Jump to content

Too Many Micros?


Polaris1000

Recommended Posts

I live in SE PA and my young son and I have been geocaching since May 2006. Lately a very large percentage of the new caches issued in my area (zip 19426) have been "micros". I can understand hiding micros in busy public places but containers smaller than an inch high are showing up in densely wooded areas where the GPS reception is accurate to 30 feet or worse. Micros are not much fun for kids, as they contain no "geo-loot". They also result in a higher percentage of DNFs, which are a disappointing turn-off to a kid. If my son loses interest in geocaching, we will abandon this hobby, pull the caches we have out there, and find some other way to spend our time together.

 

The current rules say - there are no rules about cache container size limitations, but should there be?

Link to comment

There shouldn't be. You are right in all your observations. My family and I enjoy larger caches more. When I take them out I avoid micros if I can. In generla you should use the largest container that the area will support. I've found that you can use a Decon Container in any place that I'd consider placing a cache to begin with.

 

Even though I agree with your thoughts, I don't think there should be a rule.

Link to comment

Education beats legislation every time. You have a passion for the game, which is a good thing. If you'll focus that passion to educating your peers regarding why an ammo can beats a film cannister, you'll have my undying support. That and $7 will get you a cup of coffee at St@rbucks, though, so don't get your hopes to high. :P Seriously, my personal rule practically mirrors RK's sound advice, and it's what I preach when folks ask for my opinion. Micros can be a lot of fun, which is what I figure this game is all about, but for me, there is little fun in searching half an acre of palmettos for a micro, unless it's part of a multi that leads to a real cache.

 

That being said, I've heard several people in these forums espouse the virtues of deep woods micros, so I wouldn't want more rules applied. The "Ignore" button is your friend. Use it wisely. :)

Link to comment

I think micros should be a completely different section, such as letterboxes or benchmarks.

 

They aren't good for much, cause a lot of damage to the environment when they are hidden in the woods (as people bushwack to try and find them) and block off space that a real cache could be.

 

lately we've been having a bunch dumped around here too. it's very sad.

Link to comment

There are 450 or so non-micro cache containers within 25 miles of your first cache hide. (Usually, a first cache hide is within 10 miles of home.) I see you have 150 finds. I would concentrate on hunting the nearby caches of the type you DO like, and ignoring the ones you DON'T like. I ignore nearly all puzzle caches, yet I've had a great time on all three of my trips to Seattle, an area well known for its puzzle caches. There were lots of non-puzzle caches, too.

 

When I visit Southeast Pennsylvania, one of the big attractions is the wide variety of caching opportunities available. Some of my favorite long hikes have been in your area, along with some of my biggest "numbers runs" for micros in parking lots. Both are fun for ME and MY daughter. I look forward to my next roadtrip over that way.

 

If you need to cut through the noise and find some good caches, check out the thread in the Northeast Forum about "Pennsylvania's Best Caches," or check out the bookmark list that resulted from that discussion. A few hikes in a State Forest to find an ammo box may do wonders for your disposition. Have fun!

Link to comment

Recently, my wife mentioned that she might, possibly come with me caching some times. However, she only likes regular-sized caches. Therefore, I changed how I request my PQs. I have one PQ of just micros and a second PQ for everything else. If I am caching alone and want to find some micros, I have the info. If we are together, I don't have to be bothered by the micros.

 

All you have to do is create a PQ for your area which excludes micros.

Link to comment

I agree Fully with Bad CRC, micros need to have their own listing section. and the distance between micro and normal cache should be smaller. also micros in non-urban areas should not be allowed. This is because stealth is not fun for me. you look like a fool when your on your knees looking for a film canister

Link to comment
I agree Fully with Bad CRC, micros need to have their own listing section. and the distance between micro and normal cache should be smaller. also micros in non-urban areas should not be allowed. This is because stealth is not fun for me. you look like a fool when your on your knees looking for a film canister

You realize that you just proposed a major rule change for the sole reason that you don't like a specific kind of cache. Wouldn't it be simpler and more fair to those cachers who enjoy micros if you simply sorted out the caches that you don't like using any of a number of methods available to you?

