Cache Locations

[The Trek Jesters]

My wife and I just returned from finding our tenth cache yesterday. I know that is not a lot compared to others out their, but we are proud of our ten and have a great time finding them. One thing that we have noticed is that about half of our finds were in locations that I would never think or want to place a cache. Our last find was only steps away from a busy highway in plain view of all passersby. It was definitely not a cache I would want to hunt around at night for either. My complaint is this: Geocaching is supposed to be a fun and safe activity for all to enjoy and the locations should in some way have some meaning or specialness to them that we want to share with others; lets keep it that way! Why is it that when I browse user profiles on the website, I find people with 10 found, 21 hidden? Is this a contest to place a bunch of meaningless caches in absolutely horrible spots just to say you've hidden "X" number of caches? Make them count people. My wife and I hid our first cache recently, and it took us multiple hiking trips to decide where we were going to place it. Not only that, we had previously decided that we would not hide our first cache until we had found at least ten. Our next hide wont occur until we find 25. Should we incorporate some guidelines into our sport or am I completely wrong? We are never going to get away from people leaving "trash" in our caches, even though we may start it out with some really good stuff. But it seems to me that the whole idea of what we all enjoy to do is to just get out and visit some new places that we've never been before, enjoy the history or the view, share our experiences with our friends, and say thank you to those who brought us there by signing their log book. I dont want to visit the shoulder of an interstate or a grocery store parking lot or the base of someones mailbox. I want to visit an area overlooking an expanse of mountain range or a freshwater spring or a stop along the pony express route or even a nice shady spot in a local park. I think we should re-visit what started this sport off in the first place and bring a little more quality into each others experiences.

 

My intentions were not to offend anyone by writing this, hopefully none were taken. Safe and Happy Caching!

[+gof1]

Did you use an old fashion can opener or one of those fancy new electric job to this can of worms?

[+briansnat]

Is this a contest to place a bunch of meaningless caches in absolutely horrible spots just to say you've hidden "X" number of caches.

 

For some people yes. Its not the number of hides though. Its the imagination and iniative of the hider. I know people with dozens of very high quality, well maintained caches and I know people who only own two or three caches and they are as you describe.

 

Just remember you don't have to do them all. Concentrate on those hiders whose caches you prefer and filter out the people who are spewing junk caches all over. You can also filter out micros and anything under 2 star terrain, Sure, you'll miss a few good ones, but and it will definitely increase the overall quality of the caches you hunt.

[+Metaphor]

But it seems to me that the whole idea of what we all enjoy to do is to just get out and visit some new places that we've never been before, enjoy the history or the view, share our experiences with our friends, and say thank you to those who brought us there by signing their log book. I dont want to visit the shoulder of an interstate or a grocery store parking lot or the base of someones mailbox. I want to visit an area overlooking an expanse of mountain range or a freshwater spring or a stop along the pony express route or even a nice shady spot in a local park. I think we should re-visit what started this sport off in the first place and bring a little more quality into each others experiences.

 

Excellent sentiments. A lot of folks miss this aspect...Welcome aboard.

[+Nels_Anderson]

I completely agree with your sentiments about this. I cache for the same reasons you do. But for some people yes, it is all about the numbers and not about the quality so you have to watch out for that.

 

I'd hate to see geocaching get over-regulated as you don't want to stop peoples' creativity. So, all I can suggest is that you choose your caches carefully. The cache description should give you a good idea whether it's worth visiting or not and a quick check with Google Maps or something equivalent will warn you off from those that border a highway or other undesireable area. I'm sure you'll learn to avoid such caches with more experience.

[+olbluesguy]

I totaly agree with the frustration of the OP and no way does this reflect on him

BUT:

 

One way to end al of this hullabaloo about lousy caches in lousy places is to tell the truth when you write your log on the cache pages.

If it stinks, say so... then if more than a few say it stinks,the next guy loking at the page will have something to go by.

Oh wait, it's easy to come in here and gripe in relitive anonymity then to tell the truth to locals who might know who you are.

That goes for caches you havn't found ,and collected a smiley,and all the rest of the ad nausium topics I have been reading here lately.

