and work Ok for certain types of searches--primarily those with either narrow criteria or a modest search area. It's great that you can depend on them. I've found that they have many limitations:

 

a. Available only to Premium Members.

 

b. Require access to a computer and internet connection--not generally a problem at home but a challenge on the road.

 

c. Take significant time to set up the query and to download and process many waypoints.

 

d. Not as effective as graphic map searches for routes and scattered locations.

 

e. Often give unsatisfactory results because of poor cache data and rough search criteria.

 

f. Ineffective for simply trying to find a few caches on the spur of the moment.

 

Pocket queries are helpful for researching an area and for a first pass at trip planning. But they are not the answer to every cache question.

Link to comment

Wow,

 

I can't help but find it ironic as I read some of the other topics and spotted a guy who's having all sorts of problems getting his 17 cache multi approved bacause a couple of them are too close together. Another thread has the community in an uproar because people are moving caches around to events and designating "pocket caches".

 

For those of you who feel so strongly that trash-caches should be allowed.....

 

Eh! That my cache, and I'd like to point out, its split into 2, and takes you through a beautiful path/park system that runs along a creek within the city. It also drops you off at one of the biggest and best parks in the GTA. Its a place that contained no other cache's and cachers are already enjoying.

Nothing trash about it, and the problem with getting it posted was that I put OTHER singles in the area that were too close. None of it was trash. So mind your examples.

 

Also, I dont think that Walmart caches should be published no? Isnt that private property? And I think some of these users dont understand urban cachers and the fun of a cache that even 1000's of people walk by everyday and dont even know its there.

Link to comment

a. Available only to Premium Members.

True

 

b. Require access to a computer and internet connection--not generally a problem at home but a challenge on the road.

But why not research things BEFORE leaving on the road?

 

c. Take significant time to set up the query and to download and process many waypoints.

"Significant time" for setting up the queries might just be the learning curve. I can set up a PQ and have the results in less than 5 minutes, depending on the GC.com computer and my e-mail. My PQs have about 2200 caches in them, I've never experienced a lag time in processing time.

 

d. Not as effective as graphic map searches for routes and scattered locations.

True enough, but it exports to Streets and Trips and other mapping software. And what about Google Earth?

 

e. Often give unsatisfactory results because of poor cache data and rough search criteria.

Can I get a clarification of "poor cache data"? Again, I've just never seen that problem. And rough search criteria sounds like user error to me. What kind of search have you tried in GSAK that can't be done?

 

f. Ineffective for simply trying to find a few caches on the spur of the moment.

Actually, this is what I use it for. I have a built in filter that exludes anything but traditional caches, and spins the name on my GPS in a certain fashion. I use only traditional caches for spur of the moment so that the cache is at the coordinates in my GPS. The spin on the name is that the difficulty and terrain are included in the waypoint name (if you want more information I can provide that). I use the regular waypoint for largish caches and City (small) for micros, since that just looks like the "waypoint" dot, only smaller. I load these into my GPS as a standard load once a week. Then if I have an extra half hour or so in an area, I can just pull out the GPS and hunt.

 

...they are not the answer to every cache question.

Agreed - but they're the best we've got so far. What would you have happen? Do you want people to archive 80% of their caches? You go first. <_<

 

I wish that people WOULD place caches in great locations, but that isn't always going to happen and again - THERE'S NOTHING WE CAN DO ABOUT THIS. I'm going to sound like a broken record, but I believe there is no solution until people are allowed to reward the good caches, and seekers can somehow limit their search to caches that other people think are good.

 

Do you have another suggestion?

 

 

Edited to add the part about Google Earth

Edited by Markwell
Link to comment

Eagle is right. There simply are too many lame caches.

 

While the tools that are being produced are a great help, they are also masking the issue of inappropriate caches being approved. I've had 3 cache boxes sitting in my room for a few years now. The ids got me all sorts of things and some containers for Christmas one year, but I have not found a good location to place the cache that means something.

 

I too have many caches near my home, although nothing like he describes, and I try to cache when traveling. It is a great thing to do on vacation with the kids, and we've seen some great places along the way. Historic places, beautiful places, quiet calm hiking trails... all good :ph34r: . Walmart parking lots <_< ? Give me a break!

