Jump to content

Do you feel Geocaching has changed over the years?


Recommended Posts

It is causing me some wonderment that some of the old timers here haven't learned how to keep geocaching exiting for them. I wonder if maybe they are getting a little lazy in their old age. LOL

 

I keep geocaching fun for me, by only finding the caches I like to find (through PQs, and lots of cache page research.) I'd rather skip geocaching, if all there is to find are boring 1/1s. I take a long time between each new cache placement of mine. Heck, i've been working on my "personal masterpiece" / 100th placed cache for over a year and a half.

 

I've adapted to the new challenges that geocaching has given me. The "Ignore List" was the best additional feature they ever gave to premium members. I use it frequently, to weed all my cache dislikes, from nearest unfound.

 

I think a few cachers (myself included) experience "Geo-burnout" and need to take time out from the game.

Link to comment

At first, it was about the adventure; finding new trails, new parks; exercising and logging a cache. There were just a few of us in this area, East Texas.

 

Then it got to be about the 'smileys' and I went through a stage of high competitiviness. But I think that lead others to do the same. "Just find it BA-BEE!!!". I never damaged a cache or not use stealth to jeopardize a cache (I'll walk away from it if there are too many people watching). But others did just that to log the numbers and I believe I was the culprit that everyone wanted/wants to beat. Landscapes have been damaged, private property has been damaged. I know one cacher south of us who deliberately defaced a landmark with a screwdriver to retrieve a micro that everyone else was finding without incident. He put it in his log!!! The cache had to be archieved.

 

... These are just examples/facts. I tried to call down some of these actions but it only got ugly. So I laid out for a while. Finding the occasional cache. Hoping if I wasn't there to compete with, the local game would grow through that phase. It did and it didn't. The newbies still have the new innocent angle going, the way it should be. The more 'experienced' have continued to the stage of actually stealing trackables from caches they have already found. One guy has over 4K finds and still takes the time to explain every find. It's great reading (ALOFT23).

 

NOTE: A lot of local cachers have kept to the initial process. They get numbers, clarify their logs, have fun and are dear friends of ours. It's 'those few who ruin it all for the rest of us' that give me heart burn. And I've admitted that I might have lead some down that road but their tactics were their own.

 

I'm getting back to hunting again. I've found a few this past week or so. It feels good and I'll continue as I did before but with a better understanding of my responsibility.

 

Slug away.

Link to comment

At first, it was about the adventure; finding new trails, new parks; exercising and logging a cache. There were just a few of us in this area, East Texas.

 

Then it got to be about the 'smileys' and I went through a stage of high competitiviness. But I think that lead others to do the same. "Just find it BA-BEE!!!". I never damaged a cache or not use stealth to jeopardize a cache (I'll walk away from it if there are too many people watching). But others did just that to log the numbers and I believe I was the culprit that everyone wanted/wants to beat. Landscapes have been damaged, private property has been damaged. I know one cacher south of us who deliberately defaced a landmark with a screwdriver to retrieve a micro that everyone else was finding without incident. He put it in his log!!! The cache had to be archieved.

 

... These are just examples/facts. I tried to call down some of these actions but it only got ugly. So I laid out for a while. Finding the occasional cache. Hoping if I wasn't there to compete with, the local game would grow through that phase. It did and it didn't. The newbies still have the new innocent angle going, the way it should be. The more 'experienced' have continued to the stage of actually stealing trackables from caches they have already found. One guy has over 4K finds and still takes the time to explain every find. It's great reading (ALOFT23).

 

NOTE: A lot of local cachers have kept to the initial process. They get numbers, clarify their logs, have fun and are dear friends of ours. It's 'those few who ruin it all for the rest of us' that give me heart burn. And I've admitted that I might have lead some down that road but their tactics were their own.

 

I'm getting back to hunting again. I've found a few this past week or so. It feels good and I'll continue as I did before but with a better understanding of my responsibility.

 

Slug away.

 

Caching is fun, but cachers are the coolest part of the game. We're glad to call you & YM some of our favorite caching friends!

Edited by Googling Hrpty Hrrs
Link to comment

I love to geocache. As long as I continue to enjoy this pastime as much as I have, I’ll keep doing it. If I ever find that I’m not enjoying it anymore, I’ll stop.

 

As long as I keep enjoying any particular element of the game (Travel Bugs, easy micros, puzzle caches, creating new hides) I’ll continue participating in that element. If I ever find that I’m not enjoying that particular element anymore, I’ll stop.

 

What you will never hear me do is complain that my fellow cachers aren’t providing me with adequate amusement. When you boil caching down to its very essence, all any geocacher is ever really doing is attempting to provide a fun experience for another cacher. Sometimes those attempts succeed at entertaining me; sometimes they don’t. The point is that the attempt is provided to me completely free of charge; and by someone who is, almost by definition, nothing more than an amateur entertainer. I have the choice to either take it or leave it. If I don’t like the Travel Bug, I can leave the Travel Bug in the cache. If I don’t want to solve the convoluted puzzle cache that requires obscure knowledge, I can choose to bypass that puzzle. If I get tired of finding ammo cans in stump holes, I can go look for something different. What I will not do is gripe because someone failed to meet my arbitrarily set standard or my demand for minimum acceptable entertainment. Geocaching is what it is. If I’m not being satisfactorily entertained by the caching I chose to do, it’s my own fault.

