Sum of all fears

[vtmtnman]

Is anyone out there wondering when the day will come when there are so many caches within the minimum distance of each other that it just won't be fun any more?

 

Geocaching notify bot...

New caches in your area-

 

Every 500 feet on the guardrail cache by new_cacher222

 

I just threw it out on the lawn because it was the only place left cache by new_cacher 50023

 

Ammo cans down the double yellow line 500 feet from each other cache by I_Brained_my_Damage

 

Screw it just ring the bell and ill give you the micro cache by GEO_whatever

 

What about when everyone you meet is a cacher,and the odds of getting an FTF are literally 1:6000?Could it ever happen?

 

I truly fear like everything else in mankind's history,when something becomes popular,by then it's ruined.

 

And while I'm on the soapbox here,Just what is wrong with a micro in the woods?Vermont cachers better be ready cause I've got one or two planned that will be 3/4 at minimum when I get back.

Edited March 31, 2007 by vtmtnman

[bogleman]

I don't think this will ever happen. Geocaching involves time - time to find a cache, time to place a cache, time to write the listing, time to take care of the cache - bla, bla, bla. Many folks don't want to waste their time and go through all the trouble.

 

The system has tools in place to catch the ones that have made it through the cracks - the ones that have made it hade done so for a reason.

[Clan Riffster]

Is anyone out there wondering when the day will come when there are so many caches within the minimum distance of each other that it just won't be fun any more?

Tuesday, about 3:30pm.

 

And while I'm on the soapbox here,Just what is wrong with a micro in the woods?

Sorry, forum posts are limited to 650,552 words each, which isn't sufficient to answer the question properly.

[crtrue]

I actually think it would be kind of neat, because mugglings would become so common place, it would be like survival of the fittest...only the best hidden caches survive (that's a good or bad thing, depending on how you look at it).

[+briansnat]

And while I'm on the soapbox here,Just what is wrong with a micro in the woods?Vermont cachers better be ready cause I've got one or two planned that will be 3/4 at minimum when I get back.

 

Since you asked, being that a micro is easy to conceal they are often much harder to find. In the woods where there are dozens if not hundreds of possible hiding places for a micro they are even more difficult.

 

This increases the amount of time people will be searching and widens the search area, which in turn can increase the impact on the surrounding area. From an environmental standpoint its a bad idea

 

Micros are great in the city and suburban parks where they are likely to be hidden on durable surfaces and where the concealability is necessary to prevent accidental discovery.

 

Furthermore, it reeks of laziness. If making the find challenging is your goal, anyone can make a micro hard to find. That takes no ability. It takes talent to make an ammo box hard to find.

 

Still, it is my feeling that its unwise to make a cache in the woods too hard unless you hide it on durable surfaces like rock outcrops and boulder fields.

Edited March 31, 2007 by briansnat

[+KBI]

Is anyone out there wondering when the day will come when there are so many caches within the minimum distance of each other that it just won't be fun any more?

 

Geocaching notify bot...

New caches in your area-

 

Every 500 feet on the guardrail cache by new_cacher222

 

I just threw it out on the lawn because it was the only place left cache by new_cacher 50023

 

Ammo cans down the double yellow line 500 feet from each other cache by I_Brained_my_Damage

 

Screw it just ring the bell and ill give you the micro cache by GEO_whatever

 

What about when everyone you meet is a cacher,and the odds of getting an FTF are literally 1:6000?Could it ever happen?

 

I truly fear like everything else in mankind's history,when something becomes popular,by then it's ruined.

I don’t think the end is near at all. Quite the contrary, in fact – my observations take me to pretty much exactly the opposite conclusion.

 

Due to the sharp increase in the number of cachers like yourself who are (somewhat understandably) more and more vocally disgusted with easy, lame, mass-production-cookie-cutter micro hides, I expect that a rapidly growing number of cachers will either (1) abandon the game out of frustration (which will help the rapid-growth problem), or (2) redouble their efforts, resolving themselves to hiding caches that celebrate quality over quantity (which will soothe the ‘lameness’ problem).

