Saturation

[+sbell111]

I agree, you cannot make a point without including the chart for micros. Also, that chart is useless without some overall standard such as # of active cachers or # of total cache placements etc. As it is, you are unable to make any sufficient point concerning regular sized caches.

I think you are working too hard to make the data say what you want it to. There is no need to add that much complexity. Either there are caches to find or there are not. It appears that non-micros continue to be hidden at a steady rate. This allows those who don't like micros to get out and find some caches. The number of active cachers does not matter. Whether there are two cachers or two million, they each can find a cache exactly one time. Total cache placements is also an obfuscation. Obviously, to keep the same number of active micro caches and non-micro caches, micros would have to be hidden at a higher rate since they are muggled at a higher rate due to their urban locations.

[+TrailGators]

Go ahead and plot the micro trend! It would be interesting to look at the micro trend over that same period of time on the same graph!

Here you go.

It looks like the Chicago area needs more micros to keep the balance the way some would want it.

A picture is a worth a thousand words! Nuff said!

[+TrailGators]

Or better yet, decrease the distance for micros, since they are so small anyway....and increase the distance for ammo cans and other larger caches to at least ten miles apart, since "everyone knows" that people who like those kinds of caches like to take ten miles hikes anyway!

We could decrease the distance for a micro down to the point where you could put 1000 of them in a dumpster. We could call it a "Mega Micro" cache! The numbers people would love being able to log 1000 caches in a day. The people that don't want to walk would appreciate the convenience of being able to sit and relax and log more caches than they ever dreamed of! Others would like it because most of the caches they would find would not be just micros anymore because the numbers hounds would be busy doing Mega Micro caches!! Seems like a win-win to me!

 

Edit: Someone! Quick bring me some water!!!

Ok, that was funny. Dip them all in hotsauce and make the numbers ho's dive in in their birthday suits to log them. Call it a 5 for terrain. Yeah that's it. Better still have them hunt for a cache or two in the brambles then dumpter dive.

 

Love the hot sauce idea!

[+WxGuesser]

so where is the most saturated area? post up a zipcode so i can do a search and check for myself....

[CoyoteRed]

Go ahead and plot the micro trend! It would be interesting to look at the micro trend over that same period of time on the same graph!

Here you go.

It looks like the Chicago area needs more micros to keep the balance the way some would want it.

 

I would be interested in seeing a graph of the percentage of micros placed compared to overall placements.

 

What this would roughly show the precentage of caches that aren't trading caches. Consequently, this would tell us the exposure of non-trading caches to which new cachers are subjected. Just like virts, if non-trading caches are seen "just as good" then why make the effort and expense to place a larger cache?

[+baloo&bd]

Just like virts, if non-trading caches are seen "just as good" then why make the effort and expense to place a larger cache?

 

Excellent question that many others have asked as well.

[+sbell111]

Go ahead and plot the micro trend! It would be interesting to look at the micro trend over that same period of time on the same graph!

Here you go.

<SNIP>

It looks like the Chicago area needs more micros to keep the balance the way some would want it.

I would be interested in seeing a graph of the percentage of micros placed compared to overall placements.

 

What this would roughly show the precentage of caches that aren't trading caches. Consequently, this would tell us the exposure of non-trading caches to which new cachers are subjected.

The graph you are requesting would not show what you want it to. In fact, the last graph I posted gives a snapshot of what new cachers are 'subjected'. Somewhere around 60% of caches in the area are not micros.

Just like virts, if non-trading caches are seen "just as good" then why make the effort and expense to place a larger cache?

'Just as good' is in the eye of the finder. Once again, you are assuming that all players like (and dislike) exactly the same caches that you do.

 

Either way, if you want more graphs, make them.

[+sbell111]

Just like virts, if non-trading caches are seen "just as good" then why make the effort and expense to place a larger cache?

Excellent question that many others have asked as well.

