Clan Riffster Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 Oh brother. So, a micro = boring & mindless? No, of course not. Micro only equals boring & mindless, (AKA: Lame), 90% of the time, not all the time. How about a micro = a choice? Ignoring lame caches also equals a choice. Pointing out that most micros are lame, (IMHO), also equals a choice. You are also playing a game, 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. I enjoy it immensly. I reckon that makes me a success, eh? In fact, I enjoy it almost as much as I enjoy pointing out that a hide-a-key slapped on a dumpster or a film canister dropped in the Burger King shrubbery will always be lame. Hiding a lame micro is your God given right. Pointing out that it's lame is mine. Quote Link to comment
+sbell111 Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 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! You state that you are specifically referring to lamppost micros, but your statement further up is regarding all micros in the Chicago area. I assume that you recognize the inconsistency. Quote Link to comment
+Snoogans Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 Don't get your undies in a bundle! 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! Who ever claimed that the roots of geocaching originated in amazing places? A cache is a cache is a cache. It's all relative. You have roughly four finds for every one of mine. If a quarter of your finds are "boring lamp post micros" then you must be some sort of a geocaching masochist and not a very good one at that if you hold the hiders of you LPM finds responsible. I have exactly 2 LPM finds. One was really fun and one was really lame. The fun on was a matter of circumstance. I've come across a few more in my time as a geocacher and chose not to hunt them. Yay me. No angst & 25% of my quality geocaching time wasn't wasted. Quote Link to comment
+TrailGators Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 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! You state that you are specifically referring to lamppost micros, but your statement further up is regarding all micros in the Chicago area. I assume that you recognize the inconsistency. I am assuming that a large percentage of them are lamp post micros or similar. There is no way to filter those out from a PQ, so when people go urban caching guess what they are definitely going to find over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again? Quote Link to comment
+TrailGators Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 (edited) Don't get your undies in a bundle! 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! You have roughly four finds for every one of mine. If a quarter of your finds are "boring lamp post micros" then you must be some sort of a geocaching masochist and not a very good one at that if you hold the hiders of you LPM finds responsible. I stated before that I was sick of finding them. I never said that I have never found them. So I speak from experience. Edited November 8, 2006 by TrailGators Quote Link to comment
+sbell111 Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 (edited) I am assuming that a large percentage of them are lamp post micros or similar. There is no way to filter those out from a PQ, so when people go urban caching guess what they are definitely going to find over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again? I suspect that your assumptions are wrong. Urban caches are no more 'all alike' than rural caches are. After all, how many times can you walk 200 feet from the car to locate the pile of sticks before it gets old? Edited November 8, 2006 by sbell111 Quote Link to comment
+sbell111 Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 Don't get your undies in a bundle! 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! You have roughly four finds for every one of mine. If a quarter of your finds are "boring lamp post micros" then you must be some sort of a geocaching masochist and not a very good one at that if you hold the hiders of you LPM finds responsible. I stated before that I was sick of finding them. I never said that I have never found them. So I speak from experience.IF you believe that they are all the same AND your are sick of finding them, why don't you merely exclude them from your PQs? Surely, you would be happier. Quote Link to comment
+TrailGators Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 I have gone back to the roots of geocaching, which is finding caches in amazing places! Who ever claimed that the roots of geocaching originated in amazing places? I'd love to here your theory on what geocaching was "intended" to be.....I'd also like to here how finding a lamp post micro behind Wal-Mart beats a panoramic mountain view..... Quote Link to comment
+TrailGators Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 (edited) Don't get your undies in a bundle! 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! You have roughly four finds for every one of mine. If a quarter of your finds are "boring lamp post micros" then you must be some sort of a geocaching masochist and not a very good one at that if you hold the hiders of you LPM finds responsible. I stated before that I was sick of finding them. I never said that I have never found them. So I speak from experience.IF you believe that they are all the same AND your are sick of finding them, why don't you merely exclude them from your PQs? Surely, you would be happier. Please tell me how to exclude a lamp post micro from my PQ! Edited November 8, 2006 by TrailGators Quote Link to comment
