Jump to content

The End Of Micros?


Recommended Posts

First and foremost, I am not related to Happy Humphry.

 

Second, I like Happy's thoughts in post #50.

 

Third, I swear I'm not related to Happy. My HH stands for something completely different and the 242 is integral to it.

 

Fourth, other than for kids, is the trading really that important? I like the idea of getting out and going to interesting locations. Sure, I could go there anyway. But, once I'm there, the hunt for the cache adds a little something. What's in the cache is largely irrelevant...the reward is in the journey.

 

That being said, sometimes micros are the only kind of cache that can be used in a particular location. When it is cleverly hidden, it is fun to figure out where it is. Even a micro under a lamp skirt is ok if it gives me the chance to both get out and to hunt.

 

I realize that micros under lamp skirts, especially if they are in nonremarkable places is little more than non-destructive "tagging." But, isn't it better to find a "lame" cache than to sit at home and watch tv?

 

Respectfully,

Bruce

Edited by HH242
Link to comment

My friend and I often find ourselves looking for at least one micro when we go out together. We do try and get in a regular just because of the goodie value (not a given because the cache is bigger). Last time we went out caching together we had a great time finding two of the caches we had on our list, and the third cache was just plain devious and I could not have retrieved it without someone else there - my knees dont bend that way anymore. When I am caching by myself, I dont just go for a particular sized cache. Even tho my numbers are low and I am pretty new to this game, I have found a half a dozen micros which were very cleverly hidden and I enjoyed each of them. I find myself marvelling over the creativeness of the cachers hiding caches in my area.

There was one micro I did not like one aspect of and that was because the log was too small and fragile and disintegrated in my hands, but the micro container itself was wonderful as was the hide.

I think if you dont like micros, dont do them.

Link to comment

And which is more interesting, an ammo can tossed behind a tree, covered with a couple of sticks; or the micro hidden at the same tree in a hole made by a woodpecker? An ammo can stuck in a mostly rotten stump; or a micro cleverly hidden in a hole in branch that you can see but you need to find the piece of filshing line to retrieve it? Sure, I like to look thru trade items, but given the choice between that in "lame" ammo can hide and a cleverly hidden/camo'd micro, I'll take the micro.

 

Well, compare caches of the same difficulty and your argument falls apart.

 

In the first example, I'd prefer the regular. No question.

 

In the second, I'd prefer the micro. The micro is more challenging. However, if both where just as cleverly hidden I'd prefer the regular. I get the challenge and get to write in a regular sized logbook, drop off TB's and rifle through the trinkets. If you don't like or care about that stuff you still get the challenge.

 

As to micros and nanos only being hidden for the numbers, I say HA! A well hidden/camo'd micro will take so much more time than a regular (in general) that there is no way you can say it just for numbers. ANY easy cache - of any size - could be said to be "just for numbers". Be careful of such blanket statements, you can't prove them.

 

Yes, you do have to watch for blanket statements.

 

However, well hidden micros are typically not hidden for the numbers, but easy and obvious ones can be. And while any size cache can be hunted for the numbers, it's my experience caches hidden for the numbers are typically micros.

Link to comment
Fourth, other than for kids, is the trading really that important?

 

Well, yeah. It's what the hobby is based on. It is called geocaching. I find a lot of folks do trade in our caches and TB's go in and out of our most accessible ones fairly regularly.

 

What a regular-sized cache provides is important to the hobby.

Link to comment
Well, compare caches of the same difficulty and your argument falls apart. ...

A few times in this thread, you've qualified yourself in this manner. Unfortunately, it is pretty rare that you can choose between hiding caches of a different size in the same manner at the same location. In fact, I can't really come up with a good example.

 

I guess you could chuck a micro under a pile of sticks, but it would be a higher difficulty than an ammo box in the same spot. You could attach an ammo box to an object, with magnets, but again the difficulty would change. Tupperware won't fit under a lamp post, so that's out. I could make an ammo can look like a huge acorn, but that would just be silly (and of lesser difficulty).

Link to comment
Fourth, other than for kids, is the trading really that important?
Well, yeah. It's what the hobby is based on. It is called geocaching. I find a lot of folks do trade in our caches and TB's go in and out of our most accessible ones fairly regularly.

 

What a regular-sized cache provides is important to the hobby.

I think that there are many cachers who would disagree with you. The hobby is based on going to find something somewhere that someone else hid. Trade items are totally ancillary. In fact, if you look at the very first cache, it was filled with total junk.

 

If we assume that having caches with trade items is important to the hobby, we are still in luck. You see, we have these other caches that are bigger and allow for trade items. Hurrah! I can prove to you that micros are not killing the game because the number of regular caches continues to grow at a somewhat steady rate.