 

I’ve been enjoying this game for almost five years now. The most disturbing change I see is the sharp increase in the number of cachers whose philosophy seems to be quite the opposite. Some people actually get upset or defensive when they read comments like the previous paragraph, and some even go as far as to personally attack those who dare to suggest such tolerance and acceptance. Maybe the level of discontent has actually grown, or maybe it was always there and I just didn’t see it because I never spent much time reading the forums back then. Either way – while I respect the right each person to express their opinion, I find that I have more and more trouble respecting whatever the underlying ideals are that would cause folks to look a gift cache in the mouth and to actually complain that their selfish standards aren’t being met.

 

The menu is deep and wide. If you don’t like fish sticks, be adventurous and order the daily Fresh Catch special – why complain to the waiter just because fish sticks are on the menu? If you don’t like the restaurant, go eat somewhere else – why berate the owner for owning the seafood restaurant you chose when it was really Italian food you wanted in the first place?

 

I wouldn’t say the complaining really bothers me. I just think it’s strange, illogical and unnecessary.

 

Aside from all that, I haven’t really seen any negative changes. There will always be the odd grumbler, bumbler or vandal here and there, but of course that’s true of anything, and it can’t be helped. As long as the owners of this website continue their great job of managing the wholesomeness and viability of the game, and as long as participants continue to follow the guidelines, I think that having an ever-growing quantity and variety of caches to choose from can only be a good thing.

Link to comment

I love to geocache. As long as I continue to enjoy this pastime as much as I have, I’ll keep doing it. If I ever find that I’m not enjoying it anymore, I’ll stop.

 

As long as I keep enjoying any particular element of the game (Travel Bugs, easy micros, puzzle caches, creating new hides) I’ll continue participating in that element. If I ever find that I’m not enjoying that particular element anymore, I’ll stop.

 

What you will never hear me do is complain that my fellow cachers aren’t providing me with adequate amusement. When you boil caching down to its very essence, all any geocacher is ever really doing is attempting to provide a fun experience for another cacher. Sometimes those attempts succeed at entertaining me; sometimes they don’t. The point is that the attempt is provided to me completely free of charge; and by someone who is, almost by definition, nothing more than an amateur entertainer. I have the choice to either take it or leave it. If I don’t like the Travel Bug, I can leave the Travel Bug in the cache. If I don’t want to solve the convoluted puzzle cache that requires obscure knowledge, I can choose to bypass that puzzle. If I get tired of finding ammo cans in stump holes, I can go look for something different. What I will not do is gripe because someone failed to meet my arbitrarily set standard or my demand for minimum acceptable entertainment. Geocaching is what it is. If I’m not being satisfactorily entertained by the caching I chose to do, it’s my own fault.

 

I’ve been enjoying this game for almost five years now. The most disturbing change I see is the sharp increase in the number of cachers whose philosophy seems to be quite the opposite. Some people actually get upset or defensive when they read comments like the previous paragraph, and some even go as far as to personally attack those who dare to suggest such tolerance and acceptance. Maybe the level of discontent has actually grown, or maybe it was always there and I just didn’t see it because I never spent much time reading the forums back then. Either way – while I respect the right each person to express their opinion, I find that I have more and more trouble respecting whatever the underlying ideals are that would cause folks to look a gift cache in the mouth and to actually complain that their selfish standards aren’t being met.

 

The menu is deep and wide. If you don’t like fish sticks, be adventurous and order the daily Fresh Catch special – why complain to the waiter just because fish sticks are on the menu? If you don’t like the restaurant, go eat somewhere else – why berate the owner for owning the seafood restaurant you chose when it was really Italian food you wanted in the first place?

 

I wouldn’t say the complaining really bothers me. I just think it’s strange, illogical and unnecessary.

 

Aside from all that, I haven’t really seen any negative changes. There will always be the odd grumbler, bumbler or vandal here and there, but of course that’s true of anything, and it can’t be helped. As long as the owners of this website continue their great job of managing the wholesomeness and viability of the game, and as long as participants continue to follow the guidelines, I think that having an ever-growing quantity and variety of caches to choose from can only be a good thing.

 

Once again KBI comes up with a brilliant,well said post.I whole heartedly agree with his stance.

Link to comment

I look at geocaching the way I look at fishing. I've always preferred fishing that posed a challenge and allowed me to use my wits to excel. I loved to flyfish when I lived in Northern Wisconsin many years ago. I remember that sometimes after fishing we'd sit in the bar and listen to others brag about how many fish they caught in a nearby lake that had a truckloads of stock trout dumped in it. I just sipped on my beer and drifted off thinking about the last trout I caught. Images of the tip of my rod suddenly bending and a trout coming out of the water in a beautiful fast moving stream. It was a rush! There were many times I would only catch one or even none but the experience and the adventure was well worth it.