Tell it where it really matters. if it matters that much. You don't have to be rude to be truthfull.

[+Mudfrog]

I totaly agree with the frustration of the OP and no way does this reflect on him

BUT:

 

One way to end al of this hullabaloo about lousy caches in lousy places is to tell the truth when you write your log on the cache pages.

If it stinks, say so... then if more than a few say it stinks,the next guy loking at the page will have something to go by.

Oh wait, it's easy to come in here and gripe in relitive anonymity then to tell the truth to locals who might know who you are.

That goes for caches you havn't found ,and collected a smiley,and all the rest of the ad nausium topics I have been reading here lately.

Tell it where it really matters. if it matters that much. You don't have to be rude to be truthfull.

 

Agree, but in most cases it's easier said than done! Saying what you think is certainly harder when you know these people personally (have become friends with) and when you feel that they are just doing what is fun to them. Some people like hiding micros in places that majority of cachers would never have any interest in going to. It seems strange to me but the bottom line is that these are usually good people and for whatever reason, this is how they like to play the game.

 

I sure don't mind giving my opinion when i think a cache is unsafe or is not within GC guidelines, but i very rarely say anything negative about how lame i think a cache is. Sure we can (and need to) throw out hints and/or offer suggestions to these owners as to what we think makes for a better cache, but why hurt someone's feelings and possibly run them off from the game when we ourselves can work around it.

[+TheGreatFinders]

One thing that we have noticed is that about half of our finds were in locations that I would never think or want to place a cache. I find people with 10 found, 21 hidden? Is this a contest to place a bunch of meaningless caches in absolutely horrible spots just to say you've hidden "X" number of caches?

 

As you cache more, you'll start recognizing geocacher names, and you'll know which ones typically contribute good hides and/or the type of hides that you enjoy doing. We started recognizing names within our first 30 finds; we know that those by X will be a little harder but enjoyable; cacher Y usually places crappy micros everywhere; cacher Z likes to stand at the edge of the path and launch a nice ammo box into the briar patch. etc... You'll get familiar with the hide habits of cachers in your area - especially if you're purposefully paying attention to it.

 

-Chris

DadGreatFinder

of TheGreatFinders in Houston, TX

[+Miragee]

This thread addressed what you are talking about.

 

If a GONG cannot be given to a cache, perhaps the cache submission page could have Variables like those used on some Waymarks. The mandatory Variables would make hiders think about the suitability of their cache placement.

 

If they still want to place a lousy cache in a terrible location, at least they have been forced to think about it.

 

If something like this isn't implemented, I agree with the others who have already posted. You will soon learn who places good caches and who places caches to avoid and put on your Ignore list so they won't exist in "your world."

[+sbell111]

Did you use an old fashion can opener or one of those fancy new electric job to this can of worms?

We have a spacemaker can opener mounted to the bottom of a kitch cabinet, but I hate it. Most of the time it refuses to let go of the can after it openes it. This can lead to spillage as you work to get it released. I picked up a 'Good Grips' manual can opener and it works great.

 

I hope I've helped.

 

[+Davispak]

Again, you are making a statement about an argumant that has been going on for probably since this site has been up. Which also brings up something I have been saying for awhile and will continue to say and post because I believe we need a rating system for caches. There only need be one question "do you reccomend this cache?" it can be anonymous and if a cache gets over half reccomends then it can get an icon or even its own special search criteria.

 

With it being anonymous, no one will know if someone gave a reccomendation or not thus no retaliation can be done unless they do it against everyone including people who reccomended the cache

 

Think about it, you make a query on reccomended caches, and you only have to hunt caches that other cachers thought were good. No worries about if someone said something bad about a cache that the log was deleted or that you have to make nice on your logs for fear of retaliation on your caches. The only thing that is known is that the cache was reccomended by the majority of cachers who visited the cache.

 

This also satisfies two things, the number hounds can go after any and all caches they want, while people looking for that "great" cache to hunt while out can pick from the reccomended caches.