The question is flawed in that it makes the assumption that micros are not inherently 'just as good'. The fact is, cachers place caches that they want to place. Today, an individual may want to hide a regular-sized cache in the woods. Tomorrow, the same cacher may want to hide a micro in the city. Neither cache is necessarily 'better' than the other.

[+baloo&bd]

Just like virts, if non-trading caches are seen "just as good" then why make the effort and expense to place a larger cache?

Excellent question that many others have asked as well.

The question is flawed in that it makes the assumption that micros are not inherently 'just as good'. The fact is, cachers place caches that they want to place. Today, an individual may want to hide a regular-sized cache in the woods. Tomorrow, the same cacher may want to hide a micro in the city. Neither cache is necessarily 'better' than the other.

 

OK, maybe I need to clarify what I said since the sarcasm did not come through. Sorry.

 

I agree, neither is better or worse. It appears that there is a very, very small group of cachers that will not hunt micros since micros tend to be the most hunted yet account (at least here in the Chicago area) for less than half of all caches.

 

I also do not understand the logic of "people hunt micros to increase their numbers" since micros, at least around here, are more challenging. If I am looking to run my numbers up, generally I look for the ammospew or larger containers since they tend to be easier to find and or spot when walking up to.

 

To bring this into the original question posted, micros probably do more to aleviate saturation than anything else. Without them there would be significant less places to hide in populated or urban areas. We would also have a noticible diference in the "creativity" aspect. You can argue with me all you want, however in just over 900 finds as of this writing the percentage of very creative hides of micros far outweigh the creativity factor of larger size hides.

 

There are many junk micro hides out there as there are many junk larger containers. While I will hunt either, I prefer the micro since they are more challenging. Neither is causing or contributing to a saturation issue since I truly do not believe one exisits other than possibly isolated areas.

 

Also, stop with the graphs. What has been posted is more than suffcient to make the point.

Edited November 7, 2006 by baloo&bd

[CoyoteRed]

The graph you are requesting would not show what you want it to.

Actually, the graph you did post shows exactly what I'm talking about but only with a different view. The graph I requested would make it clear the percentage of caches that are micros are definitely trending up.

 

Either way, if you want more graphs, make them.

Of course you yourself wouldn't want to illustrate something that is counter to your argument.

[CoyoteRed]

Neither is causing or contributing to a saturation issue since I truly do not believe one exisits other than possibly isolated areas.

 

Getting back to the OP question--which had nothing to do with micros, BTW--I opt for "2. raise standards for cache placement." The question would be whether it is done via guidelines, this site implements some sort of rating system, or a viable competitor emerges. After all, we are talking about nearly twice as long down the road as the hobby has been in existence.

[Mushtang]

Go ahead and plot the micro trend! It would be interesting to look at the micro trend over that same period of time on the same graph!

Here you go.

It looks like the Chicago area needs more micros to keep the balance the way some would want it.

Did you place two sets of data on top of each other for comparison, or did you color code one subset?

 

For instance, for Oct '05 the micro graph shows about 800, and the non-micro shows about 1000. Does your graph show that there is a total of 1800 and micros are less than half, or is the total 1000 and micros are over half?

[+alimelacy]

Another angle of the OP question: what if we run out of muggles?

[+sbell111]

<duplicate post>

Edited November 7, 2006 by sbell111

[+sbell111]

The graph you are requesting would not show what you want it to.

Actually, the graph you did post shows exactly what I'm talking about but only with a different view. The graph I requested would make it clear the percentage of caches that are micros are definitely trending up.

I think the graph clearly shows that the numbers of both groups of caches are increasing at approximately the same rate. Micros appear to be more affected by seasonality. Certainly, this makes sense since micros are more likely to go missing.

Either way, if you want more graphs, make them.

Of course you yourself wouldn't want to illustrate something that is counter to your argument.

Actually, it just means that I'm sick of making graphs. If you want more graphs, help yourself. Edited November 7, 2006 by sbell111

[+sbell111]

Did you place two sets of data on top of each other for comparison, or did you color code one subset?