Link to comment

We do not need any more rules or guidelines. Cachers should feel free to hide what they want and where they want it. This sport has grown to the point where there is plenty of variety, and you just need to learn to use the tools to filter out what you do not like.

 

If you think your area needs more long hikes to find an ammo can of silly trinkets, then go and hide them. Some newer cachers will find them, and agree with you, and hide some more for you to find.

 

And micros are a size, not a type.

Link to comment

I agree with sbell111. They're easy enough to ignore if you don't like them.

 

And I don't agree with the inference that many of the micros could have been full size caches - I suspect that in most cases, a micro-in-the-woods exists where no cache would otherwise be placed (for whatever reason, good or bad). In other words, it's better than nothing: unless, of course, it's been set up poorly, but we're not talking about quality here, simply quantity.

Link to comment

The great thing is, micros are approriate in any situation or location. While for a newbie, they may seem somewhat more difficult, later that will become part of the attraction. Larger caches, especially Ammo boxes, offer no challenge to find as most you can see where they are hidden from some distance away, especially after you have some experience under your belt.

 

Larger caches also tend to become nothing more that junk drawer garbage bins, which is one of the reasons I thin you are starting to see more and more small, micro and nano caches. Even the kids get tired of broken McDonald toys, lapel pins from orthopedic conventions and Matchbox cars that are missing wheels.

 

As said before, if finding them is not what you want to do, filtering out that size is easy enough.

Link to comment

I think that placing rules on this subject is unecessary, and unwise. You can easily have the site filter out micros if you dont' want to find them, and people who DO like the challenge of finding these caches can choose to go out on the hunt.

 

Of course, I like finding regular caches too, but nearly all of the caches I've found so far have really only had small plastic animals in them, so for me, it isn't so much about the prize anyway, it's the challenge, and I'd like to see as many of them as people want to put out. Of course a nice prize after finding a very difficult cache is nice, but you still have the pride of finding it.

 

I would not choose to place a difficult cache without reward equal to the difficulty myself, but I would hunt for them. I can appreciate the cleverness that goes into a well-placed cache.

Edited by Team JKKnK
Link to comment
... I would not choose to place a difficult cache without reward equal to the difficulty myself, but I would hunt for them. I can appreciate the cleverness that goes into a well-placed cache.

I'm not trying to detract from your post, but many people believe that the find itself is the reward for finding a difficult cache. Personally, I prefer the easy peasey ones, but I'm wimpy like that.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

There shouldn't be. You are right in all your observations. My family and I enjoy larger caches more. When I take them out I avoid micros if I can. In generla you should use the largest container that the area will support. I've found that you can use a Decon Container in any place that I'd consider placing a cache to begin with.

 

Even though I agree with your thoughts, I don't think there should be a rule.

 

Good post. Yes, I take Urkel Jr. out, and he despised micros. He wants loot, baby! And also, I was going to upgrade at least one, maybe two, micros to a decon container, because the area can support it.

 

But this thread is going to go downhill quickly....................

Link to comment
The great thing is, micros are approriate in any situation or location.

 

I disagee with this. I really dislike micros in the woods. As geocachers we should be trying to limit our impact. Because micros can be hidden nearly anywhere and are harder to find, the search takes longer and the search area is likely to be wider. This increases the potential for damage to the area around the cache. The few times I've encountered a cache site where there was obvious evidence that someone had been searching there, the cache was a micro.

 

While for a newbie, they may seem somewhat more difficult, later that will become part of the attraction. Larger caches, especially Ammo boxes, offer no challenge to find as most you can see where they are hidden from some distance away, especially after you have some experience under your belt.

 

That just shows lack of imagination. Anybody can make a micro tough to find. I'm not impressed by a film canister hidden in a boulder field. If you want to show your skill as a hider, make an ammo box a challenge to find. I've seen it done many times.

Link to comment

I do not think there are too many micros nor should there be a rule about cache container size.

 

Our family enjoys caches of all size. My kids do like micros in the urban setting. They think they are being stealthy when we let them get them by themselves. They like ammo cans because of what treasure they can find.

 

We also do not like micros in the woods. It is frustrating. We have found a few caches where the area could support a bigger container and have asked ourselves why would the hider choose this....