+TrailGators Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 I am assuming that a large percentage of them are lamp post micros or similar. There is no way to filter those out from a PQ, so when people go urban caching guess what they are definitely going to find over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again? I suspect that your assumptions are wrong. Urban caches are no more 'all alike' than rural caches are. After all, how many times can you walk 200 feet from the car to locate the pile of sticks before it gets old? We use rocks out here... Anyhow, it's not about the destination. It's about the journey! Quote Link to comment
+Snoogans Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 Hiding a lame micro is your God given right. Pointing out that it's lame is mine. I'm assuming you mean the royal "your," but if not: According to the logs on my hidden micros, they seem to be unlame, unboring, and unmindless. I've found many lame caches, but I save most my harsh criticism for "individual" hides for offline at events. I tryyyy not to outwardly blanket criticsm upon a catagory of caches because of my "individual" experiences with certain types. Quote Link to comment
+sbell111 Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 I have gone back to the roots of geocaching, which is finding caches in amazing places! Who ever claimed that the roots of geocaching originated in amazing places? I'd love to here your theory on what geocaching was "intended" to be.....I'd also like to here how finding a lamp post micro behind Wal-Mart beats a panoramic mountain view..... I still look at geocaching the same way I did on day one: Someone that I don't know placed something out in the world for me to find. From anywhere in the world, my GPSr will lead me to the item, even though most of the world has no clue of it's existence. I think that this is close to what the original cachers intended. After all, the original cache was a leaky bucket, filled with junk, in a drive-up location that was not scenic. Quote Link to comment
+sbell111 Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 (edited) IF you believe that they are all the same AND your are sick of finding them, why don't you merely exclude them from your PQs? Surely, you would be happier. Please tell me how to exclude a lamp post micro from my PQ! Your position was that 'a large percentage of them are lamp post micros or similar'. Therefore, there is no need to filter out specific micros, just filter them all out. (If you really want to get rid of the lamp post ones, filter out all 1/1 micros.) Edited November 8, 2006 by sbell111 Quote Link to comment
+Snoogans Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 Don't get your undies in a bundle! 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! You have roughly four finds for every one of mine. If a quarter of your finds are "boring lamp post micros" then you must be some sort of a geocaching masochist and not a very good one at that if you hold the hiders of you LPM finds responsible. I stated before that I was sick of finding them. I never said that I have never found them. So I speak from experience. Experience as a geocaching masochist. If you're sick of finding them then STOP finding them. No one held a gun to your head to find roughly 500 LPMs..... You chose to. Why did you not choose to spend your geocaching time on more quality before now? Why should the sport bend to suit anyone's aesthetic? Quote Link to comment
+TrailGators Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 I have gone back to the roots of geocaching, which is finding caches in amazing places! Who ever claimed that the roots of geocaching originated in amazing places? I'd love to here your theory on what geocaching was "intended" to be.....I'd also like to here how finding a lamp post micro behind Wal-Mart beats a panoramic mountain view..... I still look at geocaching the same way I did on day one: Someone that I don't know placed something out in the world for me to find. From anywhere in the world, my GPSr will lead me to the item, even though most of the world has no clue of it's existence. I think that this is close to what the original cachers intended. After all, the original cache was a leaky bucket, filled with junk, in a drive-up location that was not scenic. I know about the first cache. That was more of an experiment to test out the idea. If you want I can try to find comments I've read by Jeremy stating that geocaching was about bringing people to new and exciting places. If I can't find them, I'm sure someone can.... Quote Link to comment