 

I predict that these reactions will, at the very least, soon begin to balance and mitigate the trends you describe. At best they will even reverse them somewhat. It’s like the ecosystem or the economy: it’s a great big complex equation with lots of factors and variables. Change one variable and everything else reacts until things re-balance to their new natural state of stability. I don’t think it’s valid to project a single short term trend to such an extreme while ignoring all the other relevant factors. What newbie would want to join such a game as ugly as you describe? What current cacher would want to stay?

 

In short: There’s no need for us to pull up the ladder; the problems you describe will take care of themselves.

 

And while I'm on MY soapbox: what is wrong with simply avoiding the types of hides you prefer not to find? The ones you truly enjoy are still out there, no matter how many easy and boring guardrail caches get published. The menu is deep AND wide.

 

Vote with your feet. Lead by example. Go out there and find (and hide) the types of caches you like!

[vtmtnman]

Is anyone out there wondering when the day will come when there are so many caches within the minimum distance of each other that it just won't be fun any more?

 

Geocaching notify bot...

New caches in your area-

 

Every 500 feet on the guardrail cache by new_cacher222

 

I just threw it out on the lawn because it was the only place left cache by new_cacher 50023

 

Ammo cans down the double yellow line 500 feet from each other cache by I_Brained_my_Damage

 

Screw it just ring the bell and ill give you the micro cache by GEO_whatever

 

What about when everyone you meet is a cacher,and the odds of getting an FTF are literally 1:6000?Could it ever happen?

 

 

I truly fear like everything else in mankind's history,when something becomes popular,by then it's ruined.

I don’t think the end is near at all. Quite the contrary, in fact – my observations take me to pretty much exactly the opposite conclusion.

 

Due to the sharp increase in the number of cachers like yourself who are (somewhat understandably) more and more vocally disgusted with easy, lame, mass-production-cookie-cutter micro hides, I expect that a rapidly growing number of cachers will either (1) abandon the game out of frustration (which will help the rapid-growth problem), or (2) redouble their efforts, resolving themselves to hiding caches that celebrate quality over quantity (which will soothe the ‘lameness’ problem).

 

I predict that these reactions will, at the very least, soon begin to balance and mitigate the trends you describe. At best they will even reverse them somewhat. It’s like the ecosystem or the economy: it’s a great big complex equation with lots of factors and variables. Change one variable and everything else reacts until things re-balance to their new natural state of stability. I don’t think it’s valid to project a single short term trend to such an extreme while ignoring all the other relevant factors. What newbie would want to join such a game as ugly as you describe? What current cacher would want to stay?

 

In short: There’s no need for us to pull up the ladder; the problems you describe will take care of themselves.

 

And while I'm on MY soapbox: what is wrong with simply avoiding the types of hides you prefer not to find? The ones you truly enjoy are still out there, no matter how many easy and boring guardrail caches get published. The menu is deep AND wide.

 

Vote with your feet. Lead by example. Go out there and find (and hide) the types of caches you like!

 

You took my post the wrong way bud...I was meaning it in the terms that guard rail caches and stuff like that will be the only places left to hide caches,because they'll be so many of them out there,literally 500ft from each other.Thought I explained that through sarcasm rather well up there,but I guess not.

 

I wasn't complaining about them at all.Hell,at this point I'd take any cache I can find LOL.I want to find all the caches I can,that's why it's so fun.I get enjoyment out of all of them.

 

And nobody has yet to give me a good reason NOT to put a micro in the woods,other than "it's too hard"...and some how lazy.We'll see.

[+KBI]

You took my post the wrong way bud...I was meaning it in the terms that guard rail caches and stuff like that will be the only places left to hide caches,because they'll be so many of them out there,literally 500ft from each other.

Well then, in that case, I disagree completely. I don't see the problem you predict at all.

 

And nobody has yet to give me a good reason NOT to put a micro in the woods,other than "it's too hard"...and some how lazy.We'll see.

Your choice. Some people may enjoy the types of hides that resort to tedious needle-in-a-haystack type concealment versus something more creative or clever, but they're not my favorite. Given a choice, I'll go elsewhere.