 

I believe that this will work for even micros can get reccomended if they are good caches. I think that this will also eliminate some of the "lame" caches out there

[+TrailGators]

Again, you are making a statement about an argumant that has been going on for probably since this site has been up. Which also brings up something I have been saying for awhile and will continue to say and post because I believe we need a rating system for caches. There only need be one question "do you reccomend this cache?" it can be anonymous and if a cache gets over half reccomends then it can get an icon or even its own special search criteria.

 

With it being anonymous, no one will know if someone gave a reccomendation or not thus no retaliation can be done unless they do it against everyone including people who reccomended the cache

 

Think about it, you make a query on reccomended caches, and you only have to hunt caches that other cachers thought were good. No worries about if someone said something bad about a cache that the log was deleted or that you have to make nice on your logs for fear of retaliation on your caches. The only thing that is known is that the cache was reccomended by the majority of cachers who visited the cache.

 

This also satisfies two things, the number hounds can go after any and all caches they want, while people looking for that "great" cache to hunt while out can pick from the reccomended caches.

 

I believe that this will work for even micros can get reccomended if they are good caches. I think that this will also eliminate some of the "lame" caches out there

Although I agree with you, the rating system has gotten a lot of resistance in these threads. However , having a user assigned "Favorite cache" attribute seemed to be much more palletable to everyone and would accomplish the same thing. I also believe this is in the future plans.

[+Davispak]

I think the resistance to a rating system has been that people fear retaliation on them or their caches if they gave someone a bad rating or did not reccomend the cache. I think by making it anonymous you take care of that problem.

The other issue that I have heard is people will reccomend all caches, but I don't think so. In my short hunting history, I would probably only reccomend 20-25 out of 100 caches. I would have reccomended my first lightpost micro, but probably none of the others, except one that was at a very nice location and a very cool twist on the hide.

Give the rating system a chance.

[+TrailGators]

I think the resistance to a rating system has been that people fear retaliation on them or their caches if they gave someone a bad rating or did not reccomend the cache. I think by making it anonymous you take care of that problem.

The other issue that I have heard is people will reccomend all caches, but I don't think so. In my short hunting history, I would probably only reccomend 20-25 out of 100 caches. I would have reccomended my first lightpost micro, but probably none of the others, except one that was at a very nice location and a very cool twist on the hide.

Give the rating system a chance.

How about a simple thumbs up and thumbs down vote? You could slow stats like we see on many websites like 20 out of 22 cachers recommend this cache. Or 10 or of 10 cachers do not recommend this cache. If you are neutral you don't vote.

[+krisandmel]

Forgive me if this has been mentioned, but couldn't geocaching.com set up a rule that you can't hide any caches until you've found X number?

Or a ratio, like hide 1 max per 10 found or whatever number is agreed upon?

 

I belong to a few different forums for my various hobbies, and a few of them will not allow a new member to start a New Topic until they've replied to 10 existing topics.

That prevents some people from just popping in shopping for info without contributing to the forum as a whole.

 

I've only hidden 1 cache thus far, and I want to keep it within reason.

 

At least two reasons I can cite:

I want to put thought into a clever hide in a good location.

And, I want to be able to check on the cache regularly to ensure it's in good condition.

 

If I had 30 hidden, I'd spend alot of time on maintenance.

It's tempting to hide a cache along the way on a vacation too, but then I wouldn't be able to maintain it once I'm back home hundreds of miles away.

 

At least at this point, I don't want more than 3-4 hidden that I have to keep tabs on.

 

But that's just me, -Kris

[+Yellow ants]

Forgive me if this has been mentioned, but couldn't geocaching.com set up a rule that you can't hide any caches until you've found X number?

Or a ratio, like hide 1 max per 10 found or whatever number is agreed upon?

 

That is an excellent idea that will serve to increase the number of hides in already dense areas while inhibiting the placement of new caches in relatively empty areas.

[+RichardMoore]

Forgive me if this has been mentioned, but couldn't geocaching.com set up a rule that you can't hide any caches until you've found X number?

Or a ratio, like hide 1 max per 10 found or whatever number is agreed upon?

 

That is an excellent idea that will serve to increase the number of hides in already dense areas while inhibiting the placement of new caches in relatively empty areas.