+Snoogans Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 I have gone back to the roots of geocaching, which is finding caches in amazing places! Who ever claimed that the roots of geocaching originated in amazing places? I'd love to here your theory on what geocaching was "intended" to be.....I'd also like to here how finding a lamp post micro behind Wal-Mart beats a panoramic mountain view..... I still look at geocaching the same way I did on day one: Someone that I don't know placed something out in the world for me to find. From anywhere in the world, my GPSr will lead me to the item, even though most of the world has no clue of it's existence. I think that this is close to what the original cachers intended. After all, the original cache was a leaky bucket, filled with junk, in a drive-up location that was not scenic. I know about the first cache. That was more of an experiment to test out the idea. If you want I can try to find comments I've read by Jeremy stating that geocaching was about bringing people to new and exciting places. If I can't find them, I'm sure someone can.... Jeremy OWNS this website. He does not OWN the activity itself. Quote Link to comment
+karstic Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 I think that this is close to what the original cachers intended. I thought the original intent was, "Let's see how well these dadgum things actually work!" Quote Link to comment
+TrailGators Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 Don't get your undies in a bundle! 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! You have roughly four finds for every one of mine. If a quarter of your finds are "boring lamp post micros" then you must be some sort of a geocaching masochist and not a very good one at that if you hold the hiders of you LPM finds responsible. I stated before that I was sick of finding them. I never said that I have never found them. So I speak from experience. Experience as a geocaching masochist. If you're sick of finding them then STOP finding them. No one held a gun to your head to find roughly 500 LPMs..... You chose to. Why did you not choose to spend your geocaching time on more quality before now? Why should the sport bend to suit anyone's aesthetic? Don't be daft! I hit my limit AFTER finding all those LPCs.... I have been trying to avoid them for awhile. However, they are really hard to avoid because there are so freaking many of them. I basically have to avoid urban caching to avoid them completely and that was my point! Comprende? Quote Link to comment
+TrailGators Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 I have gone back to the roots of geocaching, which is finding caches in amazing places! Who ever claimed that the roots of geocaching originated in amazing places? I'd love to here your theory on what geocaching was "intended" to be.....I'd also like to here how finding a lamp post micro behind Wal-Mart beats a panoramic mountain view..... I still look at geocaching the same way I did on day one: Someone that I don't know placed something out in the world for me to find. From anywhere in the world, my GPSr will lead me to the item, even though most of the world has no clue of it's existence. I think that this is close to what the original cachers intended. After all, the original cache was a leaky bucket, filled with junk, in a drive-up location that was not scenic. I know about the first cache. That was more of an experiment to test out the idea. If you want I can try to find comments I've read by Jeremy stating that geocaching was about bringing people to new and exciting places. If I can't find them, I'm sure someone can.... Jeremy OWNS this website. He does not OWN the activity itself. Do you know where you are right now? What does it say at the top of this page? Quote Link to comment
+Snoogans Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 Don't get your undies in a bundle! 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! You have roughly four finds for every one of mine. If a quarter of your finds are "boring lamp post micros" then you must be some sort of a geocaching masochist and not a very good one at that if you hold the hiders of you LPM finds responsible. I stated before that I was sick of finding them. I never said that I have never found them. So I speak from experience. Experience as a geocaching masochist. If you're sick of finding them then STOP finding them. No one held a gun to your head to find roughly 500 LPMs..... You chose to. Why did you not choose to spend your geocaching time on more quality before now? Why should the sport bend to suit anyone's aesthetic? Don't be daft! I hit my limit AFTER finding all those LPCs.... I have been trying to avoid them for awhile. However, they are really hard to avoid because there are so freaking many of them. I basically have to avoid urban caching to avoid them completely and that was my point! Comprende? Well, then I guess you choose one. Your personal caching goals OR your aesthetic. That can be a hard choice when 2k is within your grasp and if you personal numbers mean much to you, then your choice is harder still. Quote Link to comment
+Snoogans Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 I have gone back to the roots of geocaching, which is finding caches in amazing places! Who ever claimed that the roots of geocaching originated in amazing places? I'd love to here your theory on what geocaching was "intended" to be.....I'd also like to here how finding a lamp post micro behind Wal-Mart beats a panoramic mountain view..... I still look at geocaching the same way I did on day one: Someone that I don't know placed something out in the world for me to find. From anywhere in the world, my GPSr will lead me to the item, even though most of the world has no clue of it's existence. I think that this is close to what the original cachers intended. After all, the original cache was a leaky bucket, filled with junk, in a drive-up location that was not scenic. I know about the first cache. That was more of an experiment to test out the idea. If you want I can try to find comments I've read by Jeremy stating that geocaching was about bringing people to new and exciting places. If I can't find them, I'm sure someone can.... Jeremy OWNS this website. He does not OWN the activity itself. Do you know where you are right now? What does it say at the top of this page? Ya lost me. Was I wrong? Jeremy actually does OWN the activity itself and not just this website? Jeremy better put his lawyers on danger money then. Quote Link to comment