 

For instance, for Oct '05 the micro graph shows about 800, and the non-micro shows about 1000. Does your graph show that there is a total of 1800 and micros are less than half, or is the total 1000 and micros are over half?

Thanks for clarifying your question. I didn't understand, at first.

 

There is a total of about 1800 and micros are less than half.

[Mushtang]

Did you place two sets of data on top of each other for comparison, or did you color code one subset?

 

For instance, for Oct '05 the micro graph shows about 800, and the non-micro shows about 1000. Does your graph show that there is a total of 1800 and micros are less than half, or is the total 1000 and micros are over half?

Thanks for clarifying your question. I didn't understand, at first.

 

There is a total of about 1800 and micros are less than half.

That's what I thought, but I think a lot of people are misreading the graph.

[+sbell111]

That's what I thought, but I think a lot of people are misreading the graph.

I probably should have knocked out a simple line graph. I was trying to make it too pretty.

[+TrailGators]

That's what I thought, but I think a lot of people are misreading the graph.

I probably should have knocked out a simple line graph. I was trying to make it too pretty.

There is an option to stack the graphs that would have worked fine. I thought that's what you did! At any rate this graph will very depending on where you run it. To me the real problem is not micros but the crappy spots that people hide them. I know that my biggest thrill with geocaching is discovering an awesome new spot that I never knew existed. If we revert back to the point of this thread. I agree with SG-MIN that we are running out of cool spots so caches are making their way into mediocre or even very poor locations. We can look at cache dense parts of the country to see the future for other parts of the country. I'm not sure what the solution is, but they could scale back on new cache submissions in cache dense areas. This would promote better management of each area. There are many caches that could be retired and replaced by better caches. Perhaps each area should manage itself and decide... Edited November 7, 2006 by TrailGators

[+SG-MIN]

If we revert back to the point of this thread. I agree with SG-MIN that we are running out of cool spots so caches are making their way into mediocre or even very poor locations.

That comment is very much in line with the intentions of my original post. We are running out of cool areas in convienant locations to put caches. That leaves 2 options: go to less convientant locations or go to mediocre locations. Both are probably happening, but the I would guess more the latter than the former.

 

Concerning the graphs (which I really appreciate sbell). What they do illustrate is that as overall cache numbers are going up, the ratio of non-micros to micros is on the decline. At the current trend, we will not have more micros than others, but we will perpetually be getting closer to the 50-50 mark. Of course that is only if the current trend continues.

[+sbell111]

That's what I thought, but I think a lot of people are misreading the graph.

I probably should have knocked out a simple line graph. I was trying to make it too pretty.

There is an option to stack the graphs that would have worked fine. I thought that's what you did!

I didn't think that a stacked graph would convey the message that I was looking for. They way the graph is, it shows that there are less micros than non-micros and that they both grow at about the same rate. this would not be as apparent with a stacked graph.

At any rate this graph will very depending on where you run it.

Sure it will, but I only had the data for the Chicago area, thanks to Markwell.

To me the real problem is not micros but the crappy spots that people hide them. I know that my biggest thrill with geocaching is discovering an awesome new spot that I never knew existed.

I agree. However, I have been shown a honking lot of cool urban items by a well-placed micro. I've also been taken to lame places by both micros and non-micros.

If we revert back to the point of this thread. I agree with SG-MIN that we are running out of cool spots so caches are making their way into mediocre or even very poor locations. We can look at cache dense parts of the country to see the future for other parts of the country. I'm not sure what the solution is, but they could scale back on new cache submissions in cache dense areas. This would promote better management of each area. There are many caches that could be retired and replaced by better caches. Perhaps each area should manage itself and decide...

I think we have been experiencing this issue for some time. I can't think of a park that doesn't already have a cache. Ruling those out, we are left with alternative locations. In my mind, this is mostly non-park rural locations that can support a regular-sized cache or cool urban locations that better support micros. Some people know more good rural locations and they place caches there. Others know more cool urban areas, so they place caches in those spots.