 

Here's a graph of 'regular' caches in the Chicago area over time:

c651d626-c4ab-4c9e-b90b-b0fb28180508.jpg

Link to comment
Fourth, other than for kids, is the trading really that important?
Well, yeah. It's what the hobby is based on. It is called geocaching. I find a lot of folks do trade in our caches and TB's go in and out of our most accessible ones fairly regularly.

 

What a regular-sized cache provides is important to the hobby.

 

Here's a graph of 'regular' caches in the Chicago area over time:

 

So do you have a similar graph of the "micro" caches in the Chicago area?

Link to comment

I guess you have your OPINION but it is just that. A cache is a contianer with a logbook in it. A micro fits this bill. I admit I am not a big micro fan but then again I don't always have the wherewith all for a 5 mile hike in the woods so a few quick micros in town, where they fit in, is a good alternative. I hope GC.com does not do away with micros and I know there are many folks that like the challenge of finding them.

There is a very SMALL resprensation of the caching community on the forum to what is in RL.

Link to comment

I'm fairly new to the forums, but I was quite surprised reading this particular topic. I've always liked the well hidden, well disguised micro. I've even found a lampost one or two that I liked because they were puzzles or otherwise interesting. I also like ammo cans, but I think micros - especially urban micros in downtown areas - are my favorite because of the stealth necessary.

 

I think there should be an "urban micro spy ring" with our own brand of martinis and spy gear.

Link to comment
Fourth, other than for kids, is the trading really that important?
Well, yeah. It's what the hobby is based on. It is called geocaching. I find a lot of folks do trade in our caches and TB's go in and out of our most accessible ones fairly regularly.

 

What a regular-sized cache provides is important to the hobby.

 

Here's a graph of 'regular' caches in the Chicago area over time:

 

So do you have a similar graph of the "micro" caches in the Chicago area?

No, but Markwell posted the numbers a while back.

 

The number of micros will not give youan idea of whether they are changing the game. For that you only, need to verify whether the growth of non-micros have been affected.

Link to comment
Fourth, other than for kids, is the trading really that important?
Well, yeah. It's what the hobby is based on. It is called geocaching. I find a lot of folks do trade in our caches and TB's go in and out of our most accessible ones fairly regularly.

 

What a regular-sized cache provides is important to the hobby.

 

Here's a graph of 'regular' caches in the Chicago area over time:

 

So do you have a similar graph of the "micro" caches in the Chicago area?

No, but Markwell posted the numbers a while back.

 

The number of micros will not give youan idea of whether they are changing the game. For that you only, need to verify whether the growth of non-micros have been affected.

Roger (ahem) OK - time to Markwell some more.

Link to comment

Fourth, other than for kids, is the trading really that important?

i very rarely trade, but i still prefer caches larger than micros. but that's just me.

 

i refrain from picking up travel bugs because it's becoming more difficult in my area to find cache containers that are large enough to hold TBs and i end up holding on to them for too long.

Link to comment
In fact, if you look at the very first cache, it was filled with total junk.

Well, except for the food part I wouldn't mind finding more caches with this level of "junk."

 

Here's the post announcing the stash. "Stash contians: Delorme Topo USA software, videos, books, food,

money, and a slingshot!" The video shows the initial contents logged as 1 can Blackeye Peas, Ross Perot book, cassette recorder, 2 DeLorme CD roms, George of the Jungle VHS tape, 4 dollar bills, Delorme Topo USA software, and a slingshot handle.

 

Yes, terrible, terrible junk. :anicute:

Link to comment
I also like ammo cans, but I think micros - especially urban micros in downtown areas - are my favorite because of the stealth necessary.

 

This reminds me of a funny story. In a place un-named in an effort to not spoil the surprise there is at least one cache hidden very much in a place where most folks would find a micro. Most folks would think "No problem. I'll just go over there, use stealth and palm the cache." But the joke is on them because it's difficult to use stealth and palm a regular! I'd say in this case the size of the cache actually upped the difficulty because of it being a regular.

Link to comment

 

Let's consider what we're talking about here; a location that could easily handle a regular, the container is a generic micro-sized container and not something custom made or location specific, and if changing the size would not change the difficulty, then why not place a regular?

 

Because the hider DIDN'T WANT TO. It's called making a choice. They teach that at the KBI institute. Apparently you were cutting class with TeamGPSaxophone on the day they covered that one.

Link to comment
In fact, if you look at the very first cache, it was filled with total junk.

Well, except for the food part I wouldn't mind finding more caches with this level of "junk."

 

Here's the post announcing the stash. "Stash contians: Delorme Topo USA software, videos, books, food,

money, and a slingshot!" The video shows the initial contents logged as 1 can Blackeye Peas, Ross Perot book, cassette recorder, 2 DeLorme CD roms, George of the Jungle VHS tape, 4 dollar bills, Delorme Topo USA software, and a slingshot handle.

 

Yes, terrible, terrible junk. :anicute:

 

Not to mention, it was a $7,500 can of beans. :anicute:

Link to comment
So do you have a similar graph of the "micro" caches in the Chicago area?