+wesleykey Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 Well, then I guess you choose one. Your personal caching goals OR your aesthetic. That can be a hard choice when 2k is within your grasp and if you personal numbers mean much to you, then your choice is harder still. As far as the OP's question, I wonder how many O.D.S. caches Snoogans will have out in 10 years. What are you up to now, over 500? Quote Link to comment
+rusty_da_dog Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 Location Location Location It is all about Location. I have found the Wal-Mart or as idiots oops I mean cachers around here call them Tram-Law but if you have found one you have found them all. Funny how no two waterfalls are alike, and you can see a lot out in the woods looking for those sticks all stacked up nice and neat, to me I would rather hike 5 miles for one cache than to find 50 micros in wal-mart parking lots. Just my .02 though Cya on the trails, Rusty Quote Link to comment
+SG-MIN Posted November 8, 2006 Author Share Posted November 8, 2006 (edited) Let's try to bring this back on topic. How about we try to answer this question: How will geocaching change as prime locations increasingly become occupied? Edited November 8, 2006 by SG-MIN Quote Link to comment
+Snoogans Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 Let's try to bring this back on topic. How about we try to answer this question: How will geocaching change as prime locations increasingly become occupied? I may have read it wrong, but it seemed your question was answered somewhere in the first couple pages. Then of course, the sacrificial lamb of the micro debate got going. Ummmm, as usual. Entertaining though. Quote Link to comment
+Renegade Knight Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 Let's try to bring this back on topic. How about we try to answer this question: How will geocaching change as prime locations increasingly become occupied? I may have read it wrong, but it seemed your question was answered somewhere in the first couple pages. Then of course, the sacrificial lamb of the micro debate got going. Ummmm, as usual. Entertaining though. One way it will change is that they will fill an empty pool with geocoins and Snoogans can dive in like Scrooge McDuck and set a new coop record by touching the most travelers in the shortest amount of time. The ensuing controversy will involve the debate over whether or not he was allowed to use oil to allow more freedom of swimming movement through the coins and what skin dye would be used to best effect in marking the coins as 'touched'. From there the legitimacy of dies to mark the outside of the coin will be debated alogn with the ethics of marking someone elses coins to begin with. This doesn't even touch on the issue of exactly how much area of skin needs to be used to count a coin as touched and if by swimming nakid some areas of the body should be disqualified as "just not family friendly". Quote Link to comment
+DanOCan Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 How will geocaching change as prime locations increasingly become occupied? I don't think it will change all that much. The really good hiders will continue to seek out new and interesting places and ways to hide a cache and those who are only worried about adding to their number of hides will continue to place caches in lame locations. Going back to the original post, I don't think we need to do anything...the system will continue to work towards a state of increased entropy, just like everything else. Quote Link to comment
+tozainamboku Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 (edited) Some observations: 1) Is this an argument about micros? Perhaps you should avoid the word micro. It looks like more of Urban hides vs. remote hides. 2) It is obvious to me that some people like urban caches and some like remote cache (and some like any cache). Arguing over which kind of caches you like is like arguing over which flavor of ice cream is best 3) Some kinds of urban hides may be preferable to others for reasons other than they took you to an interesting place. Placing urban caches should consider the likelihood of the cache being muggled and the ability to get permission. These reasons may play part of why LPC are common in some locations. (Although the permission issue may be do to a wrong assumption on the part of the hider that you don't need explicit permission to hide a cache in a publicly accessible parking lot). 4) Many cachers do place caches which are cheap and easy to place. This is true for remote caches as well as urban. There are plenty of Gladware containers and reused food containers hidden in the woods. Some cachers will only learn through experience which container types work and which don't. On the other hand, a 35mm film can works pretty well under a lamppost skirt. 