 

This actually brings up the point that more people live in the urban jungle, so know those places better. This would tend to suggest that we would see a much greater amount of micros, but the data doesn't support that.

[Clan Riffster]

Maybe the SBA log SHOULD be used as a pruning tool. A lot of folks have asked for a system of rating caches to weed out the worst ones. Perhaps this is it...

Should we start with this one?

HUK-22 "Find a Penny, pick it up"

After all, it's an Altoids tin, which usually means a wet log. On the other hand, those who have found it seem to really enjoy it, despite the fact that it developed maintenance issues in only a week. On a serious note, misusing the SBA button just to make the game fit your preexisting notions is a terrible idea. If that were a standard practice, the good folks who review caches would be bombarded with SBA's. I personally think Altoids tins, film canisters and Gladware all make for lousy cache containers, but I wouldn't advocate archiving a cache just because the hider used a container I don't like, or picked a location I don't care for.

[+TrailGators]

Maybe the SBA log SHOULD be used as a pruning tool. A lot of folks have asked for a system of rating caches to weed out the worst ones. Perhaps this is it...

Should we start with this one?

HUK-22 "Find a Penny, pick it up"

After all, it's an Altoids tin, which usually means a wet log. On the other hand, those who have found it seem to really enjoy it, despite the fact that it developed maintenance issues in only a week. On a serious note, misusing the SBA button just to make the game fit your preexisting notions is a terrible idea. If that were a standard practice, the good folks who review caches would be bombarded with SBA's. I personally think Altoids tins, film canisters and Gladware all make for lousy cache containers, but I wouldn't advocate archiving a cache just because the hider used a container I don't like, or picked a location I don't care for.

I agree. Let's not abuse a useful tool! I think we should try to get people to improve caches by leadership and positive influence. Experienced cachers should also support newbies. I do think one idea that might work is not to allow a newbie to hide a cache until he/she has been caching for 6 months (or some period of time) and learned something about how to place a good cache. This would also help the saturation issue in some area. Edited November 7, 2006 by TrailGators

[+sbell111]

Concerning the graphs (which I really appreciate sbell). What they do illustrate is that as overall cache numbers are going up, the ratio of non-micros to micros is on the decline. At the current trend, we will not have more micros than others, but we will perpetually be getting closer to the 50-50 mark. Of course that is only if the current trend continues.

OK, here's one more graph...

 

It shows the percent of micros and non-micros to the total number of caches in the Chicago area.

In my opinion, it looks like the growth of micros relative to non-micros has stabilized.

[+SG-MIN]

well it is your standard parabolic curve. If you compare the two graphs you realize they are very slowly coming to 50-50, but that growth becomes exponetially slower.

[Clan Riffster]

but we will perpetually be getting closer to the 50-50 mark.

When you consider that this compares micros against everything that is not a micro, (small, regular, large), that 50% mark looks mighty scary. If cache container size were consistently applied across the board, they would only represent 25% of the total. Maybe we could convince George W to put a $20 tax on film canisters?

[+TrailGators]

but we will perpetually be getting closer to the 50-50 mark.

When you consider that this compares micros against everything that is not a micro, (small, regular, large), that 50% mark looks mighty scary. If cache container size were consistently applied across the board, they would only represent 25% of the total. Maybe we could convince George W to put a $20 tax on film canisters?

Basically Chicago went from 0% micros to 50% micros in three years and then it flattened out. The curves do look to be asymptotic, so something is effecting the growth of micros in Chicago over the past year or so. Perhaps peer pressure is working there or possibly there is some effect from cache saturation. I wouldn't know because I don't live there.

Edited November 7, 2006 by TrailGators

[+Snoogans]

Interesting thread....