 

No, but Markwell posted the numbers a while back.

 

Darn, I would have liked to see that, just for the spike that the 99 bottles caches would have created.

Edited by Hokers
Link to comment

It's really sad what micros have become. When geocaching first started, people hid regular caches in interesting places where they could go without being muggled, and they hid micros in other interesting places where regular caches just couldn't go. But then the numbers game really came into play and people started putting micros EVERYWHERE, some were put in places where a regular could easily go, others were put in places where no one in the right mind would of even dreamed of putting a cache a year ago. Micros, AND NANO CACHES are being hidden for numbers and numbers only. It's good to hear that there is talk of getting rid of them, they've hurt the game enough.

I've been to the original cache site - it's not that interesting a place, a wide spot on a country road with not much of a view. I've been to a number of the early hide (first year) and not all of them are in "interesting places". And if they were all so muggle-proof, why have some many been muggled?

 

A lot of the caches been placed now - in lame or "wouldn't think of it a year ago" places - are done because most of the interesting places are already taken. Or at least the easily gotten to ones, I've thought of putting in a cache that has a great view of Mt Rainer and the Cascades, but being that it's three pitches up a moderate rock climb, I can't see very many people ever logging it. I want to place caches that are found and enjoyed.

 

And which is more interesting, an ammo can tossed behind a tree, covered with a couple of sticks; or the micro hidden at the same tree in a hole made by a woodpecker? An ammo can stuck in a mostly rotten stump; or a micro cleverly hidden in a hole in branch that you can see but you need to find the piece of filshing line to retrieve it? Sure, I like to look thru trade items, but given the choice between that in "lame" ammo can hide and a cleverly hidden/camo'd micro, I'll take the micro.

 

I WAS around when micro's were first being used. What you call lame now was darn hard to find then. We even struggled to find regulars back then. But with better units (oh, how I was happy when I switched to a unit that read down to feet instead of .01 miles) and experience things have gotten "easier" (just look at some of the difficulty ratings of some of the oldies, it was a different world back then). So I can say that micros have NOT hurt the game.

 

As to micros and nanos only being hidden for the numbers, I say HA! A well hidden/camo'd micro will take so much more time than a regular (in general) that there is no way you can say it just for numbers. ANY easy cache - of any size - could be said to be "just for numbers". Be careful of such blanket statements, you can't prove them.

 

Well, enough for tonight.

 

Geez, I didn't people would take it so literally when I said "when geocaching first started", some of you thought I was talking about the very first cache... WOW. And you think a well camo'd micro takes longer to hide than a micro... that's what deserves a "HA!". Hiding a bunch of caches in gardrails next to a highway... what could the reason for that be? besides numbers. A regular cache couldn't be hidden just for numbers, they cost money, who would waste a good ammo can? have you ever heard the word "hike" before? micros on the other hand hardly cost anything at all, so people dump them everywhere to get their numbers up. You say I can't prove those "blanket statements" well... I believe I just did.

Link to comment

Yes, but only the bare minimum. All I'm saying is if the cache could be a regular, why not make it so?

 

Because the hider chose not to. You're really not getting this "hider's choice" thing, are you?

 

:anicute: "Want" is not a "why." Something you don't get.

 

I'm not questioning that a placer has a choice. I'm questioning the choice itself.

 

If a cacher has some place to hide a container, and holds in one hand a micro with only a log scroll and a regular with a full-sized logbook, trinkets, and a TB in the other, and then makes the conscience decision to put the micro out, I have to wonder why. Why exclude those who prefer to actually write more than a scribble representing their initials and a date, who like to trade, and move TB? What is wrong with putting the regular out?

Link to comment

I've only gotten through the first page and half of this thread so I hope that I am not repeting too many people, but I hope that micros get to stick around.

We enjoy a good hide and even the lamppost micro in the wal-mart parking lot has its place.

We are not in it for the numbers either...

We use geocaching to get off the couch (do we really need to see that episode of stargate sg-1 again??) and go make some memories. The car ride provides us with catch up time and after the find we always celebrate with a kiss...

If a film canister in a Burger King bush can do that for someone else, that is wonderful!!

 

For a game to truly be played "your way" how can we, as a community, impose more rules??

 

Some people enjoy going for the numbers on both hides and finds...

Some people only want to hit caches that require stealth while others like the solitued of a nature hike...

Who are we to say who is right or wrong??

 

If someone doesn't like going for the "lame urban micro" that is their option.

Do a little homework before heading out for your caching adventure and mark the lamppost pill bottles off of your list.

 

As far as a rating system goes...

It might be fine in heavily cache populated areas where caches are found on a regular basis, but where we live there are less than 50 caches in a 50 mile radius.

We need to encourage all the placers we have, not tear them down with less than stellar marks from someone who dislikes a particular type of placement or doesn't agree with a certian kind of container.