5) Poorly placed urban caches tend to go missing and get archived while remote caches may need less maintenance and last longer. This might mean that over time you can find a lot more urban caches even if the number of urban and remote caches is roughly even at any given time. I also think this is why there isn't a saturation problem. Urban cache will reach some kind of equalibrium while there are still plenty of places for remote hides if you are willing to drive further. 6) Perhaps some who "like" remote caches really do like the journey going to the cache more than the find and thus won't complain when they see their 500th ammo can in a bush or their 500th UPS. When I began I wrote a DNF log on a difficult urban micro that I was having problems finding. I got frustrated looking for this cache and say that I decided not to look for this kind of cache anymore. At least if I can't find a cache that I had to hike a few miles to I would have gotten good exercise out of it. 7) If I find a cache that I didn't enjoy, I try to accept that someone may find this cache enjoyable (even if only to get another smiley). There are very few caches that I can't imagine no one would want to find. Edited November 8, 2006 by tozainamboku Quote Link to comment
+TrailGators Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 (edited) Let's try to bring this back on topic. How about we try to answer this question: How will geocaching change as prime locations increasingly become occupied? Another way to look at this would to pretend there is a town that has no caches yet. Ideally, how and where "should" the first caches be placed? What kind of hides would not be a good idea? Can we first all agree on the answer to this question? Once we answer this question, we can move along to see what happens over time to that town..... Edited November 8, 2006 by TrailGators Quote Link to comment
+TrailGators Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 (edited) Bet we can't. I bet you're right! But I figured it was worth a try..... Edited November 9, 2006 by TrailGators Quote Link to comment
+sbell111 Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 Let's try to bring this back on topic. How about we try to answer this question: How will geocaching change as prime locations increasingly become occupied? Another way to look at this would to pretend there is a town that has no caches yet. Ideally, how and where "should" the first caches be placed? What kind of hides would not be a good idea? Can we first all agree on the answer to this question? Once we answer this question, we can move along to see what happens over time to that town..... I don't know what the point of the question is. The question for this thread is what happens in the town in year 16, not day one. Quote Link to comment
+TrailGators Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 (edited) Let's try to bring this back on topic. How about we try to answer this question: How will geocaching change as prime locations increasingly become occupied? Another way to look at this would to pretend there is a town that has no caches yet. Ideally, how and where "should" the first caches be placed? What kind of hides would not be a good idea? Can we first all agree on the answer to this question? Once we answer this question, we can move along to see what happens over time to that town..... I don't know what the point of the question is. The question for this thread is what happens in the town in year 16, not day one. Day one is the zero saturation point. During this time the best locations are found and caches are placed in them. It is the period of time where very few if any urban micros are being placed because there are plenty of good locations available that can hold larger caches. As the best locations become scarce, the growth of new caches start to find less than ideal locations. Over time the growth continues to the point where a significant number of caches start ending up in poor locations. I think this is the starting point of saturation. I also think that the point of saturation is different for every cacher. I am starting to believe that there are some cachers that have no point of saturation. These people would walk/drive down a line of lamp posts 100 miles long; lift up every cover; open every altoids tin; log each tiny piece of paper and never got bored doing that. Sorry but I just don't get that. I myself would rather drive 100 miles to find some zero saturation land with a few well placed caches! Edited November 9, 2006 by TrailGators Quote Link to comment
+sbell111 Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 Day one is the zero saturation point. During this time the best locations are found and caches are placed in them. It is the point of time where very few if any urban micros are being placed because there are plenty of good locations available that can hold larger caches. As the best locations become scarce, the growth of new caches start to find less than ideal locations. Over time the growth continues to the point where a significant number of caches start ending up in poor locations. I think this is the starting point of saturation. I also think that the point of saturation is different for every cacher. I am starting to believe that there are some cachers that have no point of saturation. These people would walk/drive down a line of lamp posts 100 miles long; lift up every cover; open every altoids tin; log each tiny piece of paper and never got bored doing that. Sorry but I just don't get that. I myself would rather drive 100 miles to find some zero saturation land with a few well placed caches! I highlighted the part of your post where the logic leaped the track. Your personal bias should not be used to predict what other people like and, therefore, will do. Quote Link to comment