 

On the other hand: As you say, any cache is better than no cache! If it were my ONLY choice I'd probably give it a go -- at least until my patience gave out.

 

Besides, if you hide a micro in the woods and someone gives you grief about it, ask them this question: "If you feel so strongly that a full-size cache container should have been placed in that particular spot, why haven't you already put one there yourself?"

Edited March 31, 2007 by KBI

[+halffast]

A micro in the forest....It has been done..There is one near me (GCQNRW).The owner hiked to a cache of mine.I lugged a 3 gallon bucket to the top of a mtn(over 7300 ft high).He hiked up and signed the log and hiked over 2 miles to another mnt top and placed a micro.To this day I still have no idea why it wasnt a regular cache instead of a micro.I just figured the micro was all he had with him.Its been well over a year and only 2 logs for the micro.Have I logged it? NO...Will I log it? YES..I am in no real hurry to make a 4-5 hour hike for a micro.

[Trinity's Crew]

And nobody has yet to give me a good reason NOT to put a micro in the woods,other than "it's too hard"...and some how lazy.We'll see.

 

Since you asked, being that a micro is easy to conceal they are often much harder to find. In the woods where there are dozens if not hundreds of possible hiding places for a micro they are even more difficult.

 

This increases the amount of time people will be searching and widens the search area, which in turn can increase the impact on the surrounding area. From an environmental standpoint its a bad idea

 

Micros are great in the city and suburban parks where they are likely to be hidden on durable surfaces and where the concealability is necessary to prevent accidental discovery.

 

Furthermore, it reeks of laziness. If making the find challenging is your goal, anyone can make a micro hard to find. That takes no ability. It takes talent to make an ammo box hard to find.

 

Still, it is my feeling that its unwise to make a cache in the woods too hard unless you hide it on durable surfaces like rock outcrops and boulder fields.

 

What he said. Briansnat you 'da man.

[vtmtnman]

And nobody has yet to give me a good reason NOT to put a micro in the woods,other than "it's too hard"...and some how lazy.We'll see.

 

Since you asked, being that a micro is easy to conceal they are often much harder to find. In the woods where there are dozens if not hundreds of possible hiding places for a micro they are even more difficult.

 

This increases the amount of time people will be searching and widens the search area, which in turn can increase the impact on the surrounding area. From an environmental standpoint its a bad idea

 

Micros are great in the city and suburban parks where they are likely to be hidden on durable surfaces and where the concealability is necessary to prevent accidental discovery.

 

Furthermore, it reeks of laziness. If making the find challenging is your goal, anyone can make a micro hard to find. That takes no ability. It takes talent to make an ammo box hard to find.

 

Still, it is my feeling that its unwise to make a cache in the woods too hard unless you hide it on durable surfaces like rock outcrops and boulder fields.

 

What he said. Briansnat you 'da man.

 

LOL...thread killer with someone else's words huh....

 

Ok so I'm feeling that the woods micro is one of those un written things in this sport.I get it.

[+KBI]

Ok so I'm feeling that the woods micro is one of those un written things in this sport.I get it.

Not exactly. There is a wide a variety of opinions. I don't dislike them. I just don't prefer them. Some folks don't mind them -- others actually like them!

 

I know of no such rule -- written or unwritten.

Edited March 31, 2007 by KBI

[vtmtnman]

I know of no such rule -- written or unwritten.

 

That's why I said UN written LOL

 

Irreguardless it seems to be the minority thing so I'll decide against it I guess.Folks seem to be all against it for the most part.I'll save up all my ideas for something better I guess.

[+Renegade Knight]

Is anyone out there wondering when the day will come when there are so many caches within the minimum distance of each other that it just won't be fun any more?...

 

Nope. When there are too many caches for me to ever possibley find them all, I can instead focus on finding caches in places I want to go, or caches that catch my attetnion.

[+fairyhoney]

as long as there are forests, trees, shrubs, light posts, and guardrails, there should always be new caches! And don't forget about those elusive rock walls!

Edited March 31, 2007 by fairyhoney

[Deceased Acorns]

WOW.......What if the distance was changed to .05 .......

[Trinity's Crew]

LOL...thread killer with someone else's words huh....