 

In the last 4.5 years, the caching lake has been stocked to the point that it's much tougher to find the nice rod bending fish in urban areas. If you like catching a tons of smaller fish than it's a good thing. If you like the thrill of a day long adventure filled with the anticipation of catching rod benders then it's a bad thing. Nowadays whenever I find a special cache I am very appreciative! :)

Link to comment

*sigh*....double post.

 

Although I will use this post to add that I've emailed another user(Who's name is above me but I won't mention) to ask permission to recreate one of his travel bugs because I thought it was a great idea,very original,and something that everyone could enjoy.....but apparently we "Newbies" don't rate a response.

 

Newbies might double check their email and spam folder because the cacher above you responded to you giving his blessing and even offered to help if needed. :)

 

El Diablo

Link to comment

*sigh*....double post.

 

Although I will use this post to add that I've emailed another user(Who's name is above me but I won't mention) to ask permission to recreate one of his travel bugs because I thought it was a great idea,very original,and something that everyone could enjoy.....but apparently we "Newbies" don't rate a response.

 

Newbies might double check their email and spam folder because the cacher above you responded to you giving his blessing and even offered to help if needed. :)

 

El Diablo

 

B)

Seems I never got that email.

 

Sorry about that...My mind is such that it wanders wildy when things don't go as planned..I wondered if there was a miscommunication somewhere in there.

 

Apologies about that.

Link to comment
In the last 4.5 years, the caching lake has been stocked to the point that it's much tougher to find the nice rod bending fish in urban areas.

If a fisherman, who dislikes non-rod-bending easy-to-catch stocked fish, chooses to fish a stocked pond widely known for non-rod-bending easy-to-catch stocked fish instead of waters known for the more exciting rod-bending variety, then whom should he blame for his resulting disappointment?

Link to comment
B):)linky and linky. Guess I missed a joke there . . . :D :D

It taketh a very conthfident heterothexthual to thpeak with a lithp when accuthed of being thomewhat thithy. Athk Muthtang why he alwayth theemth to be thort of thuth conthfidenth. :D

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Not that there's anything wrong with that.)

 

last-comic-standing-jerry-seinfeld.jpg

Link to comment
In the last 4.5 years, the caching lake has been stocked to the point that it's much tougher to find the nice rod bending fish in urban areas.

If a fisherman, who dislikes non-rod-bending easy-to-catch stocked fish, chooses to fish a stocked pond widely known for non-rod-bending easy-to-catch stocked fish instead of waters known for the more exciting rod-bending variety, then whom should he blame for his resulting disappointment?

That fly is buzzing around my ears again. Does someone have a fly swatter? B):D

 

Umm, it's widely known now. My point is that's what I think has changed. Buzz off.... :)

Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment

I'm starting to think the biggest transition should be from the mindset of grabbing all the caches in an area to being more selective and finicky.

 

Think of Geocaching like a library. When books were rarer commodities, you could be sure that a particular title on a shelf would be read by a good chunk of the population, that every publication was an event and that its merit was something else.

 

However, as more and more people publish and it becomes easier to do, the overall quality of the literature levels off. Does this mean all books are slowly declining in quality? Or more realistically, that there are some really bad books, a lot of average ones, and a few amazing ones that stand out.

 

We still have must-read books, despite the sheer volume of literature being published for year. The same applies for caching. No matter how many caches are published, there will always be good caches that stand out, ones to write home to your girlfriend or boyfriend about and the ones you love to brag about spending three days in the woods in search of.

 

The problem is that we're seeing this in terms of an average, that somehow the sheer number of mediocre caches somehow ruins the effect that well-placed caches have. Literature doesn't have this problem, at least not to the same degree as Geocaching. People know what is good and see literature as an art, with the best parts representing the whole moreso than each individual book.

 

My challenge to you all: turn Geocaching into an art. Be more vocal and constructive in what caches are worth checking. Start caching review blogs for local areas. Be constructively mean and refuse to visit bad caches, even when they're promised to be a good number jump.

 

Change the way the sport is viewed. Write more and create new outlets for local cachers to communicate through and learn. Begin to look at Geocaching as the world's library, filled with as many books as possible, not simply just the best, with your job being to find ones that work and to go from there.

 

There can be things that can be done on the site, but it shouldn't be the sole responsibility of the volunteer reviewers and of Groundspeak to provide to your whim. Nothing is stopping you from reviewing local caches and providing more insight than a simple "Find/DNF" comment.

Link to comment
I'm starting to think the biggest transition should be from the mindset of grabbing all the caches in an area to being more selective and finicky.

 

Think of Geocaching like a library. When books were rarer commodities, you could be sure that a particular title on a shelf would be read by a good chunk of the population, that every publication was an event and that its merit was something else.

 

However, as more and more people publish and it becomes easier to do, the overall quality of the literature levels off. Does this mean all books are slowly declining in quality? Or more realistically, that there are some really bad books, a lot of average ones, and a few amazing ones that stand out.

 

We still have must-read books, despite the sheer volume of literature being published for year. The same applies for caching. No matter how many caches are published, there will always be good caches that stand out, ones to write home to your girlfriend or boyfriend about and the ones you love to brag about spending three days in the woods in search of.