 

Sure, we find argument with an umcammoed RX bottle at the base of the tree in a park with kids around. Not because we find it lame, but because of the way it looks to others that see less than stealthy cachers pulling RX bottles out of random holes, digging through them and taking things out.

All it takes is one report to the police and caching gets a bad reputation, therefore hurting the good cachers in and around the area.

But its not up to us to judge.

Hopefully in time those types of caches will take care of themselves. They will be muggled, they will need maintance and they will go the way of other not so cleaver hides... but for some, they were fun while they lasted.

 

What is one mans junk is another mans treasure.

 

just my 2 cents...

Link to comment

Yes, but only the bare minimum. All I'm saying is if the cache could be a regular, why not make it so?

 

Because the hider chose not to. You're really not getting this "hider's choice" thing, are you?

 

:anicute: "Want" is not a "why." Something you don't get.

 

Of course it is. That's the fifth stupidest thing I've ever heard. Why do I do *anything*? Because I WANT to, that's why.

 

I'm not questioning that a placer has a choice. I'm questioning the choice itself.

 

If a cacher has some place to hide a container, and holds in one hand a micro with only a log scroll and a regular with a full-sized logbook, trinkets, and a TB in the other, and then makes the conscience decision to put the micro out, I have to wonder why.

 

Because he WANTED to. That IS a reason why, whether you like it or not. This morning I held the red tie in one hand and the blue tie in the other. I chose the red one. Why? Because I WANTED to. Neither was inherently any better or worse than the other, it was just a CHOICE I made.

 

Why exclude those who prefer to actually write more than a scribble representing their initials and a date, who like to trade, and move TB?

 

For the same reason you want to exclude people why prefer to actually find a bison tube or a film can.

 

What is wrong with putting the regular out?

 

The same thing that was wrong with the blue tie - absolutely nothing. I just CHOSE the red one.

 

Besides the fact that it's a conscious choice, what makes you think it IS a choice? I seriously doubt the micro hider showed up at the spot with a micro in one hand and a ammo can in the other in the first place.

Link to comment

Yes, but only the bare minimum. All I'm saying is if the cache could be a regular, why not make it so?

 

Because the hider chose not to. You're really not getting this "hider's choice" thing, are you?

 

:anicute: "Want" is not a "why." Something you don't get.

 

I'm not questioning that a placer has a choice. I'm questioning the choice itself.

 

If a cacher has some place to hide a container, and holds in one hand a micro with only a log scroll and a regular with a full-sized logbook, trinkets, and a TB in the other, and then makes the conscience decision to put the micro out, I have to wonder why. Why exclude those who prefer to actually write more than a scribble representing their initials and a date, who like to trade, and move TB? What is wrong with putting the regular out?

 

Like that ever happens. How often do you set up multiple caches (container, log, etc) and then walk around with more than one in your hand looking for a place to hide one of them?

 

It's probably more likely that a person first decides to hide a cache and then decides where or what kind. First they look for a container, and perhaps they chose a cheap container instead of a more expensive one because the don't want to spend extra money that day? Suggesting that just because a larger cache could be hidden it means that it should be, is as silly as saying that people that sell micro containers for caching are responsible for the micro spew too.

Link to comment

We have to get CR and Parrot Bob a Geocache Point >< Counter Point show. As I read through the last few posts, in the back of my head I kept hearing Dan Akroyd’s voice “Jane, you ignorant…..”

 

:anicute::anicute::anicute:

Edited by baloo&bd
Link to comment
I'm not questioning that a placer has a choice. I'm questioning the choice itself.

 

If a cacher has some place to hide a container, and holds in one hand a micro with only a log scroll and a regular with a full-sized logbook, trinkets, and a TB in the other, and then makes the conscience decision to put the micro out, I have to wonder why.

 

Because he WANTED to. That IS a reason why, whether you like it or not. This morning I held the red tie in one hand and the blue tie in the other. I chose the red one. Why? Because I WANTED to. Neither was inherently any better or worse than the other, it was just a CHOICE I made.

Obviously it's a free choice that the hider made because (s)he wanted to. That doesn't mean others can't question why the hider made that choice. If I preferred blue ties over red ones and you knew it but picked the red tie anyway, I would probably ask why you chose the red tie. I'm not going to force you to go change your tie, but I would like to find out why you "wanted" to pick red instead of blue.

 

Why exclude those who prefer to actually write more than a scribble representing their initials and a date, who like to trade, and move TB?
For the same reason you want to exclude people why prefer to actually find a bison tube or a film can.
Are you serious?
Link to comment

I've thought of putting in a cache that has a great view of Mt Rainer and the Cascades, but being that it's three pitches up a moderate rock climb, I can't see very many people ever logging it. I want to place caches that are found and enjoyed.