 

Ok so I'm feeling that the woods micro is one of those un written things in this sport.I get it.

 

 

 

If you want to hide a micro in the woods you should. It's your cache. It's your choice. I was just pointing out that Briansnat HAD given reasons (other than laziness) to think twice before placing a micro in the woods.

 

Micros in the woods can and do cause harm to the surrounding area. I've seen it. The area around GZ is generally more beaten down. Tree limbs are broken, saplings are trampled, rocks are overturned.

 

There is also potential for damage with a really well hidden ammo can as well, but you won't be looking where an ammo can won't fit, so it is usually somewhat minimized.

 

Of course, the prblems with micros in the woods lie more with the seekers than the hider, but it is a potential problem and it's worth considering when making a decision.

 

In the end you should do whatever makes you happy, and don't forget to have fun.

 

Edit: Added quote.

Edited March 31, 2007 by Trinity's Crew

[vtmtnman]

Nah...I've decided against it.The feedback I'm seeing is most folks don't like micros anyways.And now that I've thought about it I'd rather use a micro in a stage of a multi rather than just by it's lonesome.I've still got four months to decide on a final master plan.

 

Thanks to all for feedback on that.

But really,that was just a side question added to my OP.I guess I should've made it it's own topic as it can be a widely debated topic.

[+tozainamboku]

I think that geocachers will adapt. They will find new ways to hide caches allowing hides in more places. They will be responsible and archive caches that have outlived there usefulness or that they can no longer maintain. I am already seeing that here where some prolific hiders have archived many of their older caches and where one of the local reviewers combs the listings for caches that have been disabled for too long and archives them if the owner cannot be reached. In really cache dense areas, we will reach equilibrium where old caches will be archived at the same rate new caches are placed.

 

As far as micros in the woods, this one area where I disagree with briansnat. Of course, this is partially do to the difference between the woods in New Jersey and the coastal chaparral of southern California. In New Jersey you can hide an ammo can in a rotted out fallen tree or a stump or under a pile of sticks and you can go off trail without worrying about creating a geopath that will last for the rest of the year. So there is little environmental damage in hiding an ammo can or regular size cache. Here in southern California, ammo cans are generally hidden in manzanita or sagebrush. To avoid muggles they are often hidden off trail requiring bushwhacking to get to and once at ground zero the bushes are poked and bent and branches sometimes inadvertently broken. An ammo can here can often end up as a environmental disaster. On the other hand, in both California and New Jersey, a micro hidden in the woods is often in a plain sight or hidden in an obvious spot. I'll admit sometimes its a needle-in-the-haystack, but only because there as so many obvious spots. Occasionally an irresponsible hider might just throw a film can in a bush, but mostly micros are hidden with care. A finder using his brain and eyes and exercising care and patience can find a micro in the woods without causing environmental damage. Micros are fine to hide in the woods.

[+CSpenceFLY]

And while I'm on the soapbox here,Just what is wrong with a micro in the woods?Vermont cachers better be ready cause I've got one or two planned that will be 3/4 at minimum when I get back.

 

Since you asked, being that a micro is easy to conceal they are often much harder to find. In the woods where there are dozens if not hundreds of possible hiding places for a micro they are even more difficult.

 

This increases the amount of time people will be searching and widens the search area, which in turn can increase the impact on the surrounding area. From an environmental standpoint its a bad idea

 

Micros are great in the city and suburban parks where they are likely to be hidden on durable surfaces and where the concealability is necessary to prevent accidental discovery.

 

Furthermore, it reeks of laziness. If making the find challenging is your goal, anyone can make a micro hard to find. That takes no ability. It takes talent to make an ammo box hard to find.

 

Still, it is my feeling that its unwise to make a cache in the woods too hard unless you hide it on durable surfaces like rock outcrops and boulder fields.

 

IMO it does not matter if it is hidden in a durable area.Too much damage is done while looking for a micro in an enviroment like that.If you have to dig through all of the leaves and overturn every rock I just don't think it is right.

[nonaeroterraqueous]

You took my post the wrong way bud...

Don't worry, he does that to everyone.