+SG-MIN Posted November 9, 2006 Author Share Posted November 9, 2006 I think what trailgator is saying is that if people could place their caches anywhere, the first choice would probably not be a walmart lamp post. I agree with TG on this modified point, but I think experiance tells us that people will still place urban micros early on - they just might be in a slightly more warrenting location. Quote Link to comment
+sbell111 Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 (edited) I think what trailgator is saying is that if people could place their caches anywhere, the first choice would probably not be a walmart lamp post. I agree with TG on this modified point, but I think experiance tells us that people will still place urban micros early on - they just might be in a slightly more warrenting location. I'm in complete agreement. Starting from cache one, good locations will (mostly) be chosen first (in both rural and urban areas). These caches will not be limited to any specific cache size. Once the obvious good locations are taken, two things will happen. 1) Lesser known good locations will be identified and caches will be placed there and 2) locations that are not so good will be chosen. However, another trend will be developing at the same time as all this is going on. Caches will be placed in somewhat ordinary locations, but with new and interesting hide techniques. People will find these and, because they enjoyed them greatly, they will emulate them. This will result in a number of lamp post and magnet-sheet hides. Edited November 9, 2006 by sbell111 Quote Link to comment
+SG-MIN Posted November 9, 2006 Author Share Posted November 9, 2006 sbell111 - Mark this day!! we totally agree with each other and we are even talking about cache quality and micros!!! You make a very good point about hiding techniques which I had neglected. I will admit it - I thought the first LPM that I found was a really cool and original hiding technique. Quote Link to comment
+Bill & Tammy Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 (edited) Coming in a bit late on this discussion but just wanted to share another situation that came up in my personal caching that speaks to saturation (and micros): Nearly a year ago I hid a small cache at a rest area which has been well received. The reason I hid it is that there aren't many caches in the area and I especially like when a rest stop cache that can be used for travel bug exchange. Well, a few months a ago a micro was approved in the very same rest area (0.2 miles) away. The other weird thing about this placement is that the nearest cache to both of these is 13 miles away. Well, there goes another attempt at keeping a good location micro free I suppose. Edited November 9, 2006 by Bill & Tammy Quote Link to comment
+sbell111 Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 Coming in a bit late on this discussion but just wanted to share another situation that came up in my personal caching that speaks to saturation (and micros): Nearly a year ago I hid a small cache at a rest area which has been well received. The reason I hid it is that there aren't many caches in the area and I especially like when a rest stop cache that can be used for travel bug exchange. Well, a few months a ago a micro was approved in the very same rest area (.02 miles) away. The other weird thing about this placement is that the nearest cache to both of these is 13 miles away. Well, there goes another attempt at keeping a good location micro free I suppose. Do you mean .02 miles or .2 miles. .02 miles is something like 100 feet away. Quote Link to comment
+sbell111 Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 That cache is .2 miles away from yours, therefore, I don't have a problem with it. What's the big deal about two caches at a rest area? Quote Link to comment
Clan Riffster Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 Well, there goes another attempt at keeping a good location micro free I suppose. Not even Raid can keep those pesky buggers away. Back on topic: I'm fairly new to this game, so I could be way off base here. I think the kind of person who would place a hide-a-key on a dumpster, an Altoid tin in a lamp post skirt, a film canister in the bushes at Burger King, et. al., is a completely different critter from the type of person who would hide an imaginatively done urban micro or a scenic view ammo can. I really only have my own limited experience to draw from, but it seems the aforementioned hide types are incompatible with each other. I know I could never hide one of the first type. I think whatever types of cachers occupy a given area will be the determining factor in what kinds of hides spring up in that area first. If the majority of the caching population is unimaginative, the initial hides will be as well. Quote Link to comment