When I visited Washington in April, I hiked to a friend's cache and then he mumbled something about two more caches further down the trail, if I wanted to keep going. "Sure, why not." Several miles later, we've just cleared the woods and I am climbing hand-over-hand up four star terrain. I turn around to complain to my host, and I see this:

 

562881ee-e527-4846-9dd2-84de0817c1c6.jpg

 

"Holy _ _ _ _!"

 

My friend grinned. "I thought you'd like that."

 

All three of the caches along that trail were micros. I could care less. What a great day that was! :anicute:

Link to comment

Micros have a place in this sport. I also believe that Lamp post micros have aplace as well. Some people collect them like collecting stamps. There are several different types out there. The "wally world" micros, "Off your rocker" ones just to name a few. I think if they are a series like that, they become just as interesting as one at the top of a nice overlook. It allows someone to experience the sport in a different way.

I do have some reservations of the ones placed so you can squeeze one in to a tight spot. I like the thought of a rating system. I think that a star system just like the Difficulty and terrain system would be a fantastic idea. The finder answers a few questions and it sets a star rating for the cache. This would allow cachers to rate caches and help other cachers to place better caches and to hunt the kind of caches they want to hunt. This would help experienced cachers avoid the "lame" (I don't think any caches are lame)caches yet the number hunters could still keep grabbing all they can find.

Lets all push for the cache rating system..

Link to comment

Zing!

 

"Zing?"

 

Now, see, this is something I don't get. What, I can't support micros and regulars? They're mutually exclusive? You see that as some kind of hypocritical statement?

 

What you see as a "zing," we see as a bump in sales.

You can support both, but you don't. You only support micros if they're placed somewhere that a regular size couldn't go because that's how YOU would do it. Not everyone hides caches like YOU do, or makes decisions on caches that YOU make. That doesn't make it wrong to hide a micro in the woods.

 

When you make money on the sale of a bison tube, do you ask your customer if a regular would work instead? I seriously doubt it. You take their money and smile.

 

yip yip yip

Link to comment

I guess the bottom line is: What do you cache for? Do you cache for the trade? For the numbers? When a cache is out along a path in the woods and it is a micro, does being outside in the woods enjoying nature count or is it just the cache (no matter the size) that counts?

I count my lucky stars I am able to cache when I can. To be able to get out and enjoy myself where ever I am is my goal. I guess because I can not always do it, there are so many restricitions I have to overcome in order to go out and cache, that when I get the green light, it does not matter to me what type of cache it is or where it is or who placed it or even if I DNF it or not.

My dog and I enjoy the road trip, even if it just takes us downtown, and the cache, well that is a bonus.

Link to comment

man, mushtang... did CR pee in your cornflakes?

 

it sounds to me like CR prefers regular sized containers where a regular container would be supported. it sounds like you disagree with that (vehemently). is he trying to understand why or is he stirring the pot? who knows, but why not explain your position rather than start yipping?

 

for example, "i prefer to hide micros because i don't like having to constantly clean junky mctoys out of my caches, haven't got the money to invest in a full size container and decent swag, was afraid that a larger cache would be too obvious, micros are more difficult to find in a wooded area and i like to be evil, etc."

 

he's explained why he prefers regular size containers, why not explain why one might prefer micros so we can understand? is it just aesthetics like red vs. blue tie or is it something else?

 

 

 

Lep, thanks for sharing that pic. it sounds like you had a great time! in situations like those, i am thankful for whatever cache has brought me to that place. a regular sized cache would have been icing on the cake, but i like plain cake when it's tastes good too.

Link to comment

"Squawk! Polly wants a film cannister! Squawk!" :lol:

***WARNING*** Opinionated post ahead! :P

Obviously micros are here to stay. For some, that's a sad statement indeed, whilst for others, it's the greatest thing since sliced bread. Different strokes for different folks, I reckon. While I would love to find a bison tube on the north face of Mt Mitchell, I wouldn't waste my time or gas looking for a film cannister in the bushes beside a Burger King dumpster. Both are micros, yet one is spectacular while the other is the textbook definition of lame.

 

Some would argue that micros are hurting this game we all love to play. While largely a matter of semantics, I would argue that any harm coming to our game is coming from cachers, not from the actual micros. Micros can be great, or they can stink, depending on where they are located, how they are hidden, the amount of effort involved in the hide/writeup. The same is true for ammo cans, but it's been my experience that the ratios of crappy micros vs. crappy ammo cans is rather disproportional.

 

I think we could all help the overall quality of this game if we focused our energies on teaching the incoming generation a basic Tennant; Effort = Reward. For instance, let's say SBell111 builds a way kewl micro container that perfectly emulates an acorn, (sorry to pick on you, but I love your containers!), and he hides it in a small, pleasant community park. He put quite a bit of effort into creating the container, and will quite likely be rewarded with praising logs. A win-win situation. Now let's say a cacher named BubbaTheNosePicker, (I hope that's a fictitious name), goes to Wally World, buys a hide-a-key and slaps it to the back of a guardrail, and gets a free film cannister from the camera department, and drops it into the aforementioned smelly shrubbery. The effort expended is considerably less, and will probably result in a bunch of TNLNSL. Yet Bubba hid two caches to SBell111's one cache. Which cacher has had the most beneficial impact on our world? In my opinion, SBell111 has done the caching world a great service, while Bubba simply spit out a couple lame caches.