 

In really cache dense areas, we will reach equilibrium where old caches will be archived at the same rate new caches are placed.

They have a term for that in endocrinology...I think it's called negative feedback mechanism, whereby an increase of a thing leads to the prevention of itself. The more caches you have the faster they get muggled, because the safest spots run out.

[+Confucius' Cat]

Well, since this seems to have become a "micro in the woods" thread, I would just like to say that not ALL micros in the woods are bad.

 

For the environmental reason stated by Briansnat above, I think it is much incumbent upon us to be very careful in how woods micros are done.

 

MOST of the woods micros that i have found have required rather large areas of search, which will, as numerous people seek them, inevitably result in unnecessary environmental disruption. Furthermore they typically foster sufficient frustration such that many cachers, myself included, will simply ignore such caches. Indeed, i only go after them as FTF. After the FTF has been logged, I ignore them- period.

 

Fortunately for the environment, very few seek woods micros.

 

However, as recently as yesterday, I have had the pleasure of seeking a FEW woods micros that are done well and do not suffer from any of the downfalls of woods micros.

 

The one I found yesterday was a film can placed in a porcelain shoe, set at the base of a large tree. The name of the cache made it clear what to look for. the upshot of this is that the actual LANDMARK i was looking for was much larger than the cache, which was technically a micro.

 

Woods micros should have very good descriptions and usable hints (not "near a tree" or "beside the stream") which easily lead the seeker to a narrow search area or a bigger target.

 

Done right, woods micros are fun; done the way MOST are, they are not worth MY time and not worth the potential environmental disruption.

 

Hide 'em how you want. Most cachers choose what they hunt. just be honest in the description is all I ask.

[+TrailGators]

I think that geocachers will adapt. They will find new ways to hide caches allowing hides in more places. They will be responsible and archive caches that have outlived there usefulness or that they can no longer maintain. I am already seeing that here where some prolific hiders have archived many of their older caches and where one of the local reviewers combs the listings for caches that have been disabled for too long and archives them if the owner cannot be reached. In really cache dense areas, we will reach equilibrium where old caches will be archived at the same rate new caches are placed.

 

As far as micros in the woods, this one area where I disagree with briansnat. Of course, this is partially do to the difference between the woods in New Jersey and the coastal chaparral of southern California. In New Jersey you can hide an ammo can in a rotted out fallen tree or a stump or under a pile of sticks and you can go off trail without worrying about creating a geopath that will last for the rest of the year. So there is little environmental damage in hiding an ammo can or regular size cache. Here in southern California, ammo cans are generally hidden in manzanita or sagebrush. To avoid muggles they are often hidden off trail requiring bushwhacking to get to and once at ground zero the bushes are poked and bent and branches sometimes inadvertently broken. An ammo can here can often end up as a environmental disaster. On the other hand, in both California and New Jersey, a micro hidden in the woods is often in a plain sight or hidden in an obvious spot. I'll admit sometimes its a needle-in-the-haystack, but only because there as so many obvious spots. Occasionally an irresponsible hider might just throw a film can in a bush, but mostly micros are hidden with care. A finder using his brain and eyes and exercising care and patience can find a micro in the woods without causing environmental damage. Micros are fine to hide in the woods.

Several parks around here require that caches be within 6 feet of the trail. Many cachers follow this rule of thumb even if the park doesn't have a rule. However, even with this rule there are usually plenty of places to hide small or a regular sized cache. I don't mind micros but larger caches please more cachers because they can discover geocoins and trade items. So I now try to hide larger containers for this reason.

 

As far as the OPs question, I think as the cache density keeps increasing the better spots to hide caches get taken. So the real problem caused by saturation will happen before you actually saturate. However, I have noticed a new trend by some to archive their older caches and rehide a new cache in the same area to allow people to find a new cache in that area. I actually enjoy finding older caches, so I hate to see them get archived unless they were blah caches....

[+sbell111]

Several parks around here require that caches be within 6 feet of the trail. Many cachers follow this rule of thumb even if the park doesn't have a rule. However, even with this rule there are usually plenty of places to hide small or a regular sized cache. I don't mind micros but larger caches please more cachers because they can discover geocoins and trade items. So I now try to hide larger containers for this reason.