+sbell111 Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 (edited) ... I really only have my own limited experience to draw from, but it seems the aforementioned hide types are incompatible with each other. I know I could never hide one of the first type. ... The problem is that you are looking at the issue as if there are only two types of hides: great and lame. In fact, there is a large spectrum of hides that range from lame to great. Specific hiders place their caches within a range along the spectrum. Does anyone remember what this thread is about? Edited November 9, 2006 by sbell111 Quote Link to comment
+VeryLost Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 Saturation is no longer a problem: Mariners report new island in South Pacific How long until the first cache gets placed? Quote Link to comment
+Jhwk Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 Let's try to bring this back on topic. How about we try to answer this question: How will geocaching change as prime locations increasingly become occupied? 1] All identified "cool" locations are taken, 13 sept, 2007 2] 7 January, 2008 The "528 war" begins as caching purists demand an expansion of the hiding distances, a cache rating system, and Micro free urban zones. 3] 27 April 2008, an internet "cache bot" program, developed and released by snoogans at geowoodstock 2008 begins an automated scan of the world and establishes caches for every location not within 528 feet of another cache, effectively killing any means of placing new caches. Unknown approver bots at Groundspeak, approve all caches. 4] 16 May 2008, the first cache location goes on sale on e-bay. Jhwk sells the cache placement rights to the rest stop cache "cursed rest stop" in Doolittle Missouri. A French consortium purchases the location for $6.7 million, and puts a micro in a lamp post skirt. 5] Jhwk retires (again) and enjoys finding all types of caches because folks took the time and effort to put them out there, and because I enjoy the journey, not just the hide. Quote Link to comment
+TrailGators Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 Day one is the zero saturation point. During this time the best locations are found and caches are placed in them. It is the point of time where very few if any urban micros are being placed because there are plenty of good locations available that can hold larger caches. As the best locations become scarce, the growth of new caches start to find less than ideal locations. Over time the growth continues to the point where a significant number of caches start ending up in poor locations. I think this is the starting point of saturation. I also think that the point of saturation is different for every cacher. I am starting to believe that there are some cachers that have no point of saturation. These people would walk/drive down a line of lamp posts 100 miles long; lift up every cover; open every altoids tin; log each tiny piece of paper and never got bored doing that. Sorry but I just don't get that. I myself would rather drive 100 miles to find some zero saturation land with a few well placed caches! I highlighted the part of your post where the logic leaped the track. Your personal bias should not be used to predict what other people like and, therefore, will do. Actually it is not my personal bias; it was my personal observation based on what happened when I began caching almost four years ago in San Diego. At that time San Diego was in a low saturation state and there were very few urban micros. The graphs you plotted of Chicago support this observation with data from another part of the country. Chicago was over 90% non-micros in the beginning and ended up being ~50%. So my theory that cachers will place larger caches in better locations if they are given the opportunity. Saturation begins when those opportunities diminish. Quote Link to comment
+sbell111 Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 (edited) Day one is the zero saturation point. During this time the best locations are found and caches are placed in them. It is the point of time where very few if any urban micros are being placed because there are plenty of good locations available that can hold larger caches. As the best locations become scarce, the growth of new caches start to find less than ideal locations. Over time the growth continues to the point where a significant number of caches start ending up in poor locations. I think this is the starting point of saturation. I also think that the point of saturation is different for every cacher. I am starting to believe that there are some cachers that have no point of saturation. These people would walk/drive down a line of lamp posts 100 miles long; lift up every cover; open every altoids tin; log each tiny piece of paper and never got bored doing that. Sorry but I just don't get that. I myself would rather drive 100 miles to find some zero saturation land with a few well placed caches! I highlighted the part of your post where the logic leaped the track. Your personal bias should not be used to predict what other people like and, therefore, will do. Actually it is not my personal bias; it was my personal observation based on what happened when I began caching almost four years ago in San Diego. At that time San Diego was in a low saturation state and there were very few urban micros. The graphs you plotted of Chicago support this observation with data from another part