 

If someone at the local level had taken the time to teach Bubba about effort & reward, he might have used his resources in a more positive manner.

 

Just $0.02 from an ol' fat guy.

Link to comment

man, mushtang... did CR pee in your cornflakes?

 

it sounds to me like CR prefers regular sized containers where a regular container would be supported. it sounds like you disagree with that (vehemently). is he trying to understand why or is he stirring the pot? who knows, but why not explain your position rather than start yipping?

 

for example, "i prefer to hide micros because i don't like having to constantly clean junky mctoys out of my caches, haven't got the money to invest in a full size container and decent swag, was afraid that a larger cache would be too obvious, micros are more difficult to find in a wooded area and i like to be evil, etc."

 

he's explained why he prefers regular size containers, why not explain why one might prefer micros so we can understand? is it just aesthetics like red vs. blue tie or is it something else?

Heh heh heh. No, my cornflakes have never been within sight of CR.

 

I don't actually prefer either size, I like finding all caches. CR is saying that if there's room for a regular size he thinks the hider should have hidden one instead of a micro. What Sbell, ParrotRob, and I are saying to CR, is that just because HE doesn't think a micro should go there, doesn't mean that one shouldn't have gone there.

 

At least that's what I'm saying, maybe I shouldn't speak for Sbell and ParrotRob.

 

I don't want to stir the pot myself, so I'll ask CR directly and appologize to him if I'm wrong. CoyoteRed, am I accurate that you've been trying to say that if a person hides a micro where a regular one could have been hidden, then they've made the wrong choice, and that they should have hidden a regualar sized cache instead?

 

Someone will have to quote that last paragraph, because he's supposedly got me on his ignore list.

Link to comment

Mushtang, I can't presume to answer for CoyoteRed, but seeing as how we share the same initials, I can certainly argue their point;

Assume Fred is going to hide a cache. Say for argument sake that Fred picked a gorgeous location, that folks would be inspired by. Any cache would be well received at such a location, and the caching community would benefit greatly from it's placement. Fred has reasonably unlimited resources, and a handy supply of ammo cans and bison tubes. The vegetation is dense enough to hide a Greyhound bus.

That's the setup.

So, what kind of container should Fred put there?

Technically, the only answer is, "What ever kind of container Fred wants to hide there". Nobody is arguing that.

The argument stems from what other cachers believe, including myself, which is; the cache should be the largest that an area can support, up to a large.

 

Now if Fred hikes all the way out there to hide a film cannister, more power to him. It's his cache. Those who like scenery will be pleased. I know I would be. However, those who actually enjoy writing in log books, trading swag, and swapping TB's would be less enthused. Of course if Fred hikes all the way out there to hide an ammo can, the scenery folks will still be just as pleased, and the faction that enjoys regular sized caches will also be pleased. A win-win situation.

 

In the first scenario, Fred has pleased a percentage of the caching community, while in the second, he has pleased a larger percentage.

(try saying that 5 times fast) :lol:

A full sized cache, (in an area capable of supporting it), has all of the benefits of a micro, while a micro does not have all of the benefits of a regular.

Link to comment

Zing!

 

"Zing?"

 

Now, see, this is something I don't get. What, I can't support micros and regulars? They're mutually exclusive? You see that as some kind of hypocritical statement?

 

What you see as a "zing," we see as a bump in sales.

You can support both, but you don't. You only support micros if they're placed somewhere that a regular size couldn't go because that's how YOU would do it. Not everyone hides caches like YOU do, or makes decisions on caches that YOU make. That doesn't make it wrong to hide a micro in the woods.

 

When you make money on the sale of a bison tube, do you ask your customer if a regular would work instead? I seriously doubt it. You take their money and smile.

 

yip yip yip

 

That's actually very interesting. From their website, you can purchase "Bison capsules for a quality micro". I don't see any regular containers for sale. I do see some stickers and I actually have purchased a stencil from them.

 

But the bison capsule part is interesting. It almost seems as if the type of micro container determines its quality? I know I am just pulling this out of context. I'm pretty sure that's not what that means at all. But, if you are so strongly for putting a regular cache wherever one can be supported, why not add ammo cans to your inventory? Doesn't selling only micro containers in some small way perpetuate the use of micros?

Link to comment

In the first scenario, Fred has pleased a percentage of the caching community, while in the second, he has pleased a larger percentage.

