Micro-in-the-woods

[+dkwolf]

Went out on a FTF dash last night on my way home from work (20 miles out of the way, but who's counting when FTF is at stake )

 

The coordinate issues I had, I'm going to chalk up to extremely low batteries in my GPSr--it promptly died 5 minutes after finding the cache, so I'm not going to complain about that. Instead, when I finally found the cache, it was a pill bottle tossed under the root ball of a tree. It *had* been painted, but the paint had already flaked off. My question is....why a pill bottle? There was EASILY room for an ammo can--or larger--in this spot, so why the small/micro? I hope this isn't the start of a string of bad containers--the last one (I DNF'd the final) was a multi whose first stage was a used chewing tobacco can. AAAAAARRRRRRRGH!

 

Okay, so I guess there isn't much of a point here other than a rant.....but why can't people take the time to put out a GOOD container?

Edited June 15, 2006 by dkwolf

[+hikergps]

Okay, so I guess there isn't much of a point here other than a rant.....but why can't people take the time to put out a GOOD container?

 

Some people are lazy. Micro = log only = low maintence is one example. I'm sure there are good reasons as well but I can't think of any.

[+sbell111]

Yawn.

[+Kacky]

 

Some people are lazy. Micro = log only = low maintence is one example. I'm sure there are good reasons as well but I can't think of any.

 

Some people are cheap.

[vagabond]

It said micro on the cache page

[+Mystery Ink]

Congrats on your hard earned FTF.

Edited June 15, 2006 by Mystery Ink

[+Snoogans]

It said micro on the cache page

 

Yep and you claimed an FTF for your trouble.

 

At least you said thanks on the cache page. That's important. Someone did at least take the time to hide a cache and fill out the online form for to get that FTF regardless of your opinion.

 

Just another reason my new motto is "NEVER give a geocacher a horse."

[+JohnnyVegas]

It said micro on the cache page

That does not cut it. Sure it says micro on the page, but untill you find the location of the cache there is no way to know if it is an area the could support a larger cache.

to say

Like has been said in the past, the cache was placed by someone that was to lazy and cheap to hide a large cache.

[+Snoogans]

It said micro on the cache page

That does not cut it. Sure it says micro on the page, but untill you find the location of the cache there is no way to know if it is an area the could support a larger cache.

to say

Like has been said in the past, the cache was placed by someone that was to lazy and cheap to hide a large cache.

 

It's a choice plain and simple. Hiding a micro does not make one cheap or lazy. I don't care where it's at.

 

Don't like 'em. DON'T hunt 'em. It's YOUR choice.

 

Just another reason my new motto is "NEVER give a geocacher a horse."

[+Blue Power Ranger]

I have felt the same pain many times. I don't dislike hunting micros but I do dislike when a very nice remote location is used-up by a garbage cache.

 

My first thought when reading the post is that this was probably a new player and one of their first hides. In that case, it is always forgivable and we should always show appreciation for a new hider's cache whatever it is that they have hidden. They will learn eventually and most of us have done it too. That is not the case here however.

 

Have you tried a personal and kindly worded email to the cache owner suggesting that a larger cache might be a better fit here? If you were frustrated, surely others will be too.

[+tozainamboku]

I have felt the same pain many times. I don't dislike hunting micros but I do dislike when a very nice remote location is used-up by a garbage cache.

 

 

If it's a very nice remote location, chances are there is another very nice remote location about .1 miles away.

[+thedeadpirate]

If it's a very nice remote location, chances are there is another very nice remote location about .1 miles away.

 

[+Blue Power Ranger]

If it's a very nice remote location, chances are there is another very nice remote location about .1 miles away.

 

Very true.

 

- Let me change that to "a very nice location" not necessarily remote. There are several woodsy pocket parks in Washington that could easily hold a small or regular but are instead holding film cannisters.

Edited June 15, 2006 by Blue Power Ranger

[+smilingsteeles]

I agree with your opinion about if there is enough room to hide a trade container then they should. I placed a micro in the woods and now I have decided to change it to a trade container. I did it because it is what I had in my backpack at the time and didn't really think that micros in the woods were such a bad thing. Now I have changed my opinion on that.