 

Just filter out the stuff you do not like. We do not like multis or puzzles so much so I just exclude them from our PQ's or filter them out with GSAK.

Link to comment
The great thing is, micros are approriate in any situation or location.
I disagee with this. I really dislike micros in the woods. As geocachers we should be trying to limit our impact. ...

Certain people make this point somewhat frequently. Thinking about it, however, I can think of very few 'woods' that are going to be damaged by any searching for a micro. I assume that cachers are not chopping trees down and throwing them in a chipper.

Link to comment

There are always too many of whatever kind of cache I don't like to find.

There are always too few of whatever kind of cache I like to find.

There are always too many caches in the area where I want to hide a cache.

There are always too few caches in the area where I want to hunt caches.

Geocaching.com has tools to search for caches of a certain type or size.

Geocaching.com has tools to search for caches not of a cetain type or size.

I never have time to make these tools work for me.

Baskin-Robbins has too many flavors of ice cream.

Baskin-Robbins doesn't have all of the flavors I like.

 

<_<

Link to comment

Also, how about micros hidden inside a much larger piece of camo artwork. In this case it may be a bison tube inside a carefully halved and rejoined log. Searching for these is the height of caching to many, and caches of this type, while micros, are not classified by the phrase 'you are looking for a bison tube.' Since the artificial hiding rig is sometimes quite large it seems that micro might not even fit this category even though you better bring your own pen! See what comes from splitting hairs?

 

- T of TandS

Link to comment
The great thing is, micros are approriate in any situation or location.
I disagee with this. I really dislike micros in the woods. As geocachers we should be trying to limit our impact. ...

Certain people make this point somewhat frequently. Thinking about it, however, I can think of very few 'woods' that are going to be damaged by any searching for a micro. I assume that cachers are not chopping trees down and throwing them in a chipper.

 

Permanent ecological damage, no. But damage like overturned rocks, torn apart logs, trampled grass, broken tree branches, bent saplings and bark pulled off trees, most certainly. Of course this isn't serious damage. Its no different than what you will see if a bear foraging for grubs passed through. But if a park naturalist or ranger were to observe it they would not be left with a good impression of our sport.

Link to comment

Permanent ecological damage, no. But damage like overturned rocks, torn apart logs, trampled grass, broken tree branches, bent saplings and bark pulled off trees, most certainly. Of course this isn't serious damage. Its no different than what you will see if a bear foraging for grubs passed through. But if a park naturalist or ranger were to observe it they would not be left with a good impression of our sport.

 

Should a micro (in the woods) require more searching for than a regular cache? No: if it does, it's a badly designed cache. Again, we're getting on to the subject of quality here.

 

The cache description has to take into account the tree cover and the size of container, limiting the search area to an acceptable level (from both environmental and patience points of view).

Link to comment

No but its obvious when they have been overturned or disturbed. You may cavalierly dismiss this, but I doubt a park offical who saw a field of overturned boulders at a geocache site would think its a good thing.

 

I take exception with the "lack of imagination" comment made earlier, it applies more aptly in many cases to the seeker, not the hider. On the hider side, how hard is it to fill a large Tupperware container and put it under a bunch of logs or in a hollow tree. On the seeker side, if your tearing up the area...duh..it is either not where you're looking or not hidden properly. Walk away.

 

I will admit that there are many poorly hidden micros in wooded areas, however there are also many poorly hidden larger types as well and before you say it, one size or the other does not have more or less of them. I have seen many larger hides where the area around was obviously disturbed to place it and subsequently further disturbed to keep it hidden.

 

Any cache placement can have an impact on the environment in wooded areas. Just like if a hiking trail is set up, you can put a garbage can every 100 yards and still find trash on the ground. There are going to be cachers with a total disregard for nature. Should we then ban caches in wooded areas?

 

While it has to be hidden responsibly, it also has to be sought the same way. I have walked away from 1 or 2 caches and contacted the owner because I knew where it was but it was either hazardous to get to or I would have to do damage to retrieve, one very recently.

 

Caches need to be hidden and sought responsibly. I stand by my comment that while you or other may not like it, the fact is that the micro sized containers are appropriate in any situation. Most of us practice CITO, now we just need to use some sense.