 

An apples and oranges observation:

 

I find it interesting that a thread about the smaller details of geocaching's future is getting more response than one with a much bigger perspective of possible things to come.....

 

The graph you are requesting would not show what you want it to.

Actually, the graph you did post shows exactly what I'm talking about but only with a different view. The graph I requested would make it clear the percentage of caches that are micros are definitely trending up.

 

CR is always the worthy adversary.

 

I can end this argument though.

 

I take FULL responsibility for the recent micro proliferation. I released 12,500+ micros on the unsuspecting geocaching public. Over 500 have been placed since their release. At one point a NEW ODS cache was being placed every 6 hours on average. Oh the humanity.

 

Okay, I don't really take responsibility, but I find it entertaining that this thread seems to have focused on micros. Maybe they should all be rounded up and..... (holocaust reference deleted for being in poor taste.)

[+sbell111]

The graph you are requesting would not show what you want it to.

Actually, the graph you did post shows exactly what I'm talking about but only with a different view. The graph I requested would make it clear the percentage of caches that are micros are definitely trending up.

 

Either way, if you want more graphs, make them.

Of course you yourself wouldn't want to illustrate something that is counter to your argument.

You'll note that I went ahead and prepared a graph that showed whether 'the percentage of caches that are micros are definitely trending up'. You'll also note that said graph showed that 'the percentage of caches that are micros was definitely trending up', until about two years ago when it levelled off. Since that time, 'the percentage of caches that are micros' actually fell off a bit.

 

Don't you hate it when reality doesn't match up to your preconceptions?

[CoyoteRed]

Don't you hate it when reality doesn't match up to your preconceptions?

 

Would you have posted it if it did?

 

Regardless, micro trended up dramatically and then leveled off. I wonder, did that leveling off come shortly after the introduction of the new "small" cache size? I also wonder if the leveling off had anything to do with a vocal backlash against them? How many of those caches deemed "micro" were actually smalls and your graph is skewed because if it? What do you suppose that graph would have looked like if no one had stood up against the tide?

[Mushtang]

nevermind

Edited November 8, 2006 by Mushtang

[+TrailGators]

Don't you hate it when reality doesn't match up to your preconceptions?

 

Would you have posted it if it did?

 

Regardless, micro trended up dramatically and then leveled off. I wonder, did that leveling off come shortly after the introduction of the new "small" cache size? I also wonder if the leveling off had anything to do with a vocal backlash against them? How many of those caches deemed "micro" were actually smalls and your graph is skewed because if it? What do you suppose that graph would have looked like if no one had stood up against the tide?

 

Half the caches are micros! I wonder how many of those are hidden under lamp post covers?

[+Renegade Knight]

...

Half the caches are micros! I wonder how many of those are hidden under lamp post covers?

 

Way back in the day, urban caches were rare. Then they started to show up. I'll lay odds that the growth in urban tracks very well with the growth of micro's, but that would take research and effort to make those graphs. I'll be happy to pass the idea on to someone else

[+TrailGators]

...

Half the caches are micros! I wonder how many of those are hidden under lamp post covers?

Way back in the day, urban caches were rare. Then they started to show up. I'll lay odds that the growth in urban tracks very well with the growth of micro's, but that would take research and effort to make those graphs. I'll be happy to pass the idea on to someone else

I know when I started caching the vast majority of geocaches were in parks. I hiked well over 100 miles in my first three months of caching. I went out every Saturday! It was great! I think I found about 30 caches in those 100+ miles. It was so refreshing to discover so many beautiful trails and areas around San Diego. I also got in much better shape! Since then I have also found hundreds of urban caches. I did them when it was too hot to hike or when I was bushed after a good hike. They were fun at first, but I got very bored with them because most of them were placed in about 5 minutes with no thought or purpose. Now I'm sick of them.... Edited November 8, 2006 by TrailGators

[Clan Riffster]

most of them were placed in about 5 minutes with no thought or purpose.

Kinda sums up film canisters, eh?