[+wesleykey]

I have upgraded a peanut butter jar, a butter bowl , and a film can to ammo cans after gaining experience and knowledge of the hobby. Many others have done the same. I think it's a splendid idea.

Edited June 15, 2006 by wesleykey

[+sbell111]

It said micro on the cache page

That does not cut it. Sure it says micro on the page, but untill you find the location of the cache there is no way to know if it is an area the could support a larger cache. ...

Really? The map didn't show it in a park? The description didn't give a clue as to the location?

 

It looks like the size was marked, the terrain and difficulty ratings were correct, and a clear description was given. If anyone doesn't want to find a cache like this one, they are free to ignore it.

 

That being said, I wonder how big the pill bottle was. I've found several in the woods that contained tradables.

[+Adventure.AS]

I have noticed that in my (limited) experience it appears that a micro in a place that would support a small or larger cache container doesn't show the hider is being lazy or thrifty, but rather it is their idea of placing an 'evil' cache -- one that is meant to frustrate the seeker. (i.e., they want to be known for their 'clever or evil' hide, rather than provide an interesting location with a regular sized container that would be easier to find.)

 

From reading other threads some people may take pride in hiding a 35mm film container within a pine cone in an oak forest (which may be clever), but the hide is clearly meant to be the point of the exercise, rather than the location.

Edited June 15, 2006 by Maxima

[+sbell111]

People also complain about micros that didn't bring them anywhere interesting. Well, this one took you somewhere interesting.

[+Adventure.AS]

People also complain about micros that didn't bring them anywhere interesting. Well, this one took you somewhere interesting.

 

Who's complaining. Just an observation.

[+ParrotRobAndCeCe]

Went out on a FTF dash last night on my way home from work (20 miles out of the way, but who's counting when FTF is at stake )

 

The coordinate issues I had, I'm going to chalk up to extremely low batteries in my GPSr--it promptly died 5 minutes after finding the cache, so I'm not going to complain about that. Instead, when I finally found the cache, it was a pill bottle tossed under the root ball of a tree. It *had* been painted, but the paint had already flaked off. My question is....why a pill bottle? There was EASILY room for an ammo can--or larger--in this spot, so why the small/micro? I hope this isn't the start of a string of bad containers--the last one (I DNF'd the final) was a multi whose first stage was a used chewing tobacco can. AAAAAARRRRRRRGH!

 

Okay, so I guess there isn't much of a point here other than a rant.....but why can't people take the time to put out a GOOD container?

 

Wow. I feel for you. The cache listing shows it to be a micro, and the Google satellite of the area shows it to be, well, woods. Who would have thunk it would turn out to be a micro in the woods?

 

There was EASILY room for an ammo can--or larger--in this spot, so why the small/micro?

 

Because that's the the hider CHOSE to put there. That's easy enough.

[+dkwolf]

Don't get me wrong, I'm very appreciative to the hider for placing the cache there, I enjoyed the hunt. I'm just a little confused/frustrated as to why someone would go to the work of scouting a cache location and filling out the submittal form, and put almost no effort into the cache container. Yes, it is obvious they did TRY to paint it, but either the paint flaked off before they even put it out, or in the two or three days between them hiding it and me finding it--in other words, a very bad paint job. Heck, the cache note didn't even have any note from the hider, was simply a single strip (3"x6" maybe) rolled up in the bottle.

 

I'm also not completely against a micro in the woods--I don't favor them, but I rarely trade so the room issue is moot; but I do move TB's when I can so it is nice to be able to drop on at a cache when needed.

 

In my book, if you're going to put a micro in the woods, do it RIGHT. Cleverly hidden, well camo'd, etc. Not a bare plastic bottle tossed under some roots--especially when that particular area could easily hold a full size ammo can with room to spare.

 

sbell---for reference, think the standard orange pill bottles you get with a prescription. 'Bout 1" diameter, 3" long or so--maybe large enough for trades of small coins, little erasers, stuff like that.

 

I guess my major rant is not that it was a micro in the woods, rather it was a poorly done micro in the woods.

