Way Way Way Too Many Caches

[+DonB]

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)

 

My curiosity is killing me, don't you log your finds? According to your profile you have 6 finds since you joined in 2001.

[Mushtang]

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.

There are much easier ways to go sight-seeing. A simple call to any travel agency can get you booked on a sight-seeing tour of almost any city in the world. No mazes, computer access, or coding required!!!

 

You've dug up a thread from last year to discuss something that is current in at least two other threads. I'm curious why you didn't post there instead.

 

And if you could not use the word "retarded" to describe things you don't like, that would be great. I have a brother and he's "retarded" and it's not a nice word to use to describe your feelings about geocaching.

Edited February 3, 2008 by Mushtang

[+KBI]

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.

There are much easier ways to go sight-seeing. A simple call to any travel agency can get you booked on a sight-seeing tour of almost any city in the world. No mazes, computer access, or coding required!!!

 

You've dug up a thread from last year to discuss something that is current in at least two other threads. I'm curious why you didn't post there instead.

 

And if you could not use the word "retarded" to describe things you don't like, that would be great. I have a brother and he's "retarded" and it's not a nice word to use to describe your feelings about geocaching.

Yes, I would appreciate a little more compassion. I have a mental disability which allows me to sometimes enjoy the kinds of caches that any respectable cacher with correct and proper taste would naturally detest.

 

I prefer to be referred to in a more accurate and sensitive way such as: Differently Preferenced, Taste-Challenged, Nonspecifically Destinationed, Style Impoverished, Arrogance Impaired, Person of Unsophistication, Crankiness Disadvantaged, Unfashionably Opinioned, Container-Size Oppressed, Micro-Capable, Nondiscretionarily Entertained, or Post-Ulmer Knucklehead McSpazatron.

 

Or, as I was born in North America, you can call me by my Native American name: Drools On A Keyboard.

[+Kit Fox]

Anyone notice that this thread is a year and a half old, and we still complain about the same issue?

[+KBI]

Anyone notice that this thread is a year and a half old, and we still complain about the same issue?

I am convinced that cachers have been whining about lameness, other people’s unacceptable aesthetic preferences, and being inadequately entertained by their fellow amateurs since Day One.

[+Team Cotati]

Anyone notice that this thread is a year and a half old, and we still complain about the same issue?

 

No, I didn't notice that. Thank you.

[+Misha]

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.

 

If you are not premium fix that!

You can setup Pocket Queries that deliver better caches.

USE a program like GSAK filter for easy, no DNF, Winter friendly etc

Have fun!

[+Zop]

I'd be thankful that you have that many to choose from!

 

I've been thru towns that dont have a single cache for miles!

[+Team Cotati]

I'd be thankful that you have that many to choose from!

 

I've been thru towns that dont have a single cache for miles!

 

Travel by helicopter a lot do you?

[+JohnTee]

Way Way Way Too Many Caches

 

There aint no such animal! Would that I could make such a complaint. Within 15 miles of my house there are a total of 87 caches (For some of those, you have to make up to a 50 mile round trip), and I own 28 of them.

 

I'd love to have your cache diversity!!!

 

Cache On!

 

JohnTee

[+sbell111]

This is worth a read

[Trinity's Crew]

Anyone notice that this thread is a year and a half old, and we still complain about the same issue?

I am convinced that cachers have been whining about lameness, other people’s unacceptable aesthetic preferences, and being inadequately entertained by their fellow amateurs since Day One.

Amen brother!

 

I'd bet dollars to donuts that most of the change centers around the perceptions of those cachers that have been at this so long that they are becoming bored and jaded by caches that are no longer new or exciting to them.

 

Of course I could be wrong. It happened once before.

[+KBI]

This is worth a read

That thread is far, far superior, 'cause it's got something this thread ain't got:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's got AuntieWeasel.

[+PhxChem]

Anyone notice that this thread is a year and a half old, and we still complain about the same issue?

 

You just described 90% of the threads here.

 

Luckily, no one complains about micros anymore........

[+proimion]

If there are so many complaints, and if this complaining is so common, why doesn't Groundspeak offer a solution? Personally, I'd love a feature that would (optionally) allow you to rate a cache 1-5 stars, like you do on Amazon for purchases. I would pay attention to such ratings from my fellow cachers. Yes, I know about the bookmarks, and what I'm thinking of goes beyond that. This would be the chance to rate every cache once you've logged it. People that don't like it don't have to make it part of their pocket query, but I'd sure like to put this in my PQs.

[+Team Cotati]

Way Way Way Too Many Caches

 

There aint no such animal! Would that I could make such a complaint. Within 15 miles of my house there are a total of 87 caches (For some of those, you have to make up to a 50 mile round trip), and I own 28 of them.

 

I'd love to have your cache diversity!!!

 

Cache On!

 

JohnTee

 

You having cache count envy does not make that statement untrue. Perhaps the poster ought to have qualified his statement by giving some relevant context to that blanket statement.

 

Are you near Cape Girardeau?

Edited February 5, 2008 by Team Cotati

[Clan Riffster]

no way to weed out the losers

Once you've identified the losers, GSAK will let you ignore everything they've hidden. Works for me.

[Geo-Joe-N-Josh]

I don't have a car or licence. I have to ride my bike, so I like them being clustered.

[+paleolith]

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.

Everything everybody else has said. But this criterion shows especially well why one-size-fits-all doesn't work. You are saying that star caches should be terrain 1.5 or less, MAYBE 2.0. For me, star caches would be terrain 3.0 to 4.5, MAYBE 2.5 for a cache that's especially good otherwise.

 

Yeah, I don't always like the time spent pre-evaluating which caches I'm going to look for. But it's that variety of caches which provides the varying experiences that different people want.

 

Edward

 

(oops, only noticed after posting how old the OP is ... well, I guess that didn't stop anyone else.)

Edited February 6, 2008 by paleolith