 

The problem is that we're seeing this in terms of an average, that somehow the sheer number of mediocre caches somehow ruins the effect that well-placed caches have. Literature doesn't have this problem, at least not to the same degree as Geocaching. People know what is good and see literature as an art, with the best parts representing the whole moreso than each individual book.

 

My challenge to you all: turn Geocaching into an art. Be more vocal and constructive in what caches are worth checking. Start caching review blogs for local areas. Be constructively mean and refuse to visit bad caches, even when they're promised to be a good number jump.

 

Change the way the sport is viewed. Write more and create new outlets for local cachers to communicate through and learn. Begin to look at Geocaching as the world's library, filled with as many books as possible, not simply just the best, with your job being to find ones that work and to go from there.

 

There can be things that can be done on the site, but it shouldn't be the sole responsibility of the volunteer reviewers and of Groundspeak to provide to your whim. Nothing is stopping you from reviewing local caches and providing more insight than a simple "Find/DNF" comment.

I agree with you and I like your book analogy. Caches are like books in that you sometimes won't know if the book is any good until you've checked it out of the library. Sometimes you have to quit reading a bad one. But over time you learn which authors you enjoy most. You also read book reviews. Hopefully they say more than "Read it! Thanks!" ;) Also I agree that no matter how many books there are, there will always be some great books.

 

I do think that caching is adapting in saturated areas and people are creating "favorite" lists and "must-do" lists. Jeremy said that Groundspeak is working on an awards system that allows people to give awards to their favorite caches. This will make it much easier to find the exceptional caches that are out there. This will be especially nice when you travel. So I think some areas are in a transition period and things should get better for those of us that are patient. Other areas still don't have a lot of books. I am looking very forward to when the awards are launched! :D:D:)

Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment
In the last 4.5 years, the caching lake has been stocked to the point that it's much tougher to find the nice rod bending fish in urban areas.

If a fisherman, who dislikes non-rod-bending easy-to-catch stocked fish, chooses to fish a stocked pond widely known for non-rod-bending easy-to-catch stocked fish instead of waters known for the more exciting rod-bending variety, then whom should he blame for his resulting disappointment?

That fly is buzzing around my ears again. Does someone have a fly swatter? :D;)

 

Umm, it's widely known now. My point is that's what I think has changed. Buzz off.... :)

 

Began again,has it?

 

:D

Link to comment
Well, that was rude.
I'm sick of KBI following me around and attacking my posts. I answered the OPs question. How I choose to handle the change from the past has nothing to do with this thread. ;)

There is a high probability that some specific posters will reply to other specific posters comments because their positions on common issues are opposed. Personally, I usually pay almost no attention to who I am replying to and react to the posts themselves. However, I've found that I am likely to repond to posts made by you, CoyoteRed, and Briansnat. That doesn't mean that I'm targeting any of you.

 

You posted an analogy and KBI expanded on that analogy in a direction that you weren't comfortable with. That's all. No one is stalking you.

Link to comment

I am sure a lot of people who have been caching for a few years have noticed many changes in the game. I would love to hear comments about how you feel the game of Geocaching has changed. Do you feel it has been changing for the better or for the worse?

I haven't been caching long enough to know what it was like in the early years, but out in my part of the county, Geocaching is much better. Where there were no caches before, or only one on a hiking trail or rural road, there are many, many more caches. Not all of them are ammo cans . . . you can't hide an ammo can everywhere . . . but there are nicely-spaced caches to provide a break, a "smilie," and a nice view or a fun experience of scrambling over slickrock. :D

 

My hope is that the number of caches on the hiking trails will now lure "numbers hounds" out of the urban environment for a change of pace for them. ;)

Link to comment

I am sure a lot of people who have been caching for a few years have noticed many changes in the game. I would love to hear comments about how you feel the game of Geocaching has changed. Do you feel it has been changing for the better or for the worse?

I haven't been caching long enough to know what it was like in the early years, but out in my part of the county, Geocaching is much better. Where there were no caches before, or only one on a hiking trail or rural road, there are many, many more caches. Not all of them are ammo cans . . . you can't hide an ammo can everywhere . . . but there are nicely-spaced caches to provide a break, a "smilie," and a nice view or a fun experience of scrambling over slickrock. :D

 

My hope is that the number of caches on the hiking trails will now lure "numbers hounds" out of the urban environment for a change of pace for them. ;)

 

I agree that South San Diego county has some great hiking trails and beautiful areas. So far they have not become over-populated with caches like Mission Trails. I think there is a balance of having the right amount of caches and having too many. When I am hiking I don't mind stopping to get a rest but stopping every 528 feet is a bit much IMHO. The rangers in many areas have been very cool but if some cachers needlessly push things it could have repercussions.
Link to comment
I agree that South San Diego county has some great hiking trails and beautiful areas. So far they have not become over-populated with caches like Mission Trails. I think there is a balance of having the right amount of caches and having too many. When I am hiking I don't mind stopping to get a rest but stopping every 528 feet is a bit much IMHO. The rangers in many areas have been very cool but if some cachers needlessly push things it could have repercussions.
Occasionally, people have posted that they don't like having to stop every 528 feet while hiking to find a cache. This has always bewildered me. It seems to me that you could stop every 1056 feet and either enjoy the trail again on another day, or find the other half on the way back.