Edited June 15, 2006 by dkwolf

[+sbell111]

Don't get me wrong, I'm very appreciative to the hider for placing the cache there, I enjoyed the hunt. I'm just a little confused/frustrated as to why someone would go to the work of scouting a cache location and filling out the submittal form, and put almost no effort into the cache container. Yes, it is obvious they did TRY to paint it, but either the paint flaked off before they even put it out, or in the two or three days between them hiding it and me finding it--in other words, a very bad paint job. Heck, the cache note didn't even have any note from the hider, was simply a single strip (3"x6" maybe) rolled up in the bottle.

 

I'm also not completely against a micro in the woods--I don't favor them, but I rarely trade so the room issue is moot; but I do move TB's when I can so it is nice to be able to drop on at a cache when needed.

 

In my book, if you're going to put a micro in the woods, do it RIGHT. Cleverly hidden, well camo'd, etc. Not a bare plastic bottle tossed under some roots--especially when that particular area could easily hold a full size ammo can with room to spare.

 

sbell---for reference, think the standard orange pill bottles you get with a prescription. 'Bout 1" diameter, 3" long or so--maybe large enough for trades of small coins, little erasers, stuff like that.

 

I guess my major rant is not that it was a micro in the woods, rather it was a poorly done micro in the woods.

ParrotRob has it right. The cache was a micro because the cache owner decided for it to be. It fit the guidelines and identified itself for what it was.

 

BTW, most micros do not contain a note from the hider. They typically only have the log.

 

Thanks for describing the cache bottle for me. I try to have some foreign coins in my pocket to leave in great micros like this one.

 

As for the micro being poorly done, the only thing wrong that I've heard is the paint flaked off. Paint was probably not the best way to go on this kind of pill bottle. Camo tape would have been better.

Edited June 15, 2006 by sbell111

[+dinotodd]

There have been a lot of these type of micros in my area in the last 6 months or so and I have logged a lot of DNF's and some I just plain old didn't take the time to log that I looked for and never found. I just wonder if the real problem is the difficulty rating on these.

 

Sure you see it's a wooded area and I like micros as much as the next person, but you don't always expect it to be quite so hard to find. We have some folks who even hide bison tubes, with camo tape on them, in trees, bushes, and other things. We have pill bottles covered in camo that are dropped in brush with only a string hanging out. I have stuck my hands in places I surely had no business and spent way too long climbing in the bushes thinking I was missing something because the difficulty was a 1.5.

 

Personally, my favorite micros are the ones in public areas hidden in plain site that is just not obvious to the casual observer. Those require stealth and can be a lot of fun for that reason. When it is wooded, I like something at least as big as a coffee can. Either that or make the difficulty higher so I allow myself more time.

[+sbell111]

There have been a lot of these type of micros in my area in the last 6 months or so and I have logged a lot of DNF's and some I just plain old didn't take the time to log that I looked for and never found. I just wonder if the real problem is the difficulty rating on these. ...

More people should suggest correct difficulty ratings in their logs.

[SAWKS]

Personally, my favorite micros are the ones in public areas hidden in plain site that is just not obvious to the casual observer. Those require stealth and can be a lot of fun for that reason. When it is wooded, I like something at least as big as a coffee can. Either that or make the difficulty higher so I allow myself more time.

Mine Too!

 

If you can place a bigger container, then do it. If it must be a micro then that's ok but micros and woods just don't mix well...

[+baloo&bd]

I have felt the same pain many times. I don't dislike hunting micros but I do dislike when a very nice remote location is used-up by a garbage cache.

 

I started reading this quoted post somewhat differently then how it turned out. You see for the most part, I think of any container larger than a small tupperware container sort of a waste. "Garbage cache" to me would be one filled with toys and trinkets that are either useless, broken or too much trouble to haul around.

 

Note, when I said "waste" I did not mean my time looking for it, just that it seems like a lot of space just for the logbook, which is all I am interested in. If I was looking to get rid of a TB, I would have been more dissapointed to show up expecting a regular and found a micro, however the hider was kind enough to list it properly so I knew EXACTLY what I was going after.