 

My latest PQ for our summer vacation is full of micro caches telling me to bring a pencil. What happened to actually caching something? And these all show up as regular, traditional caches :P . Not a single one shows as a micro. The problem seems to be more along the line of the approval process and rating. Is a STAR rating required to solve the problem? Sounded like a bad idea when I started reading this forum, but after seeing the flood of advice on how to filter out the problem instead of fixing the problem - I now agree with the original post. I'd rather see the types properly listed. Break out the micro's, make a traditional cache a traditional cache again. Let us get back to trading worthless items and watching travel bugs roam the world.

Link to comment
My latest PQ for our summer vacation is full of micro caches telling me to bring a pencil. What happened to actually caching something?
FWIW, many micros are big enough to trade sig items and other small swag. No, you can't fit a McToy in them, but I've found film canisters with a dozen trade items in them.

 

And these all show up as regular, traditional caches :laughing: . Not a single one shows as a micro.
Traditional is a cache type. Micro is a cache size. If you want to filter out micro caches, then you need to restrict the size, not the type.
Link to comment

Wow,

 

I can't help but find it ironic as I read some of the other topics and spotted a guy who's having all sorts of problems getting his 17 cache multi approved bacause a couple of them are too close together. Another thread has the community in an uproar because people are moving caches around to events and designating "pocket caches".

 

For those of you who feel so strongly that trash-caches should be allowed.....

 

Eh! That my cache, and I'd like to point out, its split into 2, and takes you through a beautiful path/park system that runs along a creek within the city. It also drops you off at one of the biggest and best parks in the GTA. Its a place that contained no other cache's and cachers are already enjoying.

Nothing trash about it, and the problem with getting it posted was that I put OTHER singles in the area that were too close. None of it was trash. So mind your examples.

 

Also, I dont think that Walmart caches should be published no? Isnt that private property? And I think some of these users dont understand urban cachers and the fun of a cache that even 1000's of people walk by everyday and dont even know its there.

 

You misunderstood what I wrote.

 

I wasn't using your cache as an example of a trash-cache. I was struck by how your cache was criticized and unaccepted by your reviewer and others in this forum. At the same time many people were saying that it's so great to have a lot of caches and a big variety and we shouldn't ciriticize one particular type just because we may not like that particular type.

 

I was just pointing out the irony after reading through your topic.

 

If somehow I didn't make it clear, then I'm sorry, but I never meant to call your proposed cache a "trash-cache" Quite the opposite, I am going to a lot of trouble with GSAK, pocket queries, PDA etc. so I can hunt caches like yours rather than the hundreds of park bench caches that are placed simply because "there wasn't one there yet" (as someone described).

 

:laughing:

Link to comment

You misunderstood what I wrote.

 

I wasn't using your cache as an example of a trash-cache. I was struck by how your cache was criticized and unaccepted by your reviewer and others in this forum. At the same time many people were saying that it's so great to have a lot of caches and a big variety and we shouldn't ciriticize one particular type just because we may not like that particular type.

 

I was just pointing out the irony after reading through your topic.

 

If somehow I didn't make it clear, then I'm sorry, but I never meant to call your proposed cache a "trash-cache" Quite the opposite, I am going to a lot of trouble with GSAK, pocket queries, PDA etc. so I can hunt caches like yours rather than the hundreds of park bench caches that are placed simply because "there wasn't one there yet" (as someone described).

 

:blink:

 

Oh Ok, thats cool. I would never place a junk cache. How do you show your face at an event then?

 

I like to places caches in places where there aren't any and places I think cachers would like to visit. Not just some bench, but an area.

 

Basicly got everything published now... Ended up being 4 caches in the set. 3 multis and 1 single...

 

But everything ends at http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...99-90b5b8a0ac70 You've worked so Hard, and lists all the other caches in the series.

 

But Like I said, there is something to be enjoyed by a urban, small or film canister cache that people walk by every day and don't know is there.

Here in Toronto, we have a set of "Go" station caches that are located at Go train stations through-out the Ontario area. I have to say that these caches have their place also... I dont want one on every stop sign everywhere but Some urban caches are good for urbanites.

Edited by zahadoom
Link to comment
b. Require access to a computer and internet connection--not generally a problem at home but a challenge on the road.

But why not research things BEFORE leaving on the road?

Various reasons including not having the time, not knowing exactly where I will be when I want to cache, or spontaneous caching when I find myself with a little spare time. As a fallback I have tried looking up nearby caches on the WAP interface when we happen to stop somewhere but I am often hurled back the myriad micros and puzzle caches that clutter up the list.

 

c. Take significant time to set up the query and to download and process many waypoints.