How would limiting the ability to hide caches increase the number of hides?

[+Yellow ants]

That is an excellent idea that will serve to increase the number of hides in already dense areas while inhibiting the placement of new caches in relatively empty areas.

How would limiting the ability to hide caches increase the number of hides?

 

It won't. There's an implicit "relatively" in my post

 

If you need to find X caches before you're able to hide one yourself, and you accept that cachers normally cache close to home, cachers in high-density areas will reach X finds before cachers in low-density areas. It thus follows that more caches are likely to be hidden by these cachers, further increasing the density while the low-density cachers have to drive all over the place in order to be able to populate their local area with caches.

[+briansnat]

That is an excellent idea that will serve to increase the number of hides in already dense areas while inhibiting the placement of new caches in relatively empty areas.

How would limiting the ability to hide caches increase the number of hides?

 

It won't. There's an implicit "relatively" in my post

 

If you need to find X caches before you're able to hide one yourself, and you accept that cachers normally cache close to home, cachers in high-density areas will reach X finds before cachers in low-density areas. It thus follows that more caches are likely to be hidden by these cachers, further increasing the density while the low-density cachers have to drive all over the place in order to be able to populate their local area with caches.

 

And someone who lives in an area with no caches won't be able to hide any.

[+Yellow ants]

And someone who lives in an area with no caches won't be able to hide any.

 

My point exactly. You'd be relying on existing cachers to fly out to cacheless corners of the world to proselytizepopulate them with caches.

[+krisandmel]

I understand those points.

 

One could make a case I suppose, that the sport of geocaching is partly about going to places you wouldn't normally go, seeing things people don't normally see (in the boring 9-5 of the daily grind).

So if what you say about the density issue is true, than it could possibly prompt new cachers, heck, all cachers, to venture beyond their county lines into 'uncharted' territory.

 

Any rules though that would discourage the spread of and participation in the sport would be a bad idea, I agree.

 

I'm merely brainstorming about possible ways to maintain a high quality of caches, which in itself has many subjective meanings, I'm learning.

 

Some love micros, some hate 'em.

Some love multi's and puzzles; me, I'm such a noob I just like the traditional regulars and smalls right now.

 

I do think though, that it would be nice to have something in place that would prevent some people with a fleeting infatuation with geocaching from just tossing a bucket of crap out in the woods and calling himself/herself a geocacher.

 

Just like professional bicyclists look down on some shlub that buys a $3000 road bike and never wears the little whiskers off the tires.

Owning the toys does not make one a member of any activity.

 

If caches are poorly thought out, ill-maintained, contain junk, are easily muggled, and are uninteresting then 'real' geocachers won't want to look for them, and really don't amount to much more than littering in the woods.

 

I think there's probably a common thread of frustration that some people place on micros, others on 'junk' swag, others unimaginative camo/placement/containment, others on 5/5 rated caches.

People don't want the reward to outweigh the effort.

Some people truly are into the hike, and only the hike, they don't care what's in/at the cache.

They're called hikers.

We're geocachers by self-granted title.

That means to some extent we are all interested in the prize.

A film can under a bench with a scrap to sign, or a box full of one penny plastic spider rings, or an unadorned tupperware out in the open or a 2 hour hike through PI to find an open soggy empty ammo can all take a bit of fun out of it in some way or another.

We like this sport and it's disappointing to see those things.

I don't think anyone here wants to rag on others about liking this or that instead of what they like.

We're all just trying to find ways to better this activity for all of us, without bogging it down with as many rules as some 'organized' sport.

 

Whew, if you read all that, thanks! Sorry I rambled, just got of the night shift at the gerbil wheel.

G'night, -Kris

[caledonia]

I would have reccomended my first lightpost micro......

 

As would I, because the first time I saw one it seemed so unique. I might not rate one nearly as high now, but that wouldn't necessarily mean the first one was that much better in the overall scheme of things. For that reason, I agree with those who point out that gaining more caching experience is probably the best way to learn to sort out what you can expect from certain hiders. You can often even get some idea of what to expect from reading the cache page once you have read and found more. It's sort of like going to the movies. You read the storyline and other folks' comments and sometimes you still wind up going to one you don't like. Out of those, perhaps you still had fun getting out of the house, visiting with friends, or even commiserating with others about how awful it was. Sometimes even a less than satisfactory day caching can add up to a good story later, and at least more experience. It's not brain surgery, just go and have fun!