 

Luckily this "anti-micro" thing is limited to the forums and not actual caching, because if the majority of those out there caching hated micros, it seems logical they would all disappear instead of filling the logs so quickly and taking some of us to areas we would not have otherwise given a second glance.

[+Kacky]

I have noticed that in my (limited) experience it appears that a micro in a place that would support a small or larger cache container doesn't show the hider is being lazy or thrifty, but rather it is their idea of placing an 'evil' cache -- one that is meant to frustrate the seeker. (i.e., they want to be known for their 'clever or evil' hide, rather than provide an interesting location with a regular sized container that would be easier to find.)

 

From reading other threads some people may take pride in hiding a 35mm film container within a pine cone in an oak forest (which may be clever), but the hide is clearly meant to be the point of the exercise, rather than the location.

 

Wow, very insightful. I think you're onto something.

 

I hope my hides are about the finder. A woodsy spot is more likely to have families than an urban cache would, so I feel like I want to leave trade items there, but I understand that what I want to do is not necessarily what others would do.

 

Our challenge, as hiders, is to keep getting better. In my mind, anything involving a film canister, guardrail or lamppost skirt is no longer a viable hide because they've been done to the limit. (There's a hide in Skowhegan Maine that LOOKS like it's going to be a skirt, but when you lift it, there's a note to the effect of "as IF! Keep looking") But who's to say I'm not just jaded, and plenty of hiders might still think those are clever alternatives? I like the idea of a nasty, evil, difficult hide in the woods, but I hope there would be a trade cache also, within a third of a mile.

[+sbell111]

I think what gets me about the 'micro in the woods' issue is that the game has been around for something like six years. If the location needed an ammo box, why hadn't somebody tossed one there already?

[+dkwolf]

Don't get me wrong, I'm very appreciative to the hider for placing the cache there, I enjoyed the hunt. I'm just a little confused/frustrated as to why someone would go to the work of scouting a cache location and filling out the submittal form, and put almost no effort into the cache container. Yes, it is obvious they did TRY to paint it, but either the paint flaked off before they even put it out, or in the two or three days between them hiding it and me finding it--in other words, a very bad paint job. Heck, the cache note didn't even have any note from the hider, was simply a single strip (3"x6" maybe) rolled up in the bottle.

 

I'm also not completely against a micro in the woods--I don't favor them, but I rarely trade so the room issue is moot; but I do move TB's when I can so it is nice to be able to drop on at a cache when needed.

 

In my book, if you're going to put a micro in the woods, do it RIGHT. Cleverly hidden, well camo'd, etc. Not a bare plastic bottle tossed under some roots--especially when that particular area could easily hold a full size ammo can with room to spare.

 

sbell---for reference, think the standard orange pill bottles you get with a prescription. 'Bout 1" diameter, 3" long or so--maybe large enough for trades of small coins, little erasers, stuff like that.

 

I guess my major rant is not that it was a micro in the woods, rather it was a poorly done micro in the woods.

ParrotRob has it right. The cache was a micro because the cache owner decided for it to be. It fit the guidelines and identified itself for what it was.

 

BTW, most micros do not contain a note from the hider. They typically only have the log.

 

Thanks for describing the cache bottle for me. I try to have some foreign coins in my pocket to leave in great micros like this one.

 

As for the micro being poorly done, the only thing wrong that I've heard is the paint flaked off. Paint was probably not the best way to go on this kind of pill bottle. Camo tape would have been better.

 

I agree, camo tape would be the way to go here. I really wish I had a camera with me to take a picture of the hide though.

 

There have been a lot of these type of micros in my area in the last 6 months or so and I have logged a lot of DNF's and some I just plain old didn't take the time to log that I looked for and never found. I just wonder if the real problem is the difficulty rating on these. ...

More people should suggest correct difficulty ratings in their logs.

 

I will agree, this one was rated correctly for D/T, but I still think the hide could have been better. Guess you'd have to see it to really understand.

[+sbell111]

I will agree, this one was rated correctly for D/T, but I still think the hide could have been better. Guess you'd have to see it to really understand.

Isn't that true about all caches?