 

Whether there are too many caches for the land managers is a completely different subject. Depending on what the area's permission policy is, it will never become an issue. If there is no permission policy, at all, it might become an issue. It is far from a certainty (or even a likelyhood), however.

Link to comment
I agree that South San Diego county has some great hiking trails and beautiful areas. So far they have not become over-populated with caches like Mission Trails. I think there is a balance of having the right amount of caches and having too many. When I am hiking I don't mind stopping to get a rest but stopping every 528 feet is a bit much IMHO. The rangers in many areas have been very cool but if some cachers needlessly push things it could have repercussions.
Whether there are too many caches for the land managers is a completely different subject. Depending on what the area's permission policy is, it will never become an issue. If there is no permission policy, at all, it might become an issue. It is far from a certainty (or even a likelyhood), however.

Most areas don't have a policy. Policies typically arise out of need based on the opinion of the rangers/land managers. Also my comments follow the sentiment of the guidelines which state: "On the same note, don't go cache crazy and hide a cache every 600 feet just because you can. If you want to create a series of caches (sometimes called a "Power Trail"), the reviewer may require you to create a multi-cache, if the waypoints are close together." ;) Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment
I agree that South San Diego county has some great hiking trails and beautiful areas. So far they have not become over-populated with caches like Mission Trails. I think there is a balance of having the right amount of caches and having too many. When I am hiking I don't mind stopping to get a rest but stopping every 528 feet is a bit much IMHO. The rangers in many areas have been very cool but if some cachers needlessly push things it could have repercussions.
Occasionally, people have posted that they don't like having to stop every 528 feet while hiking to find a cache. This has always bewildered me. It seems to me that you could stop every 1056 feet and either enjoy the trail again on another day, or find the other half on the way back.

 

Whether there are too many caches for the land managers is a completely different subject. Depending on what the area's permission policy is, it will never become an issue. If there is no permission policy, at all, it might become an issue. It is far from a certainty (or even a likelyhood), however.

Most areas don't have a policy. Policies typically arise out of need based on the opinion of the rangers/land managers. Also my comments follow the sentiment of the guidelines which state: "On the same note, don't go cache crazy and hide a cache every 600 feet just because you can. If you want to create a series of caches (sometimes called a "Power Trail"), the reviewer may require you to create a multi-cache, if the waypoints are close together." ;)
Absoultely correct. That issue is addressed by the reviewer.

 

Of course, just because a trail has caches fairly close together, doesn't mean it's a 'power trail' under the guidelines.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
Of course, just because a trail has caches fairly close together, doesn't mean it's a 'power trail' under the guidelines.
What's the difference if one or ten cachers place a cache every 528 feet along a trail? The net effect is the same. I think the guidelines attempted to steer people away from doing this, but the 528 foot rule is the letter of the law so that is what the reviewers have to follow. This was never an issue in the past but I think it is worth revisiting. Just my two cents. ;) Maybe what they could do is create 10 smiley caches that must be a mile from any other cache. That way it would be more balanced and the numbers people would be happy too! :D Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment
As long as I am out hiking, I don't mind stopping every 600 feet to find a cache . . . :D it is the "out hiking" caches I like. :) Now, the urban, drive-around-forever-to-find-a-place-to-park type of cache I'm not very fond of . . . ;)
I don't really mind but it seems like sometimes they are just placed to be placed. I enjoy the ones that are placed because that spot has a scenic view, etc.
Link to comment
As long as I am out hiking, I don't mind stopping every 600 feet to find a cache . . . :) it is the "out hiking" caches I like. ;) Now, the urban, drive-around-forever-to-find-a-place-to-park type of cache I'm not very fond of . . . :D
I don't really mind but it seems like sometimes they are just placed to be placed. I enjoy the ones that are placed because that spot has a scenic view, etc.

Like this one, "Slickrock Fun" that is about 600 feet away from anther one with an equally great view? :D

Link to comment
As long as I am out hiking, I don't mind stopping every 600 feet to find a cache . . . :D it is the "out hiking" caches I like. ;) Now, the urban, drive-around-forever-to-find-a-place-to-park type of cache I'm not very fond of . . . :)
I don't really mind but it seems like sometimes they are just placed to be placed. I enjoy the ones that are placed because that spot has a scenic view, etc.

Like this one, "Slickrock Fun" that is about 600 feet away from anther one with an equally great view? :D

Yes! :D
Link to comment
Of course, just because a trail has caches fairly close together, doesn't mean it's a 'power trail' under the guidelines.
What's the difference if one or ten cachers place a cache every 528 feet along a trail? The net effect is the same. I think the guidelines attempted to steer people away from doing this, but the 528 foot rule is the letter of the law so that is what the reviewers have to follow. This was never an issue in the past but I think it is worth revisiting. Just my two cents. ;) Maybe what they could do is create 10 smiley caches that must be a mile from any other cache. That way it would be more balanced and the numbers people would be happy too! :D

Perhaps you could just find one cache on each of ten visits to the trail. Otherwise, someone would call you a 'numbers person'.