[+gof1]

Lead by example.

Show the masses how to place a good cache by doing so.

Don't be afraid to take a new cacher under your wing.

If you are a new cacher ask questions.

Don't be afraid to point out an error (Thanks TWU, I got the point and I learned)

Remember that what you enjoy and what I enjoy may be different.

Some love a long hike to a view. Some like to find a dozen micro caches under Wallyworld lamp posts.

The trick is to find a way to search for the caches that you enjoy.

Have fun, THAT is what this game is about.

[+Davispak]

Again, some people have hunted hundreds of caches and are not very imaginative and still just place regular caches willy nilly. Some people find one cache,but are great imaginative thinkers and hide fantastic caches. Numbers mean nothing if it isn't done with alot of thought behind the cache. I have six caches and I only placed them when I had inspiration and then spent hours putting it together. Does that mean they are all great caches? Probably not, but I at least spent some time on them.

 

Again I say a rating system would fix the lame cache problem.

[+Kit Fox]

I totaly agree with the frustration of the OP and no way does this reflect on him

BUT:

 

One way to end al of this hullabaloo about lousy caches in lousy places is to tell the truth when you write your log on the cache pages.

If it stinks, say so... then if more than a few say it stinks,the next guy loking at the page will have something to go by.

Oh wait, it's easy to come in here and gripe in relitive anonymity then to tell the truth to locals who might know who you are.

That goes for caches you havn't found ,and collected a smiley,and all the rest of the ad nausium topics I have been reading here lately.

Tell it where it really matters. if it matters that much. You don't have to be rude to be truthfull.

 

I'm brutally honest in my online logs. More cachers should write logs like this, "If it wasn't for geocaching, I would have never know about this parking lot, or this homeless encampment, or this trash dump." See mySpecial bookmark for high risk caches. Quality caches get a Top 5% bookmark

 

A good rule of thumb is to look for caches with at least a 3 star terrain rating. This weeds out 100% of the guardrail, light pole, and newspaper rack caches.

Edited July 4, 2006 by Kit Fox

[+Yellow ants]

A good rule of thumb is to look for caches with at least a 3 star terrain rating. This weeds out 100% of the guardrail, light pole, and newspaper rack caches.

 

It would also reduce the cache count within 10km of my apartment from 167 to 11. In the process, all the interesting urban history caches around here were also weeded out.

[+olbluesguy]

Forgive me if this has been mentioned, but couldn't geocaching.com set up a rule that you can't hide any caches until you've found X number?

Or a ratio, like hide 1 max per 10 found or whatever number is agreed upon?

 

I hope for my sake,and the sake of others in my position that this never happens.

Bieng an active outdoors person all my life I have recently became a double statistic.

statistic #1... one of those that had a heart attack dragging a deer out of the woods #2 three months after retirement.

Three heart ops.in the last two years left me a little less robust than in my previous days.

I can still spend some time in areas that I am familiar with in order to place caches, but I am reluctant to seek as many as I would like in unfamiliar territory.

As much as I would like to hunt the far away,and off the beaten path caches I realize that my kick from this Geocaching thing has to be in hiding.

So far I have been getting decent reviews even though my find count is low.

[+Team Cotati]

When you become a premium member, check out Pocket Queries, you'll simply love them.

[+Kit Fox]

A good rule of thumb is to look for caches with at least a 3 star terrain rating. This weeds out 100% of the guardrail, light pole, and newspaper rack caches.

 

It would also reduce the cache count within 10km of my apartment from 167 to 11. In the process, all the interesting urban history caches around here were also weeded out.

 

Try 2 stars + terrain. Since there are only 167 caches within 10 km, you can open the cache pages and review them. Look for caches that interest you, historic, scenic view, etc. By reviewing the "found it" logs, you can usually tell if the cache is good or not. A cache with multiple TNSL logs, usually indicates a lame, or unexciting cache.