 

It brought you to nice place. It was rated correctly. The log was dry.

 

Sounds like a keeper.

[+budd-rdc]

I've encountered a few micro-in-the-woods, and they are OK if the coordinates are good, and the number of potential hiding places are limited.

 

I've also hid one, but it's not really in the woods, it's at a clearing near a vista point. It's a pill bottle that's larger than two 35mm film cans, but since it's smaller than a Decon Container, I called it a Micro. Lots of muggles visit there, so I thought it was appropriate.

 

I usually give explicit hints, and people can choose not to use it if they want the challenge. (it's called the honor system ) I do not enjoy reading DNF's. However, some people do - it's easy to tell by how the cache is hidden and how it is listed.

 

I don't care if the hider was "lazy or cheap" as long as the cache is meant to be found by cachers. Interesting location and/or a hike is always nice, too. An ammo box or nut jar in the woods with log book but nothing else is OK by me.

[+vree]

I've encountered a few micro-in-the-woods, and they are OK if the coordinates are good, and the number of potential hiding places are limited.

what concerns me about micros in the woods is the higher potential for cache seekers to do more environmental damage searching around if there are a lot of potential hiding places. heavy tree cover and a smaller container makes for a wider search area and more environmental impact. it's why i really don't search for micros in the woods any more. well, that and i don't really have the patience for it.

[+sbell111]

The woods must be different in Kalamazoo than it is in Tennessee or New York.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

With a very few rare exceptions, I am not a fan of micros hidden in the woods or other wildernes areas where they are very hard to find, and I vow here that if I ever become president of the USA, or better, President of the New World Order (well, it must exist -- I keep reading about it on the Internet, and if I read it on the Internet, it must be true), I will outlaw all of the following:

• micros hidden in woods, widlerness areas and backcountry areas, with but very few exceptions
  
• lame urban micros, including guardrail micros and most lamppost micros (one token lamppost micro will be allowed per 5 square miles)
  
• any caches which irritate me. Uh, oh, eventhough my wife Sue loves puzzle caches, I find most of them bizarrely irritating... and may need to add them to my list...
  

In fact, since I am not at all a political person, my only motive for ever wanting to become President of the New World Order is so that I can force my geocaching preferences (likes and dislikes) on the world via force of law.

[+Miragee]

I have some micros hidden at the end of long hikes . . . and they rarely get visited. Even if I spent the money on an ammo can and lots of great swag, I still don't think people would make these hikes. Also, I didn't hide these caches so they would be hard to find. I don't think soomeone should have to search very long for any cache, micro or ammo can, that is at the end of a long hike.

 

Even though these are micro containers, the locations should make the trek worthwhile.

 

Arachnophobes Not Invited

 

Mega Boulders, Micro Cache

 

Do You See Don Quixote?

 

If I thought more people would hike to these caches if I put out an ammo can, maybe I would. But I have other ammo-can caches with great views that also don't get visited.

[+Tsmola]

Evil Micro

 

The cache above is an extremely well-done micro in the woods that I was fortunate enough to get a FTF on.

 

I don't mind micros in the woods, one I did was just like the one you described above, it was a pill bottle in the roots of a tree. It only took me about a minute to find but it really wasn't too exciting of a find. But I've done a few that were great fun.

[+humanloofa]

If it bothers you that much, I sugest revisiting the cache and relog it this time include, T micro L ammo can TFTC. I have been to a few not so well placed micros in an area that could have hidden a 50 gallon drum. I wounder if anyone would get mad if I put there micro in an ammo can and rehid it in the same spot.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

I own a number of traditionals, (ammo can size (camo waterproof plastic dry-boxes from Academy Sports, actually)) but by geocacher acclaim their favorite cache of mine is Rambler's Only Micro (GCMB22), a film can in the woods outside a cemetary. It's rarely found without help or a phone-a-friend.

 

81 finds in 2+ years and no complaints so far.

 

Ed

Edited June 15, 2006 by TheAlabamaRambler

[+nancois]

Yeah, I am so sick of this micro vs. regular size argument.