Link to comment

No but its obvious when they have been overturned or disturbed. You may cavalierly dismiss this, but I doubt a park offical who saw a field of overturned boulders at a geocache site would think its a good thing.

 

So there is a big difference if the cache in the boulder field is a micro or ammocan? I dislike bush hides, I dislike boulder field hides, sadly there is no attribute that lets me filter out that time of cache before I go hunting for them. Micros however are easily filtered out, I've never gone after a normal cache container and found a micro.

 

Hunt what you want, Hide what you want. If you don't like the micro in the woods, Don't look for it.

Link to comment
Do rocks have an 'up' and 'down'?
No but its obvious when they have been overturned or disturbed. You may cavalierly dismiss this, but I doubt a park offical who saw a field of overturned boulders at a geocache site would think its a good thing.
I guess I do 'cavalierly dismiss this', but the reason that I do is because you have failed to explain why it matters which side of a rock points up.
Link to comment

My immediate area is a bit skewed in favor of micros because I live in an urban / suburban area where micros make sense (and that's what most of us like!).

 

For what it's worth, there are:

 

500 caches within 19 miles of my home (a suburban city adjoining metro Birmingham, Alabama)

of which;

263 are micros

197 are small/regular/large

11 are other

1 is a virtual

28 are size not chosen

50 have both terrain and difficulty higher than 2.5

 

However, if I move my focus 40 miles south to Clanton, Alabama (still a sizable city) I get:

 

500 caches within 84 miles

of which;

209 are micros (because 84 miles overlaps 2 major cities - Birmingham and Montgomery)

254 are small/regular/large

14 are other

3 are virtuals

19 are size not chosen

54 have both terrain and difficulty higher than 2.5

 

Now, if I eliminate the big cities, say stay within 30 miles of Clanton, I get:

 

110 caches w/in 30 miles

of which;

53 are micros

50 are small/medium/large

1 is other

2 are virtuals

4 are size not chosen

 

Now, my point, and the neat part about all that?

 

I found it out in less than twenty minutes and can now pick and choose what to hunt and where!

 

Does not matter what the percentages are, I can easily select what I want to hunt, and can hunt different things depending on companions and mood!

 

I can do traditionals on trails in the daytime and hunt micros all night.

 

Manage your data and you can do the same, though your drive to the hunting grounds may be a bit farther.

 

Sign up for Premium Membership, get a PQ of your area, use GSAK to filter and sort them as you wish, and go geocaching!

 

With that kind of data filtering solution at hand, anyone that still complains about a type or size is dealing with control issues, not choice issues!

 

With a few clicks of a mouse you can filter out what you don't like to hunt and they cease to exist in your data world.

 

Happy hunting!

Ed

Link to comment
... I would not choose to place a difficult cache without reward equal to the difficulty myself, but I would hunt for them. I can appreciate the cleverness that goes into a well-placed cache.

I'm not trying to detract from your post, but many people believe that the find itself is the reward for finding a difficult cache. Personally, I prefer the easy peasey ones, but I'm wimpy like that.

 

Good point, and also one of my points that there are lots of people who do this sport BECAUSE it's challenging, not simply to rack up hundreds of finds for their stats.

 

That quote was meant to stress that I believe in practicing the trade up, or trade even philosophy. Of course, people can do what they want, whether it is just taking the prize, or just not taking the prize. However, as a hider, I want to acknowledge the efforts for those who find a very difficult cache by rewarding them with a prize. They can choose to take it or leave, as they wish. Also that I personally enjoy the challenge of the find, and may not even take the prize (Depending on what it was!)

 

Also, I believe in low-impact caching, and try my hardest to leave no trace in the outdoors when I'm out. If I were to place a cache, then I would do so carefully, and try not to endanger any sensitive areas. However, I believe that finders should also respect the environment, and be careful while hunting for that elusive find. That said, I think that there is a misconception that tramping around and distrubing rocks is bad for the environment. I think that cutting trees and underbrush would be a bad thing, but otherwise churning up the leaves and turning rocks is not a big deal to the environment, as long as it wasn't along a hiking trail where people would object to seeing overturned rocks. More than likely, the area will revert to a natural-looking state in short order.