I think that this is a mistake. In my opinion, caches hidden closer to the trail cause more damage than caches hidden farther from it. The idea being that there will be little variety in the paths taken by each finder, resulting in a higher chance of a social trail.

[Clan Riffster]

I agree. One of our land managers just came up with that idea for their properties, and I can't see any good coming from it.

[+entomophile]

Amen to that. The solution to more micros in the woods is more well thought out regular caches and keeping the field robust. Make it a HIKE!

 

And saturation is off set by attrition. Caches come and caches go. Maybe we need to remove older caches when they have outlived their audience. A rotation would be good and reduce the geotrails.

[vtmtnman]

Amen to that. The solution to more micros in the woods is more well thought out regular caches and keeping the field robust. Make it a HIKE!

 

And saturation is off set by attrition. Caches come and caches go. Maybe we need to remove older caches when they have outlived their audience. A rotation would be good and reduce the geotrails.

 

I had just got to thinking about that when I get home.

 

My first cache is an easy one,but I think all the local cachers have done it already...maybe I could turn it into a multi?Puzzle?

 

While I enjoy any cache really,I don't want to be the guy who's known for just sprawling BS caches all over.When I got started caching in June of 06,I checked out my area and it was thin.But like I said I want to be creative with them too.I liked this one because it's a fairly easy kid friendly cache.

 

I like how this topic is kind of bouncing around but still staying on point.

[+sbell111]

I'm not a fan of archiving caches just because they been out 'in-the-field' for a while. If the cache was good enough to be placed initially and the owner has been maintaining it, there's no reason to pull it. If the owner thinks that there is a problem with the cache, he should fix the problem, even if that means that the cache is archived.

 

Some make the argument that the locals have already found the cache. While this is true, new cachers haven't found it yet, nor have non-locals passing through.

 

Too often, we see these older caches being archived just to make room for a nearly identical cache.

Edited April 2, 2007 by sbell111

[+TrailGators]

I'm not a fan of archiving caches just because they been out 'in-the-field' for a while. If the cache was good enough to be placed initially and the owner has been maintaining it, there's no reason to pull it. If the owner thinks that there is a problem with the cache, he should fix the problem, even if that means that the cache is archived.

 

Some make the argument that the locals have already found the cache. While this is true, new cachers haven't found it yet, nor have non-locals passing through.

 

Too often, we see these older caches being archived just to make room for a nearly identical cache.

I'm not a fan of this either.

[Mr.Yuck]

You took my post the wrong way bud...I was meaning it in the terms that guard rail caches and stuff like that will be the only places left to hide caches,because they'll be so many of them out there,literally 500ft from each other.

Well then, in that case, I disagree completely. I don't see the problem you predict at all.

 

I kind of liked KBI's post. As a matter of fact, I thought maybe someone hijacked his account.

[+TrailGators]

Several parks around here require that caches be within 6 feet of the trail. Many cachers follow this rule of thumb even if the park doesn't have a rule. However, even with this rule there are usually plenty of places to hide small or a regular sized cache. I don't mind micros but larger caches please more cachers because they can discover geocoins and trade items. So I now try to hide larger containers for this reason.

I think that this is a mistake. In my opinion, caches hidden closer to the trail cause more damage than caches hidden farther from it. The idea being that there will be little variety in the paths taken by each finder, resulting in a higher chance of a social trail.

I can't speak for the rest of the country but in Southern California this rule does stops geotrails. It is so dry out here that one cacher will make a geotrail by trampling through the dry brush on the way to the cache. As a result, there are scores of long geotrails out here. The brush doesn't recover until new growth comes in during the next rain season. This is what the rangers don't want. In fact, it is a $180 fine for getting caught off a trail in some parks around here. So if a cacher has to take one step off the trail to find a cache hidden between some large boulders that is a good thing out here. Plus when you are hiking the fun is in the journey. So the cache doesn't have to be a difficult find.

[+Renegade Knight]

...Too often, we see these older caches being archived just to make room for a nearly identical cache.