Link to comment

Perhaps that is one of the changes since the beginning . . . although I bet there were "numbers" people back then too. They just couldn't rack up the numbers very fast . . . and they had to drive, and hike, long distances to be #1.

 

Now, people like getting smilies for their caching effort. Perhaps that is what the proliferation of urban caches has "taught" newbies. . . ;) Because of that, I have placed more than one cache along trails I hike. I can't expect someone to drive out this far, with gas at $3.29/gallon, to find one cache, but they might drive out to find four, or five, or ten . . . :D

Link to comment
Perhaps that is one of the changes since the beginning . . . although I bet there were "numbers" people back then too. They just couldn't rack up the numbers very fast . . . and they had to drive, and hike, long distances to be #1.

 

Now, people like getting smilies for their caching effort. Perhaps that is what the proliferation of urban caches has "taught" newbies. . . ;) Because of that, I have placed more than one cache along trails I hike. I can't expect someone to drive out this far, with gas at $3.29/gallon, to find one cache, but they might drive out to find four, or five, or ten . . . :)

I would drive out for none if the area is cool. When we go to Moab we hardly find any. You don't need geocaches to find the cool spots there. The entire area is amazing! :D
Link to comment
Of course, just because a trail has caches fairly close together, doesn't mean it's a 'power trail' under the guidelines.
What's the difference if one or ten cachers place a cache every 528 feet along a trail? The net effect is the same. I think the guidelines attempted to steer people away from doing this, but the 528 foot rule is the letter of the law so that is what the reviewers have to follow. This was never an issue in the past but I think it is worth revisiting. Just my two cents. ;) Maybe what they could do is create 10 smiley caches that must be a mile from any other cache. That way it would be more balanced and the numbers people would be happy too! :D

Perhaps you could just find one cache on each of ten visits to the trail. Otherwise, someone would call you a 'numbers person'.

So you are suggesting that I drive 50-60 miles to south county and hike the same trail 10 times to get the 10 caches one at at time otherwise people might call me a numbers person? That's silly. Hopefully, my point was lost in the silliness. These trails are typically 5-10 miles long. So I pointing out that these trails could get 50 to 100 caches over time. This has happened in another park around here. I have a concern that highly saturated trails are forming and that this is a trend that will continue into the future. Many don't see an issue with it but I think that it could have an undesirable backlash.
Link to comment

Yes, caching has changed, but how much of that is reality and how much is the glow of nostalgia remains to be seen. I think back to "the old days" and I remember every cache was an adventure and every location was something new and unique and got me somewhere I had never been before. But, is that really true or is it just that the mundane caches of yesteryear have faded from my memory leaving only the great ones in their wake?

 

It has been said that the golden age of anything happened twenty years ago, no matter when you say it. It doesn't totally apply to caching because it isn't that old yet, but for those who lament how poor the hobby has become take solace from this: Three or four years from now you will be looking back on these days as "the good ole days".

 

I must think caching is better because I do so much more of it now. Sure there are more caches but I also spend more days caching so it isn't just an availability thing. I certainly like how caching has grown to add more people to the mix so there are more and more people to meet and socialize with. Heck, I even like having parking lot micros around for those days when I want to pump up some numbers.

 

I compare caching to when I started to shopping at a mom and pop store. The experience was personal, the selection wasn't great but it just felt right. Now caching is a big-box store -- cold, impersonal but there is a great selection and it's always open when I need it. I might feel guilty for not visiting the family store anymore but not enough to stop enjoying the new one.

Link to comment
I compare caching to when I started to shopping at a mom and pop store. The experience was personal, the selection wasn't great but it just felt right. Now caching is a big-box store -- cold, impersonal but there is a great selection and it's always open when I need it.
This is a good point. Urban caching now does remind me of Wal-Mart... Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment

I love to geocache. As long as I continue to enjoy this pastime as much as I have, I’ll keep doing it. If I ever find that I’m not enjoying it anymore, I’ll stop.

 

As long as I keep enjoying any particular element of the game (Travel Bugs, easy micros, puzzle caches, creating new hides) I’ll continue participating in that element. If I ever find that I’m not enjoying that particular element anymore, I’ll stop.

 

What you will never hear me do is complain that my fellow cachers aren’t providing me with adequate amusement. When you boil caching down to its very essence, all any geocacher is ever really doing is attempting to provide a fun experience for another cacher. Sometimes those attempts succeed at entertaining me; sometimes they don’t. The point is that the attempt is provided to me completely free of charge; and by someone who is, almost by definition, nothing more than an amateur entertainer. I have the choice to either take it or leave it. If I don’t like the Travel Bug, I can leave the Travel Bug in the cache. If I don’t want to solve the convoluted puzzle cache that requires obscure knowledge, I can choose to bypass that puzzle. If I get tired of finding ammo cans in stump holes, I can go look for something different. What I will not do is gripe because someone failed to meet my arbitrarily set standard or my demand for minimum acceptable entertainment. Geocaching is what it is. If I’m not being satisfactorily entertained by the caching I chose to do, it’s my own fault.