 

Again, I emphasize the importance of low-impact caching foremost, and wish everyone could remember that every time they go out.

Link to comment

I too think you should place a larger container if the area will support one.

 

I also believe that most micros are placed becasue they are cheap to near free.

 

I know that many micros show a lack of imagination and creativity in placement, style and content.

 

I also know that micros have thier place and I have enjoyed many that I visited.

 

No new rules just encourage more thought and consideration before placing another micro where a larger container could be used.

Link to comment

You cannot overlook that as new people come in to the hobby they are likely to emulate what they see and think that is how it is supposed to be done. So they type in their zipcode and see spew and they may get the impression that that is what this is about and do likewise. They only way to help is through advocacy and if you live in area that avocates numbers and spew then that is what you'll find. When you area that advocates quality over quantity you have a better chance as evidenced here in SW PA, but what do we know we just a bunch of cave dwelling neadrathal he man micro haters, but we have one of the lowest concentrations of micros in the states.

Link to comment
You cannot overlook that as new people come in to the hobby they are likely to emulate what they see and think that is how it is supposed to be done. So they type in their zipcode and see spew and they may get the impression that that is what this is about and do likewise. They only way to help is through advocacy and if you live in area that avocates numbers and spew then that is what you'll find. When you area that advocates quality over quantity you have a better chance as evidenced here in SW PA, but what do we know we just a bunch of cave dwelling neadrathal he man micro haters, but we have one of the lowest concentrations of micros in the states.

I can't figure out what you are going for in your last sentence, but I think your argument misses a very important point.

 

You state that people begin the game and encounter micros. They then hide micros, thereby perpetuating the 'problem'. What you are missing is that they clearly liked the caches that they found enough to emulate them. I fail to see how it could be a problem that people are finding and hiding caches that they enjoy.

Link to comment

Noob here, but if I may, maybe they could start to assign micros as MCxxxx that would help with the impending demise of available GCxxxx ID's and give a new way to filter for size.

Personally no big deal to me since I don't care to look for urban micros since this whole thing is more about the hiking and exploring than getting a high found number. I'm sure I'll end up getting the smaller ones between my house and work eventually but thats just when I've got nothing to do after work, which is rare.

Link to comment

Noob here, but if I may, maybe they could start to assign micros as MCxxxx that would help with the impending demise of available GCxxxx ID's and give a new way to filter for size.

Personally no big deal to me since I don't care to look for urban micros since this whole thing is more about the hiking and exploring than getting a high found number. I'm sure I'll end up getting the smaller ones between my house and work eventually but thats just when I've got nothing to do after work, which is rare.

This was discussed a while back in a different thread. It was decided that when the six digit waypoints are all gone, they will simply add a digit to the end (GCxxxxx). It is expected that third party software such as GSAK will be able to easily convert these longer waypoints to the six digit maximum that many of our GPSrs require. In fact, I believe that you can use GSAK or other software to rename the current waypoints in the way that you suggested.

Link to comment

Noob here, but if I may, maybe they could start to assign micros as MCxxxx that would help with the impending demise of available GCxxxx ID's and give a new way to filter for size.

Personally no big deal to me since I don't care to look for urban micros since this whole thing is more about the hiking and exploring than getting a high found number. I'm sure I'll end up getting the smaller ones between my house and work eventually but thats just when I've got nothing to do after work, which is rare.

 

Since micro is a size, and all caches no mater what they are start with GC, this probably would not work although I can see lots of advantages to it. PX for puzzle, GM for multi, etc.

 

Part of the issue is that people are viewing micros as a problem. Clearly they must not be, because at least in the Chicago and surrounding area, they are by no means in the majority however are among the highest

log counts which means those out hunting rather than posting don't seem to have an issue with them.

 

If the complaint is people who hide micros are just not creative, I would say the same applies to Ammo boxes and Tupperware, if not more so. While I still have a low find count, I think I have seen enough to have a good idea what is being hidden and I am more apt to find a creative micro than a creative large sized cache. I challenge you to come to the NorthWest suburbs of Chicago and find almost any of Schaumburg Guy's caches and tell me that these hides were lazy.