 

Locally we lose caches to our cache maggot. Then newbies come along and place caches in the same spots. I've enjoyed hunting them and seeing the different take on the spot. Sometimes they put the cache in the same exact spot. Sometimes they find a new angle to an old hide. It's been interesting.

[+geomann1]

Locally we lose caches to our cache maggot. Then newbies come along and place caches in the same spots. I've enjoyed hunting them and seeing the different take on the spot. Sometimes they put the cache in the same exact spot. Sometimes they find a new angle to an old hide. It's been interesting.

 

I don't have a problem with any of the above. In my neck of the woods I've added a number of caches to an area with existing caches, with the hope of creating more of a caching destination. A person can do 15+ caches in a day along or near one several mile stretch of road with a nice diversity of hides and difficulty levels. Mind you, I have made a real effort to place original (at least to the area) caches, not just attaching key holders to every metal object I can find. The more caches the better, so long as some thought is used. My "burn rate" of finding caches exceeds the local placement rate, so I am in favor or more cache placement.

[+geomann1]

As far as micros in the woods.

 

My preference is that if one has a suitable spot, a large cache is better. Many, including my kids, really enjoy the trading (treasure hunt).

 

My preference for placement is a well camoed park and grab or short park walk. One that you can stand next to and might not notice. To me it is challenge to try to come up with something that will challenge others. Understood, that this is not for everyone; some like easy finds and increasing their find count.

[nonaeroterraqueous]

And saturation is off set by attrition. Caches come and caches go. Maybe we need to remove older caches when they have outlived their audience. A rotation would be good and reduce the geotrails.

I hate to see that happen. One of the big kicks I get out of the game is knowing the locations of hundreds of caches in my area. When they get archived I lose a friend, so to speak. It's like a stamp collector losing a stamp or a baseball card collector losing a card. I collect the knowledge of cache locations.

[+TrailGators]

And saturation is off set by attrition. Caches come and caches go. Maybe we need to remove older caches when they have outlived their audience. A rotation would be good and reduce the geotrails.

I hate to see that happen. One of the big kicks I get out of the game is knowing the locations of hundreds of caches in my area. When they get archived I lose a friend, so to speak. It's like a stamp collector losing a stamp or a baseball card collector losing a card. I collect the knowledge of cache locations.

I agree. Some caches have a lot of history and memories. I hate to see the good ones go. Some also seem to be forgetting that past finders can revisit any cool cache that they want. I've done it many times.

[+Tweedledum & Tweedledee]

Personally I would much rather find a micro in the woods then one in a gaurdrail, lamp post, ect. Atleast the one in the woods had a nice walk to get there.

[vtmtnman]

Personally I would much rather find a micro in the woods then one in a gaurdrail, lamp post, ect. Atleast the one in the woods had a nice walk to get there.

 

If there's one thing I've learned from starting this topic is that everyone hates woods micros.All have their reasons,but they're all united in hating them.

 

However this thread and another one I've been reading have given me a great idea for a cache.

[+Renegade Knight]

Personally I would much rather find a micro in the woods then one in a gaurdrail, lamp post, ect. Atleast the one in the woods had a nice walk to get there.

 

I'd rather do the nice walk and skip the micro. The micro would be like a milk chaser after a good beer.

[+Team GeoBlast]

Is anyone out there wondering when the day will come when there are so many caches within the minimum distance of each other that it just won't be fun any more?

 

Geocaching notify bot...

New caches in your area-

 

Every 500 feet on the guardrail cache by new_cacher222

 

I just threw it out on the lawn because it was the only place left cache by new_cacher 50023

 

Ammo cans down the double yellow line 500 feet from each other cache by I_Brained_my_Damage

 

Screw it just ring the bell and ill give you the micro cache by GEO_whatever

 

What about when everyone you meet is a cacher,and the odds of getting an FTF are literally 1:6000?Could it ever happen?

 

I truly fear like everything else in mankind's history,when something becomes popular,by then it's ruined.

 

And while I'm on the soapbox here,Just what is wrong with a micro in the woods?Vermont cachers better be ready cause I've got one or two planned that will be 3/4 at minimum when I get back.