 

If some people need to swap items as an incentive to cache; forget caching and go to a flea market. There's a big one up here in Tukwila. WA., for those interested.

 

I could not care less about what is in a cache other than the logbook, unless it is a sig item. I'm not even that keen on TBs or coins; even though I still think they are a good idea, they are not a prime motivator for me. If I have a pen with me, it does not matter whether I find a micro or a regular. The value, to me, is in the search and/or the location.

 

Please keep in mind that I'm not directing this at anyone in particular. I'm just venting about the very old, very tired subject of this, and many other, threads.

[Little Miss Muffet]

 

Even though these are micro containers, the locations should make the trek worthwhile.

 

Arachnophobes Not Invited

 

If I thought more people would hike to these caches if I put out an ammo can, maybe I would. But I have other ammo-can caches with great views that also don't get visited.

 

Thanks for the warning!

[+NotThePainter]

I recently placed a micro in the woods.

 

Why?

 

Why not? I placed a loop of cache is the woods. There is more than 1.5 miles of bushwhacking, 2 minor climbs and 1 not so minor climb, 1 (or 2) stream crossing(s). To do it all takes a few hours and you get:

 

- a multi

- a letterbox hybrid

- 2 puzzles (one is very hard, one is a bonus one for doing the multi)

- a traditional big container

- a carefully crafted micro

 

It is sorta like a geo-buffet (oh, i threw in a CITO event also!).

 

As for micros being less maintainence, man, I so disagree with you. My first hide was a full size ammo can. That thing just rocks. I almost never have to do anything with it. My micros, shees, PITA!

 

Paul

[+ParrotRobAndCeCe]

If it bothers you that much, I sugest revisiting the cache and relog it this time include, T micro L ammo can TFTC. I have been to a few not so well placed micros in an area that could have hidden a 50 gallon drum. I wounder if anyone would get mad if I put there micro in an ammo can and rehid it in the same spot.

 

I wonder if you would get mad if I took one of your ammo cans and replaced it with a film canister. T ammo can L micro TFTC.

 

I sure hope you were kidding.

[+horsegeeks]

With a very few rare exceptions, I am not a fan of micros hidden in the woods or other wildernes areas where they are very hard to find, and I vow here that if I ever become president of the USA, or better, President of the New World Order (well, it must exist -- I keep reading about it on the Internet, and if I read it on the Internet, it must be true), I will outlaw all of the following:

• micros hidden in woods, widlerness areas and backcountry areas, with but very few exceptions
  
• lame urban micros, including guardrail micros and most lamppost micros (one token lamppost micro will be allowed per 5 square miles)
  
• any caches which irritate me. Uh, oh, eventhough my wife Sue loves puzzle caches, I find most of them bizarrely irritating... and may need to add them to my list...
  

In fact, since I am not at all a political person, my only motive for ever wanting to become President of the New World Order is so that I can force my geocaching preferences (likes and dislikes) on the world via force of law.

 

I sure wouldn't have voted for you with that agenda:-)

[+JDandDD]

We placed a micro in a forest and so far everyone who has found it has enjoyed the hunt. The hiding spot takes you to a spot where you learn something about how a forest works. Its like any other cache, if its done well and people enjoy the find then you have suceeded in promoting the game in my opinion.

 

JDandDD

[+dkwolf]

The more I've thought about this, the more I've realized. It's not the fact that it was a micro in the woods that really upset me, it's how poorly it was done. I'd be willing to bet I spent more time searching for it than the owner did finding the place, making the cache, and filling out the form. I've found several micros deep in the woods that were a thrill to hunt--and this one was too, it was just poorly done, and I can't really describe it well here.

[+Pablo Mac]

I just logged my 2nd DNF on a micro in the woods that could easily sustain and justify a nice, large container, given the fantastic view a few hundred feet (but less than 528' - dang!) away.

[+sbell111]

I just logged my 2nd DNF on a micro in the woods that could easily sustain and justify a nice, large container, given the fantastic view a few hundred feet (but less than 528' - dang!) away.

A cache brought you to a great location twice. Sweet.

[+Kacky]

Yeah, I am so sick of this micro vs. regular size argument.