Link to comment

Also, how about micros hidden inside a much larger piece of camo artwork. In this case it may be a bison tube inside a carefully halved and rejoined log. Searching for these is the height of caching to many, and caches of this type, while micros, are not classified by the phrase 'you are looking for a bison tube.' Since the artificial hiding rig is sometimes quite large it seems that micro might not even fit this category even though you better bring your own pen! See what comes from splitting hairs?

 

- T of TandS

Actually in these parts, one noted hider is known for the phrase "this cache started life as a silver bison tube". You never know what you will find after the bison tube has visited his lab, but chances are, unless you are a very stupid cacher, you will not be tearing the forest apart to find it. Most of the time, you can find them simply by looking. You just have to look carefully, and at the right angle. <_< There is even a picture of me holding one of his caches in my hand as I carefully move it aside to continue my search. ;)

Edited by wimseyguy
Link to comment
The great thing is, micros are approriate in any situation or location.
I disagee with this. I really dislike micros in the woods. As geocachers we should be trying to limit our impact. ...

Certain people make this point somewhat frequently. Thinking about it, however, I can think of very few 'woods' that are going to be damaged by any searching for a micro. I assume that cachers are not chopping trees down and throwing them in a chipper.

 

go to a real cache in the woods, there is often a trail or two that goes to the location. damage, but mostly contained.

 

go to a micro in the woods, and you'll see a large area that has been completely trampled. soil compacted, plants dead, groundcover dug up and cleared. all done by supposedly earth-friendly geocachers as they spend time "looking" for a film canister in the woods while bushwacking everything in the way.

 

It's irresponsible, and it certainly is a black mark on the hobby of geocaching.

Link to comment
The great thing is, micros are approriate in any situation or location.
I disagee with this. I really dislike micros in the woods. As geocachers we should be trying to limit our impact. ...

Certain people make this point somewhat frequently. Thinking about it, however, I can think of very few 'woods' that are going to be damaged by any searching for a micro. I assume that cachers are not chopping trees down and throwing them in a chipper.

The harder the find the more impact. I can show you one of my archived caches where I learned that lesson. A micro virtually always upps the find difficulty.

Link to comment

go to a real cache in the woods, there is often a trail or two that goes to the location. damage, but mostly contained.

 

go to a micro in the woods, and you'll see a large area that has been completely trampled. soil compacted, plants dead, groundcover dug up and cleared. all done by supposedly earth-friendly geocachers as they spend time "looking" for a film canister in the woods while bushwacking everything in the way.

 

It's irresponsible, and it certainly is a black mark on the hobby of geocaching.

I have not noticed that trend at all in my area---and we have a lot of woods close enough that I venture there to cache fairly often in spite of living in a metro area.

 

In fact, if anything, I have seen the opposite, especially while traveling to areas with fewer mixed wood forests. The larger the container, the more disturbance around it as people try to scavenge enough brush and wood to keep the container adequately covered through every season. If I'm walking in the woods and I suddenly notice a huge area cleared of debris and undergrowth, I know to start looking for the typical large pile of sticks and twigs unaturally stacked nearby because I have found the spot where that ammo can is hidden.

 

Of course, even that amount of disturbance isn't really cause for cries of alarm. Nature is very resiliant. That kind of denuding usually only happens with fairly new hides. Even if there is a geopath right to the cache with bare ground and no fallen sticks and twigs for a quarter mile, you can just bet that if you go back the next year, you'll find sticks everywhere, with leaves on top of them, and a big swatch of posion ivy or poison oak growing right on top of the cache.

Link to comment
You cannot overlook that as new people come in to the hobby they are likely to emulate what they see and think that is how it is supposed to be done. So they type in their zipcode and see spew and they may get the impression that that is what this is about and do likewise. They only way to help is through advocacy and if you live in area that avocates numbers and spew then that is what you'll find. When you area that advocates quality over quantity you have a better chance as evidenced here in SW PA, but what do we know we just a bunch of cave dwelling neadrathal he man micro haters, but we have one of the lowest concentrations of micros in the states.

I can't figure out what you are going for in your last sentence, but I think your argument misses a very important point.

 

You state that people begin the game and encounter micros. They then hide micros, thereby perpetuating the 'problem'. What you are missing is that they clearly liked the caches that they found enough to emulate them. I fail to see how it could be a problem that people are finding and hiding caches that they enjoy.