 

I’ve been enjoying this game for almost five years now. The most disturbing change I see is the sharp increase in the number of cachers whose philosophy seems to be quite the opposite. Some people actually get upset or defensive when they read comments like the previous paragraph, and some even go as far as to personally attack those who dare to suggest such tolerance and acceptance. Maybe the level of discontent has actually grown, or maybe it was always there and I just didn’t see it because I never spent much time reading the forums back then. Either way – while I respect the right each person to express their opinion, I find that I have more and more trouble respecting whatever the underlying ideals are that would cause folks to look a gift cache in the mouth and to actually complain that their selfish standards aren’t being met.

 

The menu is deep and wide. If you don’t like fish sticks, be adventurous and order the daily Fresh Catch special – why complain to the waiter just because fish sticks are on the menu? If you don’t like the restaurant, go eat somewhere else – why berate the owner for owning the seafood restaurant you chose when it was really Italian food you wanted in the first place?

 

I wouldn’t say the complaining really bothers me. I just think it’s strange, illogical and unnecessary.

 

Aside from all that, I haven’t really seen any negative changes. There will always be the odd grumbler, bumbler or vandal here and there, but of course that’s true of anything, and it can’t be helped. As long as the owners of this website continue their great job of managing the wholesomeness and viability of the game, and as long as participants continue to follow the guidelines, I think that having an ever-growing quantity and variety of caches to choose from can only be a good thing.

Very well said

And yes in the early days there were # hunters its just that there weren't

any easy ones so we had to drive 30 miles or more and hike for a couple of hours to get our numbers, But if there would have been caches in wally world parking lots you can be sure we would have happily grabbed them also. Just like now, in the early days we were grabbing everything we could, and were dadgum glad we could.

And I really don't remember that many of the Early caches that really had a wow factor. In my first year of caching I can think of maybe 3 or 4 caches that had a wow factor, all the rest were oh yeah under the bush or under the rocks or the pile of sticks along side a trail.

Link to comment
And I really don't remember that many of the Early caches that really had a wow factor. In my first year of caching I can think of maybe 3 or 4 caches that had a wow factor, all the rest were oh yeah under the bush or under the rocks or the pile of sticks along side a trail.
When I first started caching most caches were placed on all the local mountain peaks/trails and in local parks. I honestly don't remember very many urbans. As far as the caches, I don't think the caches themselves were all "wow" but the locations were all well worth the trip. That's what got me excited about geocaching. I think the first person to make the camo on the caches "wow" was Dan-oh. Did you ever do any Dan-oh caches? They were a crack up! ;)
Link to comment
<snip>

 

And I really don't remember that many of the Early caches that really had a wow factor. In my first year of caching I can think of maybe 3 or 4 caches that had a wow factor, all the rest were oh yeah under the bush or under the rocks or the pile of sticks along side a trail.

I really like finding some of the older caches. It is interesting looking through the logbooks to see unfamiliar names -- people who used to cache here, and who either moved away, or gave up the activity. B) But, I agree. Some of those locations lack the "Wow" factor memory seems to be attributing to them . . . B)
Link to comment
Of course, just because a trail has caches fairly close together, doesn't mean it's a 'power trail' under the guidelines.
What's the difference if one or ten cachers place a cache every 528 feet along a trail? The net effect is the same. I think the guidelines attempted to steer people away from doing this, but the 528 foot rule is the letter of the law so that is what the reviewers have to follow. This was never an issue in the past but I think it is worth revisiting. Just my two cents. B) Maybe what they could do is create 10 smiley caches that must be a mile from any other cache. That way it would be more balanced and the numbers people would be happy too! B)
Perhaps you could just find one cache on each of ten visits to the trail. Otherwise, someone would call you a 'numbers person'.
So you are suggesting that I drive 50-60 miles to south county and hike the same trail 10 times to get the 10 caches one at at time otherwise people might call me a numbers person? That's silly. ...
You're the one who suggested that people who would be interested in getting all the caches along the trail at one time were 'numbers people'. Besides, didn't you also post that if it's a 'cool' location, you'll go back. If you liked the trail, why not leave some caches for another day?

 

I'm trying to understand you, but it aint easy.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
Of course, just because a trail has caches fairly close together, doesn't mean it's a 'power trail' under the guidelines.
What's the difference if one or ten cachers place a cache every 528 feet along a trail? The net effect is the same. I think the guidelines attempted to steer people away from doing this, but the 528 foot rule is the letter of the law so that is what the reviewers have to follow. This was never an issue in the past but I think it is worth revisiting. Just my two cents. B) Maybe what they could do is create 10 smiley caches that must be a mile from any other cache. That way it would be more balanced and the numbers people would be happy too! B)
Perhaps you could just find one cache on each of ten visits to the trail. Otherwise, someone would call you a 'numbers person'.
So you are suggesting that I drive 50-60 miles to south county and hike the same trail 10 times to get the 10 caches one at at time otherwise people might call me a numbers person? That's silly. ...
You're the one who suggested that people who would be interested in getting all the caches along the trail at one time were 'numbers people'. Besides, didn't you also post that if it's a 'cool' location, you'll go back. If you liked the trail, why not leave some caches for another day?