[+TrailGators]

most of them were placed in about 5 minutes with no thought or purpose.

Kinda sums up film canisters, eh?

 

Whether people want to admit it or not but the obsession with numbers is the main cause of those....

 

Imagine there's no numbers.

It's easy if you try!

[Clan Riffster]

Imagine there's no numbers.

It's easy if you try!

Amen, Brother! I'm at a stage where I'd rather have one "Kewl!" than one hundred "Yawn"s

[+TrailGators]

Imagine there's no numbers.

It's easy if you try!

Amen, Brother! I'm at a stage where I'd rather have one "Kewl!" than one hundred "Yawn"s

One of my caching buddies uses this quote for their forum signature: "Numbers are pointless, but memories are priceless. If you've got more finds than fond memories, you're playing this game backwards."

[+sbell111]

Regardless, micro trended up dramatically and then leveled off. I wonder, did that leveling off come shortly after the introduction of the new "small" cache size?

I don't know remember exactly when 'small' was introduced, but they show in the data as far back as late 2002.

I also wonder if the leveling off had anything to do with a vocal backlash against them?

Considering that most of this 'backlash' is your posts in the forums and that most cachers don't play in this sandbox, I'd guess that very little had to do with it.

How many of those caches deemed "micro" were actually smalls and your graph is skewed because if it?

A few, I suppose. However, this would cause a corrected graph to show an even smaller number (and percentage) of micros. We definitely need to get off our duffs and hide more micros!

What do you suppose that graph would have looked like if no one had stood up against the tide?

<repeating myself> Considering that most of the 'standing up against the tide' is your posts in the forums and that most cachers don't hang out in the forums, I'd guess that very little had to do with it.

 

I wonder why you can't do your own research.

[+bennettsweb]

I'm new - but I like finding the caches outside of my little city and into the wide open spaces that require more than a 100ft walk from the parking lot. There won't likely be a saturation of caches if you go by this mentality. That's the whole point of geocaching for me - going somewhere out there that you wouldn't normally go.

 

City parks just don't seem like fun to begin with so go ahead and saturate them; the real fun is in the backcountry.

[+TrailGators]

I'm new - but I like finding the caches outside of my little city and into the wide open spaces that require more than a 100ft walk from the parking lot. There won't likely be a saturation of caches if you go by this mentality. That's the whole point of geocaching for me - going somewhere out there that you wouldn't normally go.

 

City parks just don't seem like fun to begin with so go ahead and saturate them; the real fun is in the backcountry.

 

I agree! It's better just to avoid all urbans because most of them are very boring. If they ever come up with a way to let me know which urbans are the best ones then I'll go find those....

[+Renegade Knight]

If you take a dumptruck of micros and used to to fill a pool, sure you can fit in a lot of caches, but you will eventually fill the pool.

 

As the urban environment fills up I think that's why you are seeing the leveling of micros.

[+TrailGators]

If you take a dumptruck of micros and used to to fill a pool, sure you can fit in a lot of caches, but you will eventually fill the pool.

 

As the urban environment fills up I think that's why you are seeing the leveling of micros.

 

I agree! The simple fact is that they are running out of lamp posts to hide micros under!

[+sbell111]

If you take a dumptruck of micros and used to to fill a pool, sure you can fit in a lot of caches, but you will eventually fill the pool.

 

As the urban environment fills up I think that's why you are seeing the leveling of micros.

However, their 'levelling' is only as a percentage of total caches. The total number of micros and non-micros continue to climb.

[+TrailGators]

If you take a dumptruck of micros and used to to fill a pool, sure you can fit in a lot of caches, but you will eventually fill the pool.

 

As the urban environment fills up I think that's why you are seeing the leveling of micros.

However, their 'levelling' is only as a percentage of total caches. The total number of micros and non-micros continue to climb.

Which means that half the people in Chicago enjoy boring mindless caches.