 

No, they just don't know any better. It's a nature vs. nurture arguement. Numbers, micros and spew are degrading caching. Its just a matter time. You see the same thing with geocoins. They used to be rare and unique and now look at it, it's ridiculous. If only people would steal micros at the rate they steal geocoins.

Edited by D@nim@l
Link to comment
The great thing is, micros are approriate in any situation or location.
I disagee with this. I really dislike micros in the woods. As geocachers we should be trying to limit our impact. ...

Certain people make this point somewhat frequently. Thinking about it, however, I can think of very few 'woods' that are going to be damaged by any searching for a micro. I assume that cachers are not chopping trees down and throwing them in a chipper.

 

go to a real cache in the woods, there is often a trail or two that goes to the location. damage, but mostly contained.

 

go to a micro in the woods, and you'll see a large area that has been completely trampled. soil compacted, plants dead, groundcover dug up and cleared. all done by supposedly earth-friendly geocachers as they spend time "looking" for a film canister in the woods while bushwacking everything in the way.

 

It's irresponsible, and it certainly is a black mark on the hobby of geocaching.

 

I just can't relate to this thread...

 

Everyone here keeps talking about "forests" and "woods."

 

What are those? We don't have those here!

 

How do you all find caches in the woods, I get near a couple of eucalyptus trees here and the numbers go haywire. <_<

 

I guess I must be comming from the same direction as Cornerstone4. The woods and forrest of Minnesota and New Jersey must be very different from the coastal brush and scrub of So. California. Here an ammo can is almost always hidden under a bush, in area covered by bushes. The only way to find these are to bend and sometimes break the branches of every bush until you find the right one. Usually there is additional bushwhacking to get to the bush with the ammo can. Micros and small caches are hidden in piles of rocks, hanging in trees, in fence posts, or in small caves or crevices. Usually you can spot the obvious hiding places and check them out without tearing up every bush. Sometimes they are hidden in bushes as well, but unlike ammo boxed they are not just thrown under the bush. The resposible hider of a micro in a bush will have hidden something that is camouflaged to blend in, but which can be seen when you look closely. Most of the time it can be found without leaving the trail.

 

I suspect that people remember the few needle-in-the-haystack type hides that required moving lots of rocks or trampling the flora. I would bet that most micros in the woods are responsibly placed and that seekers just need to use some common sense when looking for the cache.

Link to comment

It's irresponsible, and it certainly is a black mark on the hobby of geocaching.

 

Agreed, however just like the people that want to "train" hiders, how to you train this type of seeker? (Whom I wtill believe to be in the minority)

 

Take them Wal-Mart.

 

Understanding the humor (I think) <_< , how will that teach people to be more responsibile when looking for caches?

Link to comment

... The woods and forrest of Minnesota and New Jersey must be very different from the coastal brush and scrub of So. California. Here an ammo can is almost always hidden under a bush, in area covered by bushes. The only way to find these are to bend and sometimes break the branches of every bush until you find the right one. Usually there is additional bushwhacking to get to the bush with the ammo can. Micros and small caches are hidden in piles of rocks, hanging in trees, in fence posts, or in small caves or crevices. Usually you can spot the obvious hiding places and check them out without tearing up every bush. Sometimes they are hidden in bushes as well, but unlike ammo boxed they are not just thrown under the bush. The resposible hider of a micro in a bush will have hidden something that is camouflaged to blend in, but which can be seen when you look closely. Most of the time it can be found without leaving the trail.

 

There are differences in terrain across regions, plus hide styles. Regardless of the area a micro can be hidden in more locations than a larger container. All other things being the same, that's more areas to look in, poke around and disturb. What you are describing is a local variation in how micros are hidden in the woods. They are easier to find because of the hide style which uses some brain work. If the finders don't have as much of an impact it's because they know the style and don't poke around everywhere.

 

What you describe doesn't exist in my locaiton. A micro in the woods can be anywhere that an ammo can could be plus everwhere a micro could be. There is more impact. That potential exists where you describe. Local circumstance has kept it contained but the risk is there as styles change.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...