(try saying that 5 times fast) :D

A full sized cache, (in an area capable of supporting it), has all of the benefits of a micro, while a micro does not have all of the benefits of a regular.

 

I'm not sure I agree. In one scenario Fred has hidden a challenging hide (hopefully not a needle-in-the-haystack, though that is one kind of challenging hide), in the second scenario, Fred has hidden another ammo can under a pile of sticks.

 

I prefer a third scenario - Fred hides the ammo can, but he also hides a couple of micros on the way to the ammo can. Or, if Fred were like me, he'd hide the ammo can first and then hide a few micros further down the trail. Why carry a heavy ammo can all the way to the final destination?

Link to comment

Mushtang, I can't presume to answer for CoyoteRed, but seeing as how we share the same initials, I can certainly argue their point;

Assume Fred is going to hide a cache. Say for argument sake that Fred picked a gorgeous location, that folks would be inspired by. Any cache would be well received at such a location, and the caching community would benefit greatly from it's placement. Fred has reasonably unlimited resources, and a handy supply of ammo cans and bison tubes. The vegetation is dense enough to hide a Greyhound bus.

That's the setup.

So, what kind of container should Fred put there?

Technically, the only answer is, "What ever kind of container Fred wants to hide there". Nobody is arguing that.

The argument stems from what other cachers believe, including myself, which is; the cache should be the largest that an area can support, up to a large.

 

Now if Fred hikes all the way out there to hide a film cannister, more power to him. It's his cache. Those who like scenery will be pleased. I know I would be. However, those who actually enjoy writing in log books, trading swag, and swapping TB's would be less enthused. Of course if Fred hikes all the way out there to hide an ammo can, the scenery folks will still be just as pleased, and the faction that enjoys regular sized caches will also be pleased. A win-win situation.

 

In the first scenario, Fred has pleased a percentage of the caching community, while in the second, he has pleased a larger percentage.

(try saying that 5 times fast) :D

A full sized cache, (in an area capable of supporting it), has all of the benefits of a micro, while a micro does not have all of the benefits of a regular.

I understand what you are saying here, but this is the part of the statement that affects me, and perhaps other cachers:

 

Fred has reasonably unlimited resources.

 

I don't have unlimited resources, but I have hiked to some great places where I have put out micro containers. I have never wanted them to be needle-in-a haystack hides. I want people to find my caches, and to see the locations I discovered. :D

 

A couple of times, and I'll be the first to admit it, I couldn't have hiked that distance carrying an ammo can full of swag, but I could carry a bison tube cache . . . and that cache exists now to draw cachers to that fantastic tumble of boulders, should they accept the challenge.

 

Other times, I could have carried an ammo can because it wasn't that far, but I could only afford to put out a waterproof match container. Although I have some $5.00 ammo cans out there that started out filled with $10.00 worth of swag, I haven't been able to do that for most of my hides.

 

If someone wants me to Archive any of my micro containers because they can afford to put a big ammo can in that location filled with great swag, I'll be glad to Archive my little cache if that makes the Geocaching community happier. The location will still be the same . . . :D

Link to comment

Mushtang, I can't presume to answer for CoyoteRed, but seeing as how we share the same initials, I can certainly argue their point;

I read your post, even though you qualified it first by saying you can't answer for them, thinking to myself, "If I ask CoyoteRed a specific question about his opinion, how can anyone else possibly argue their point?"

 

Assume Fred is going to hide a cache. Say for argument sake that Fred picked a gorgeous location, that folks would be inspired by. Any cache would be well received at such a location, and the caching community would benefit greatly from it's placement. Fred has reasonably unlimited resources, and a handy supply of ammo cans and bison tubes. The vegetation is dense enough to hide a Greyhound bus.

That's the setup.

Okay. Fred is going to hide a cache he thinks is good at a spot he thinks is good. Got it.

 

So, what kind of container should Fred put there?

Fred has a decision to make for sure.

 

Technically, the only answer is, "What ever kind of container Fred wants to hide there". Nobody is arguing that.

 

The argument stems from what other cachers believe, including myself, which is; the cache should be the largest that an area can support, up to a large.

Your first part says "nobody is arguing that" and your second one clearly argues it. What the heck? He can hide any size container he wants, as long as it's the largest that will fit??

 

When you buy a car and the dealer says you can have it in any color you want as long as it's black, do you accept that as you having a choice????

 

Now if Fred hikes all the way out there to hide a film cannister, more power to him. It's his cache.

Now you're back to saying he can do whatever he wants with his cache.

 

Those who like scenery will be pleased. I know I would be. However, those who actually enjoy writing in log books, trading swag, and swapping TB's would be less enthused.

You didn't say it, but I'm assuming that Fred was kind enough to indicate on the cache page that it was a micro. Those that don't like micros can skip it and find another scenic cache that Micro-lovin Fred didn't have a hand in.