 

A two for one thread.. cool. I'm always looking for a bargain.

 

Issue #1. Just like anything popular created by mankind, there's a darkside. Geocaching is no different in that respect. I've only been playing the game for a few years now but I feel safe to say that many go through an evolution of perspective on issues like this one. I think I have more faith in fellow geocachers now than I did a few years ago. This comes from being constantly amazed and reminded of the never ending creativity of the people playing the game. The more I am exposed to this, the less I am concerned about these things. I try to do my part and help newer players get exposure to this genius while remembering that I was new once and the hides I considered when I began playing would never see my short list today. I wonder what it will be like in a few more years?

 

Issue #2. I think that part of the anatomy of a good hide is a having an idea of what you want the finder to experience when they find your cache. Sometimes, I want them to laugh, sometimes I want them to be in awe of their surroundings, sometimes you want them to just have fun. You may be different, but I would never place a cache where the sole purpose is to frustrate someone because I want people to look for my caches.

 

A "needle in the haystack hide" does not require much skill at all to execute. If that is your sole intention in placing a micro in the woods, to place a cache that is hard to find, then please make that is very clear to the seekers that are hiking a distance to find it. Some will be up for the challenge, most will pass.

[+Miragee]

Personally I would much rather find a micro in the woods then one in a gaurdrail, lamp post, ect. Atleast the one in the woods had a nice walk to get there.

 

I'd rather do the nice walk and skip the micro. The micro would be like a milk chaser after a good beer.

 

Without this Micro, I don't know if anyone would find the "nice walk."

 

 

It was such a cool area, I also hid one of those "other" caches in the area . . .

 

 

EDIT to add appropriate quote . . .

Edited April 3, 2007 by Miragee

[vtmtnman]

Issue #2. I think that part of the anatomy of a good hide is a having an idea of what you want the finder to experience when they find your cache. Sometimes, I want them to laugh, sometimes I want them to be in awe of their surroundings, sometimes you want them to just have fun. You may be different, but I would never place a cache where the sole purpose is to frustrate someone because I want people to look for my caches.

 

A "needle in the haystack hide" does not require much skill at all to execute. If that is your sole intention in placing a micro in the woods, to place a cache that is hard to find, then please make that is very clear to the seekers that are hiking a distance to find it. Some will be up for the challenge, most will pass.

 

I'm not looking to fustrate folks.I realize 90% of micros are in the city.When you live in town of 1000,and it has two stop signs,a general store and a post office in town on the main road,it doesn't leave much city to hide a micro in without going near businesses.There's also one cache in the center of town already(Being a multi).I just want to come up with a good 4 or 5 rated cache,and there's plenty of woods to hide it in.

 

It just seems like every idea you come up with someone has done it already.Thus bringing me back to my original post of the "I give up..it's out on the lawn" cache.

[+Kit Fox]

A "needle in the haystack hide" does not require much skill at all to execute. If that is your sole intention in placing a micro in the woods, to place a cache that is hard to find, then please make that is very clear to the seekers that are hiking a distance to find it. Some will be up for the challenge, most will pass.

 

I'm not looking to fustrate folks.I realize 90% of micros are in the city.When you live in town of 1000,and it has two stop signs,a general store and a post office in town on the main road,it doesn't leave much city to hide a micro in without going near businesses.There's also one cache in the center of town already(Being a multi).I just want to come up with a good 4 or 5 rated cache,and there's plenty of woods to hide it in.

 

It just seems like every idea you come up with someone has done it already.Thus bringing me back to my original post of the "I give up..it's out on the lawn" cache.

 

I once found a true "needle in a haystack" micro. The cache was a fake ivy leaf in a large patch of ivy, growing through a bunch of other bushes. There was a big warning on the cache page that the cache was intentionally difficult to find, so every one who hunted this cache knew exactly what they were getting into.

 

In this day and age, it is next to impossible to hide a true 4 or 5 star difficulty traditional cache. Don't dwell on the concept. 4 or 5 star terrain is easy, but 4 or 5 difficulty usually requires a puzzle, or it being a multi cache.