of the country. Chicago was over 90% non-micros in the beginning and ended up being ~50%. So my theory that cachers will place larger caches in better locations if they are given the opportunity. Saturation begins when those opportunities diminish. It was your personal bias becasue your statement assumes that 1) there are no good urban caches and 2) all micros are bad. The graph I posted does show that early on there were very few micros. However, this is not a statement as to whether micros are necessarily bad. In fact, the early numbers of micros are skewed downward because initially there was no 'micro' size. Therefore, some of the old caches would be listed as 'regular' sized when, in fact, they are not. Either way, the fact that there were once very few micros doesn't support your argument that all micros are bad. When I first started playing this game, there were very few caches. Does that mean that all caches are bad? Edited November 9, 2006 by sbell111 Quote Link to comment
+TrailGators Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 Day one is the zero saturation point. During this time the best locations are found and caches are placed in them. It is the point of time where very few if any urban micros are being placed because there are plenty of good locations available that can hold larger caches. As the best locations become scarce, the growth of new caches start to find less than ideal locations. Over time the growth continues to the point where a significant number of caches start ending up in poor locations. I think this is the starting point of saturation. I also think that the point of saturation is different for every cacher. I am starting to believe that there are some cachers that have no point of saturation. These people would walk/drive down a line of lamp posts 100 miles long; lift up every cover; open every altoids tin; log each tiny piece of paper and never got bored doing that. Sorry but I just don't get that. I myself would rather drive 100 miles to find some zero saturation land with a few well placed caches! I highlighted the part of your post where the logic leaped the track. Your personal bias should not be used to predict what other people like and, therefore, will do. Actually it is not my personal bias; it was my personal observation based on what happened when I began caching almost four years ago in San Diego. At that time San Diego was in a low saturation state and there were very few urban micros. The graphs you plotted of Chicago support this observation with data from another part of the country. Chicago was over 90% non-micros in the beginning and ended up being ~50%. So my theory that cachers will place larger caches in better locations if they are given the opportunity. Saturation begins when those opportunities diminish. It was your personal bias becasue your statement assumes that 1) there are no good urban caches and 2) all micros are bad. The graph I posted does show that early on there were very few micros. However, this is not a statement as to whether micros are necessarily bad. In fact, the early numbers of micros are skewed downward because initially there was no 'micro' size. Therefore, some of the old caches would be listed as 'regular' sized when, in fact, they are not. Either way, the fact that thee were once very few micros doesn't support your argument that all micros are bad. When I first started playing this game, there were very few caches. Does that mean that all caches are bad? Please point out in my post where I said "all micros are bad." Quote Link to comment
+sbell111 Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 (edited) Please point out in my post where I said "all micros are bad." It is the point of time where very few if any urban micros are being placed because there are plenty of good locations available that can hold larger caches. Edited November 9, 2006 by sbell111 Quote Link to comment
+TrailGators Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 Please point out in my post where I said "all micros are bad." It is the point of time where very few if any urban micros are being placed because there are plenty of good locations available that can hold larger caches. I didn't say they were "all bad." I was pointing out that they were being placed at a much lower rate when plenty of opportunities existed for other cache types. It's a fact. Look at your own historical data of Chicago and you will see this! Quote Link to comment
+sbell111 Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 Please point out in my post where I said "all micros are bad." It is the point of time where very few if any urban micros are being placed because there are plenty of good locations available that can hold larger caches. I didn't say they were "all bad." I was pointing out that they were being placed at a much lower rate when plenty of opportunities existed for other cache types. It's a fact. Look at your own historical data of Chicago and you will see this! Two things: It is true that several years ago, there were fewer micros. I believe that this is because they were 'new', not because they are inherently bad. Once again, the data is not mine, it is Markwell's. I am not trying to take credit for his work. I merely used his data to crank out a few graphs. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
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.