 

Of course if Fred hikes all the way out there to hide an ammo can, the scenery folks will still be just as pleased, and the faction that enjoys regular sized caches will also be pleased. A win-win situation.

That's true. IF Fred had decided he wanted to hide a regular sized cache then he wins and the people that like finding ammo cans win. Ooh, but what about the people that like a tricky hide that a bison tube will allow, but an ammo can just can't be used for? Not so much of a win-win for them is it?

 

In the first scenario, Fred has pleased a percentage of the caching community, while in the second, he has pleased a larger percentage.

In the first scenario, Fred has pleased himself with his hide, pleased others that knew it was a micro and still wanted to look for it, but upset you (and other forum posters with the initials CR).

In the second, Fred has pleased himself with his hide, pleased others that knew it was a regular sized and still wanted to look for it, and pleased you too.

What's the difference in those two?

 

A full sized cache, (in an area capable of supporting it), has all of the benefits of a micro

Not true. Try hiding a full sized cache in a pine cone hanging from the end of a branch in an Oak tree.

 

, while a micro does not have all of the benefits of a regular.

I'll finally agree with you. These two types are different indeed, and offer different characteristics. The variation in geocaching makes it fun.

 

And Fred will thank you not to try and tell him that if he's doing it different than you would do it, then he's doing it wrong.

 

So CoyoteRed, how did Clan Riffster do arguing your point?

Link to comment
A full sized cache, (in an area capable of supporting it), has all of the benefits of a micro

Not true. Try hiding a full sized cache in a pine cone hanging from the end of a branch in an Oak tree.

I don't mean to be rude, but did you even understand a sentence? Obviously pine cones aren't capable of supporting regular caches...
Link to comment
A full sized cache, (in an area capable of supporting it), has all of the benefits of a micro

Not true. Try hiding a full sized cache in a pine cone hanging from the end of a branch in an Oak tree.

I don't mean to be rude, but did you even understand a sentence? Obviously pine cones aren't capable of supporting regular caches...

Pine cones aren't, but the AREA is. A regular could have gone on the ground behind the tree, in a stump, under a stack of sticks, etc. You don't hide bison tubes the same way you hide regulars.

Link to comment

Don't sweat it Alex, he's only arguing to hear himself type.

 

If I ask CoyoteRed a specific question about his opinion, how can anyone else possibly argue their point?

 

So long as I feel I comprehend their point, I can argue it. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out.

 

Your first part says "nobody is arguing that" and your second one clearly argues it.

 

If you left it in context, you might understand what I was saying.

 

When you buy a car and the dealer says you can have it in any color you want as long as it's black, do you accept that as you having a choice?

 

Irrelivent to the conversation.

 

You didn't say it, but I'm assuming that Fred was kind enough to indicate on the cache page that it was a micro. Those that don't like micros can skip it and find another scenic cache that Micro-lovin Fred didn't have a hand in.

 

Once again you dodge the point. You're getting good at it.

 

Ooh, but what about the people that like a tricky hide that a bison tube will allow, but an ammo can just can't be used for? Not so much of a win-win for them is it?

 

Oooh. Dodged it again, I see. Kudos to you for being so clever.

 

In the first scenario, Fred has pleased himself with his hide, pleased others that knew it was a micro and still wanted to look for it, but upset you (and other forum posters with the initials CR).

 

Perhaps you'd be so kind as to refresh an old man's memory. I don't recall being upset over a micro hidden in a beautiful location. In fact, I think I said quite the opposite.

 

In the second, Fred has pleased himself with his hide, pleased others that knew it was a regular sized and still wanted to look for it, and pleased you too.

What's the difference in those two?

 

Do you really need me to answer that, or are you just being obtuse again?

 

Not true. Try hiding a full sized cache in a pine cone hanging from the end of a branch in an Oak tree.

 

I think you kinda missed that part about "in an area capable of supporting it", but I suspect you missed it deliberately, simply so you could continue your argument.

 

And Fred will thank you not to try and tell him that if he's doing it different than you would do it, then he's doing it wrong.

 

Did I say Fred was doing it wrong?

Link to comment

I recently attendeda "666" breakfast in N.J. and they challenged cachers to submit a cache to be voted "most unusual". I got 2nd prize with a very well camo'd rather large container but was beaten by a micro which I would have voted for if I had not voted for myself. A 14 year old boy had put togeter a "micro" which was an acorn that the top unscrewed with a log inside but it was on a pine tree branch. How clever is that?

Link to comment
I don't want to stir the pot myself, so I'll ask CR directly and appologize to him if I'm wrong. CoyoteRed, am I accurate that you've been trying to say that if a person hides a micro where a regular one could have been hidden, then they've made the wrong choice, and that they should have hidden a regualar sized cache instead?

 

Close.

 

In my opinion, yes, they made the wrong choice. They could have pleased more people more often by placing a regular. Better yet, a well maintained and well stocked regular would have been even better.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...