"Significant time" for setting up the queries might just be the learning curve. I can set up a PQ and have the results in less than 5 minutes, depending on the GC.com computer and my e-mail. My PQs have about 2200 caches in them, I've never experienced a lag time in processing time.

The GC response time is generally Ok. What I am referring to is the time it takes to specify a useful query (or usually a series of queries because there are too many caches for just one), retrieving them from email, feeding them into another program for examination, and then downloading the waypoints into both a PDA and a GPS receiver. That's a lot of work and I still haven't done the time consuming (but more interesting) part of reading the cache descriptions and logs.

 

d. Not as effective as graphic map searches for routes and scattered locations.

True enough, but it exports to Streets and Trips and other mapping software. And what about Google Earth?

I don't find the Google Maps very good, their aerials are often useless where I live, and exporting queries adds more steps and apps. Furthermore, Google don't play entirely well on my laptop. Streets and Trips is Windows only (I use the Mac OS and sometimes use MacGPS Pro or National Geographic TOPO for mapping). The other option is to use Google straight from the cache pages but then there is no filtering and it displays only a handful of the cache glut.

 

e. Often give unsatisfactory results because of poor cache data and rough search criteria.

Can I get a clarification of "poor cache data"? Again, I've just never seen that problem. And rough search criteria sounds like user error to me. What kind of search have you tried in GSAK that can't be done?

GSAK is Windows-only. By poor data I mean that caches often give misleading information about type, size, ratings or attributes. By rough search criteria I mean that the query parameters are hit-and-miss and sometimes contradict one another. For example, I generally don't like micros but will hunt them under certain circumstances if the location and hiding style are right, but if I exclude micros in the query then I may lose the majority of caches, some of which I want, and some of those I get are in fact micros but miscategorized.

 

f. Ineffective for simply trying to find a few caches on the spur of the moment.

Actually, this is what I use it for. I have a built in filter that exludes anything but traditional caches, and spins the name on my GPS in a certain fashion. I use only traditional caches for spur of the moment so that the cache is at the coordinates in my GPS. The spin on the name is that the difficulty and terrain are included in the waypoint name (if you want more information I can provide that). I use the regular waypoint for largish caches and City (small) for micros, since that just looks like the "waypoint" dot, only smaller. I load these into my GPS as a standard load once a week. Then if I have an extra half hour or so in an area, I can just pull out the GPS and hunt.

A "built in filter?" Yet another application that probably runs only on Windows and requires more learning and fiddling? Yes, there are ways of partially dealing with many thousands of caches if I patch together enough tools and create custom procedures. But I will still run out of time and patience, as well as my receiver's 1000-waypoint limit which fills up at less than 100 miles from home!

 

...they are not the answer to every cache question.

Agreed - but they're the best we've got so far. What would you have happen? Do you want people to archive 80% of their caches? You go first. :laughing:

I already have. It's been over a year since I placed a cache and I've been slowly retiring the ones I have. There are so many new caches there is no reason for me to add to the noise. Mostly I have been trying to help other people improve their caches if they are interested. And playing other navigation games that are not overwhelmed with trashy growth.

 

I wish that people WOULD place caches in great locations, but that isn't always going to happen and again - THERE'S NOTHING WE CAN DO ABOUT THIS. I'm going to sound like a broken record, but I believe there is no solution until people are allowed to reward the good caches, and seekers can somehow limit their search to caches that other people think are good.

 

Do you have another suggestion?

Besides the rewarding of good caches that you point out, there need to be better search techniques. Picking out appropriate caches should be relatively quick and easy at both home and on the road. What we have now is a disorganized toolbox of limited and technically complicated choices--worthwhile for the power cacher but of limited appeal to most of us. Much room for improvement.

Link to comment

Amen!!! I'm running into that same problem in this area. Even around the Gettysburg Battlefield, I was excited to find some nice caches surely....DENIED.... most are as you put it, "ME TOO" caches in locations far less supreme than where most would put on the battlefield. Most would've taken the travelor to great lookouts such as on top of a tower or across a valley. Then to top it off...they required me to go out of my way to get online and email them to let them know what was on the statue in order to get credit for the cache. What a joke. I visited 7 caches today all under playground equipment. We can only hope it wasn't some pedo placing those. I totally agree with the star-rating idea. Geocaching.com... please adopt this feature!

I'm tired of being required it seems to first go through mazes, computer access and coding just to simply go sight-seeing. It's retarded.

Edited by abt2332
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...