 

 

You should skip these threads if you're over it. Some people haven't been visiting the forums as long and have not discussed the subject yet.

[+woody_k]

The argument of "Don't like it..don't go find it" is so over used it doesn't hold weight anymore. I think we all know that by now, so do us a favor and come up with a better argument please.

 

I agree with the OP. A cache placement should coincide with the area around it. If it can only hold a micro great....if can hold an ammo can that is what it should and I hope it would be.

 

Those of you who so "you don't have to find it" make a huge disservice to geocaching. Geocaching will degrade down to where there nothing but micros if these (I assume) new hiders are not taught told. And yes it is our responsibility to help out new hiders.

 

3 years ago there were maybe a half dozen micros within 10 miles from my house...now there are over 300. Many of which could have been a small container like a small peanut butter plastic jar or a plastic coffee can. Many hiders feel that if it is an urban area it simply has to be a micro.

 

Personally I think it takes a much better cacher to find places to hide a large cache.

 

So please no more "you don't have to go find it" argument....that's as lame as a lamp post hide. Plus I have been caching long enough to know that.....probably doing this longer than many of you who say that.

 

In my area it there are few hiders, and quite seasoned at that, that still hide these micos in a bush. I have 2 caches planned that are going to be hid in a bush but these will hold all but the largest TBs. One is a 2 foot long tube I am going to hide in a ivy covered wall. My cache page will say something like...see it doesn't have to be a micro.

 

So a micro in the forrest or desert where a larger cache could have been place is lame.

[+sbell111]

The argument of "Don't like it..don't go find it" is so over used it doesn't hold weight anymore. I think we all know that by now, so do us a favor and come up with a better argument please.

Actually, the argument that I prefer is 'If you don't like them, use the tools provided to you and filter them out. This cache is the perfect example. It is obvious what it is before you leave the house, so why would you go look for it if you know you won't like it?

I agree with the OP. A cache placement should coincide with the area around it. If it can only hold a micro great....if can hold an ammo can that is what it should and I hope it would be.

Others disagree with you. We know that this is true because micros, like this one, get hidden and many people log (and post in the forums) that they enjoy them.

Those of you who so "you don't have to find it" make a huge disservice to geocaching. Geocaching will degrade down to where there nothing but micros if these (I assume) new hiders are not taught told. And yes it is our responsibility to help out new hiders.

In a recent thread, Markwell posted the totals of different sizes of caches placed in his area over time. While it is true that the number of micros had increased, the number of normal-sized caches increased consistently. This steady growth of 'regular-sized' caches proves that micros aren't taking over, in my opinion.

3 years ago there were maybe a half dozen micros within 10 miles from my house...now there are over 300. Many of which could have been a small container like a small peanut butter plastic jar or a plastic coffee can. Many hiders feel that if it is an urban area it simply has to be a micro.

Your logic is flawed. Five years ago there were three caches within 10 miles of my home. Two of those were quickly destroyed. (BTW, many people prefer not to use PB jars or coffee cans as they can attract fauna.

Personally I think it takes a much better cacher to find places to hide a large cache.

I seriously disagree. In general, micros are hidden in muggle-rich areas and therefore must be hidden with great care. Ammo cans, however, are often hidden in the woods. They generally are just set next to a tree; sometimes covered with sticks.

So please no more "you don't have to go find it" argument....that's as lame as a lamp post hide. Plus I have been caching long enough to know that.....probably doing this longer than many of you who say that.

Whatever.

In my area it there are few hiders, and quite seasoned at that, that still hide these micos in a bush. I have 2 caches planned that are going to be hid in a bush but these will hold all but the largest TBs. One is a 2 foot long tube I am going to hide in a ivy covered wall. My cache page will say something like...see it doesn't have to be a micro.

I'm not a big fan of caches hidden in bushes, but do what you have to do.

So a micro in the forrest or desert where a larger cache could have been place is lame.

Many people end a comment like that with 'in my opinion'. You see that makes you sound less demanding that everyone must conform to your way of playing. When you don't do that, you risk coming off as a crank. Edited June 16, 2006 by sbell111