Placement Etiquette

[+leather-man]

I live in an area that is rather remote. Lucky for me, there are several 2001 placed caches in the area and those are the best as far as I'm concerned. No park and grabs.

 

I have been looking at placing a few more here in the areas where these old caches are located. There are many single, old caches in areas that could support 10 large sized boxes. I'm not looking to flood the area, just add one or two to these large areas.

 

These older caches are still great to find and because they are long hikes not many people visit them each year. I have held off from any further hides out of respect for the folks that brought caching to this area and state for that matter.

 

My question is, should I add a few extra finds to these hills and try to bring more people here or let these older hides reign on their own???

[+Renegade Knight]

There is nothing wrong with hiding caches.

[+boda]

Yes.

 

I added some caches along a trail to another cache 4.5 miles up a hill. Although the hike still keeps most people away, some have commented that it was nicer to have several caches to find rather than just one. It was now "worth it" to take the long hike.

 

The original cache was placed by one of the stalwarts of local caching and was not as old as the ones you were discussing, so I asked him if he had any other intentions in the area. I didn't want to step on his plans although it was perfectly within my rights to place caches there without asking. I don't see that as being a problem for you, however. If the current caches are all that old, it's obvious that no one has had long term plans with them.

 

I encourage you to place some great caches to help enhance the caching experience in the area.

[+NotThePainter]

It is always good to place good caches in good locations.

 

However, don't be surprised if your additional caches don't bring new traffic.

 

I placed a ever so slightly remote cache recently, in an attempt at driving traffic to the area I placed five more caches in the area. The entire loop takes about 2.5 hours to complete and much of that time is spent bushwhacking.

 

Do I get finds? Yup. Do I get a lot of finds? Nope.

 

6 smilies in 2.5 hard hours is still not enough.

 

Paul

[+leather-man]

I'm not worried about only having 5 or 6 finds in a years time. I figured that would be the case with the ones I have hidden all ready.

The quick to find caches near here get 10 time as many finds each month as the hiking caches. I do this for the hiking. I did 12 miles this past Sunday for 4 finds. No big deal except I was breaking in a new pair of hiking boots, or they were breaking me in would be a better explanation of it.

 

Thanks for the responses so far.

[+briansnat]

Unfortunately lone caches, no matter how awesome an experience, rarely get visited these days. It seems most geocachers are unwilling to look for a cache unless they can bag a bunch of smileys in the process.

 

So placing few more caches in the area could draw more geocachers there. Once there is a cluster, geocachers will consider visiting.

[+budd-rdc]

I live in an area that is rather remote. Lucky for me, there are several 2001 placed caches in the area and those are the best as far as I'm concerned. No park and grabs.

 

I have been looking at placing a few more here in the areas where these old caches are located. There are many single, old caches in areas that could support 10 large sized boxes. I'm not looking to flood the area, just add one or two to these large areas.

 

These older caches are still great to find and because they are long hikes not many people visit them each year. I have held off from any further hides out of respect for the folks that brought caching to this area and state for that matter.

 

My question is, should I add a few extra finds to these hills and try to bring more people here or let these older hides reign on their own???

If I were in your situation, I'd hide just one or two more caches at interesting locations along the way. I'd then wait and give other people a chance to hide one or two more.

 

A good hike and location should be a motivation by itself - no need to "flood the area" to motivate people to go there. I thank you for "holding off" and letting the older hides reign on their own.

[+Miragee]

Many of my caches are along trails that lead to what once was a single, lone cache.

 

They don't get visited very often, especially now when we are having "triple-digit" temperatures, but at least now if someone makes the hike to the peak, or the hike around the Wildlife are, or the drive along a lonely road, they get several more smilies for their effort.

[salmoned]

If I were getting a buck or two from every finder, I might consider hiding easier caches in greater quantities. Until then, I see no reason to "attract" seekers by overstuffing a trail or area. All it attracts are those most concerned about the numbers.

[+Kacky]

Many of my caches are along trails that lead to what once was a single, lone cache.

 

They don't get visited very often, especially now when we are having "triple-digit" temperatures, but at least now if someone makes the hike to the peak, or the hike around the Wildlife are, or the drive along a lonely road, they get several more smilies for their effort.

 

And a little more bang for their gasoline buck. Or is that 3 bucks?

 

Hi Karen!

[+boda]

The OP mentioned putting a few caches in the area and not flooding it. I'm not sure why we are now worrying about "attracting seekers." I guess I'm not understanding that advice. We place caches to attract seekers. After all, those cachers seeking numbers are just as good as any other cacher. I say, "Bring 'em on."

 

I like the idea of leaving room for other folks to hide caches. My experience is that if you add caches to an area, others will follow.

 

Good luck.

[+leather-man]

Thanks boda, I don't want to flood the area at all.

I just wondered why there were so many old, single caches here in areas that could support several.

 

Adding 10 caches in a 10 mile radius is more in line with what I was thinking. I've been to suburban parks near here where there were 15 or so hides in, what I would call, a small area. If I were planning on duplicating that kind of density you would be looking at 250 new placements.

[+SmartSapper]

Well, I got into the sport because now I could put a name to what was before just aimless wandering in the woods. (Okay, so maybe not that much has changed). But I really get a kick out of going to places where few would go, even if it doesn't involve ice-axes, rope and crampons.

I like your idea of attracting people to the remote areas, but I wouldn't worry about trying to entice people to the woods who don't want to be there for it's own sake. Let 'em come for the solitude, the search, and the journey.

[+Jhwk]

location, location, location. It should be about the journey, at least for me. If there are a couple of caches along the way, so much the better. Go for it!

[Fiona Eliza & Florence]

I am having the same thoughts about this area. I am about to place my first cache this weekend but already have ideas for other locations not too far away. They are in places I have found to walk the dog that are not busy but have interesting views or woodland. From doing other caches in the area I have been to new places even though I have lived here quite a while and walk every day. That is the whole point of caching to me, seeing somthing you didn't know was there, going further than you would have done before. I hope I can show this beautiful part of the world to other people. If they are locals that had never been to that spot before then all the better. If it brings others to my peice of heaven then thats cool too. I say go for it, but, as has already been said, be choosy about where you secrete them. Don't flood the place. Be proud of your caches, Think them through. Not that I am a pro, just my opinion!!

[+Team GPSaxophone]

Unfortunately lone caches, no matter how awesome an experience, rarely get visited these days. It seems most geocachers are unwilling to look for a cache unless they can bag a bunch of smileys in the process.

 

So placing few more caches in the area could draw more geocachers there. Once there is a cluster, geocachers will consider visiting.

This is why my new goal is not to hit particular milestones, but to find caches in as many areas as possible. You see more the further off the road you go.

[+leather-man]

I really don't mind if only 6 people a year find one of my caches that requires a steep hike in the woods.

Of the lonely 3 hides I have only one has a visible short cut with a hike of less than 1/2 mile and it's so far from any major population areas that it wont get found more than a handful of times each year, I'm sure.

 

Some people don't want to work that hard for a smiley, but it's all about the hike and where it takes me that gets me out on the trail.

Here's a shot from that easy hike above:

 

[+OHMIKY]

Everyone is playing a different game. I tend to seek hides that require some hiking - a walk in the woods at the very least. I happily ignore micros, but I enjoy a good puzzle. When I hide, I don't try to make something that will attract the most people - but something that will provide some pleasure to those who seek them.

 

Bottom line - hide your caches so that they are the kind of things you would enjoy looking for and ignore the sad whinings of anyone who is not prepared for the challenge.