[The Trek Jesters]

What about a cache response system that works similarly to questionaire page that helps fellow cacher rate the difficulty and terrain of those caches which we ourselves place. This could be attached to the "log visit" page and show up as a line item in our overall response to the cache. We then could look for responses from cachers who we recognize and respect their opinions to help form our own, and decide if it's a cache which we want to pursue. This way we don't liomit the number of caches placed, we can be honest about our experiences and at the same time encourage others to place more suitable caches.

[+krisandmel]

Trek,

Do you mean like a finder-rating? So if I go looking for a cache and find it I can click on a spot in the log to give it my opinion of it's rating?

That sounds like a good idea!

 

-K

[The Trek Jesters]

Trek,

Do you mean like a finder-rating? So if I go looking for a cache and find it I can click on a spot in the log to give it my opinion of it's rating?

That sounds like a good idea!

 

-K

K,

Something like that. Of course everyones opinion will be different, but eventually we will be able to identify those opinions which we trust and those we dont. Through the responses, a number rating could even be applied to rank the cache among others...

...18 out of 20 cachers recommend this cache to others.

...15 out of 20 cachers give this cache an 8 or above.

...82% rate this cache among their favorite finds, etc.

 

This would be attached to each posted log, and or to the cache page itself. People can still do whatever they want when placing caches ( there will always be those who are just in it for the numbers...hide or seek ).

 

-Trek

[+Yellow ants]

Since there are only 167 caches within 10 km, you can open the cache pages and review them.

 

Been there, done that. I'm less than 200 caches from having cursorily reviewed some 1500 caches (all Danish caches except Mysteries) for suitability (for me). I never go caching unprepared.

 

My point was that in areas where "lame" (FSVO lame) micros are prevalent, there are unlikely to be that many other caches with high terrain ratings, since guardrail micros and the like are concentrated in cities (at least over here, YMMV). So filtering by terrain seems to be a rather clumsy way of doing this. Not that I have any better suggestion myself, just pointing out that filtering like that also removes most of the nice caches in the area as well.

[+olbluesguy]

K,

Something like that. Of course everyones opinion will be different, but eventually we will be able to identify those opinions which we trust and those we dont. Through the responses, a number rating could even be applied to rank the cache among others...

...18 out of 20 cachers recommend this cache to others.

...15 out of 20 cachers give this cache an 8 or above.

...82% rate this cache among their favorite finds, etc.

 

This would be attached to each posted log, and or to the cache page itself. People can still do whatever they want when placing caches ( there will always be those who are just in it for the numbers...hide or seek ).

 

-Trek

 

 

How about a place on the cache log page where you have to answer a question before your logging a smiley goes thru.

Something like "Would you recomend this cache to others?"....yes or no

Your answer would not be available to others, but somewhere on the cache page it would give an over all result.

 

Like "This cache has been found by X amount of cachers and has an 85% aproval rating.

DNFs would not count because only legitimate finders would score the cache.

[+One of the Texas Vikings]

If you need to find X caches before you're able to hide one yourself, and you accept that cachers normally cache close to home, cachers in high-density areas will reach X finds before cachers in low-density areas. It thus follows that more caches are likely to be hidden by these cachers, further increasing the density while the low-density cachers have to drive all over the place in order to be able to populate their local area with caches.

All of this divided by pi, times the current population over the age of 12 ??

[+Yellow ants]

All of this divided by pi, times the current population over the age of 12 ??

 

42, of course

[+olbluesguy]

....I like Pi, I like Pi a lot

[+krisandmel]

I like Pi

&

I like pie!

 

...but...

 

I don't like PI.

 

-K

[wheetree]

Did you use an old fashion can opener or one of those fancy new electric job to this can of worms?

We have a spacemaker can opener mounted to the bottom of a kitch cabinet, but I hate it. Most of the time it refuses to let go of the can after it openes it. This can lead to spillage as you work to get it released. I picked up a 'Good Grips' manual can opener and it works great.

 

I hope I've helped.

 

 

To mix metaphors: Can your can opener be used to get a dead horse to run again?