[+sbell111]

If you take a dumptruck of micros and used to to fill a pool, sure you can fit in a lot of caches, but you will eventually fill the pool.

 

As the urban environment fills up I think that's why you are seeing the leveling of micros.

However, their 'levelling' is only as a percentage of total caches. The total number of micros and non-micros continue to climb.

Which means that half the people in Chicago enjoy boring mindless caches.

Or that at least half the cachers in the Chicago area disagree with you.

[+TrailGators]

If you take a dumptruck of micros and used to to fill a pool, sure you can fit in a lot of caches, but you will eventually fill the pool.

 

As the urban environment fills up I think that's why you are seeing the leveling of micros.

However, their 'levelling' is only as a percentage of total caches. The total number of micros and non-micros continue to climb.

Which means that half the people in Chicago enjoy boring mindless caches.

Or that at least half the cachers in the Chicago area disagree with you.

As more of them keep finding the same thing over and over and over and over and over again they will all start to agree with me! Edited November 8, 2006 by TrailGators

[+Snoogans]

If you take a dumptruck of micros and used to to fill a pool, sure you can fit in a lot of caches, but you will eventually fill the pool.

 

As the urban environment fills up I think that's why you are seeing the leveling of micros.

However, their 'levelling' is only as a percentage of total caches. The total number of micros and non-micros continue to climb.

Which means that half the people in Chicago enjoy boring mindless caches.

Or that at least half the cachers in the Chicago area disagree with you.

As more of them keep finding the same thing over and over and over and over and over again they will all start to agree with me!

 

Oh brother. So, a micro = boring & mindless?

 

How about a micro = a choice?

 

The hider is playing a game called geocaching. They are evidently playing it right because their cache was approved.

 

You are also playing a GAME (sport/hobby/obsession/etc.) evidently called MY version of Geocaching 1.5, or maybe even 2.O. You seem to be failing at your game if you are not able to enjoy it.

 

 

"Failure is a hard pill to swallow until you realize the only failure you can really have in this sport is the failure to enjoy yourself."

TotemLake 4/26/04

[+baloo&bd]

As more of them keep finding the same thing over and over and over and over and over again they will all start to agree with me!

 

That may be true, however many of the micros in the Chicago area take you to truly interesting places or long hikes into wooded areas. There is actually a very small percentage of micros that are the "lamp post variety".

 

Also, sbell has taken the time to do this area because the information he already had readily available. Doing a quick sampling, it appears to hold true in most other areas (Florida included) as well. I would encourage you to do as sbell suggested and do some research, you may be amazed.

 

One thing is certain, micros are not going away since they appear to be wildly popular, especially near metro areas.

 

Saturation does not appear to be a problem, especially for someone willing to do some work and research. Natural attrition seems to solve any hint of the problem anyway. I will agree however with the OP's premise that with more and more people becoming active, at some point GC may need to look at methods to weed things out, however we don't appear to be there yet.

Edited November 8, 2006 by baloo&bd

[+TrailGators]

If you take a dumptruck of micros and used to to fill a pool, sure you can fit in a lot of caches, but you will eventually fill the pool.

 

As the urban environment fills up I think that's why you are seeing the leveling of micros.

However, their 'levelling' is only as a percentage of total caches. The total number of micros and non-micros continue to climb.

Which means that half the people in Chicago enjoy boring mindless caches.

Or that at least half the cachers in the Chicago area disagree with you.

As more of them keep finding the same thing over and over and over and over and over again they will all start to agree with me!

 

Oh brother. So, a micro = boring & mindless? How about a micro = a choice? You seem to be failing at your game if you are not able to enjoy it.

Where's a bucket of water! I was referring to the typical urban micro hidden under a lamp post cover. I think when "most" people lift up their 500th lamp post cover (or before) they think to themselves "What the heck am I doing this for?" If you call that realization a failure then I am happy to fail!

 

I have gone back to the roots of geocaching, which is finding caches in amazing places!

Edited November 8, 2006 by TrailGators