 

I'm trying to understand you, but it aint easy.

No I didn't. I suggested that (what I call) power trails were being made by numbers people IMHO (not knocking number people - just making an observation). Sbell there are so many trails out here that it would take years to hit them all. I also prefer visiting new trails versus going back to the same ones over and over again. I really enjoy exploring and discovering kewl new places. Anyhow, my concern about the future seems like it may have been lost unless you can answer my question in bold above.... Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment

Apparently, we don't agree on what the 'net effect' is. If cacher A places a cache within the guidelines and in compliance with local restrictions, it doesn't matter to me if cacher B had already placed a cache in the area.

 

If you want to change the distance guideline, why don't you start a thread over in the GC.com area? Personally, I believe that the present guidelines work and that no change is needed.

Link to comment

Member since 3/2002... 345? caches found... 11 placed.

 

Has it changed? Yes. For the better? For some. For the worse? For some. For me?

 

When I started, there weren't a lot of caches to find without a long drive. Now, there aren't a lot of really cool caches to find without a long drive. I regularly overlook a lot of the micro/drive-by finds that pop up everywhere, and consequently, my cache find count is pretty much stagnant. I'm more into the hike, the history or the cool factor than I am into the gotta-find-a-cache now attitude. Some people like that; I don't.

 

More often than not, geocaching has become an event that takes place outside my locale. I like to travel, and grab my fair share of opportunity to do so, so geocaching adds to the trip. In fact, I look forward to caching when I get away from home as another way to see something out of the normal routine. I recently spent some time with my son in Arkansas, and took a day to drive a 350 mile circuit to Texas and Oklahoma to find a cache or five, and in the process ended up at a really cool woodworking museum in Oklahmoa. That's the gem of the way I cache. I don't have a compulsion to geocache them all, just a few that interest me, or are near something that looks interesting.

 

So, is geocaching better for me? Yes, but I do it a lot less often. Overall, is it better? In my opinion, not really, because the quality of the hide has declined. Yet, with my approach, I can do some really cool ones, and a mildly lame cache in a foreign country (or state) is still pretty cool.

 

Edit: I hate typos.

Edited by Metaphor
Link to comment
Member since 3/2002... 345? caches found... 11 placed.

 

Has it changed? Yes. For the better? For some. For the worse? For some. For me?

 

When I started, there weren't a lot of caches to find without a long drive. Now, there aren't a lot of really cool caches to find without a long drive. I regularly overlook a lot of the micro/drive-by finds that pop up everywhere, and consequently, my cache find count is pretty much stagnant. I'm more into the hike, the history or the cool factor than I am into the gotta-find-a-cache now attitude. Some people like that; I don't.

 

More often than not, geocaching has become an event that takes place outside my locale. I like to travel, and grab my fair share of opportunity to do so, so geocaching adds to the trip. In fact, I look forward to caching when I get away from home as another way to see something out of the normal routine. I recently spent some time with my son in Arkansas, and took a day to drive a 350 mile circuit to Texas and Oklahoma to find a cache or five, and in the process ended up at a really cool woodworking museum in Oklahmoa. That's the gem of the way I cache. I don't have a compulsion to geocache them all, just a few that interest me, or are near something that looks interesting.

 

So, is geocaching better for me? Yes, but I do it a lot less often. Overall, is it better? In my opinion, not really, because the quality of the hide has declined. Yet, with my approach, I can do some really cool ones, and a mildly lame cache in a foreign country (or state) is still pretty cool.

 

Edit: I hate typos.

I like your approach. B) That's basically what mine has evolved into as well. I'll be visiting a few states this summer (including Maryland (Potomac)) that I have not found caches in. So I'm looking forward to finding some of there kewl locations. B) Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment

Member since 2004 and my area had already experienced sucessful growth and maturity before I came into the game, so my perspective might differ from others.

 

Overall, I'd say the changes in my area have been horizontal in the years since I joined. Many people have joined and then left the game, some of the first cachers are still very active and a few of the most active cachers are all but retired.

 

The types of caches haven't changed much in the last few years although the number of caches is increasing. The growth rate would be faster, but some older caches are retired as new ones crop up in the same general area. For all that, the variety hasn't changed that much. There are still ammo cans where those can go and smaller containers where that is more appropriate.

 

One thing that has changed is how cleverly the containers are camouflaged. I've noticed the most prolific and most experienced cachers are leading the way in that aspect of the game. I suppose they have grown weary of the "ammo can under a pile of sticks" and want to provide more entertainment and challenge for themselves and their cache visitors.

 

I saw the sidebar on the power trail issue, and have a couple of comments, that I think stay on topic. I know of very few true power trails--which I define as a place where one hider has placed a series of hides along one trail. In general, I probably wouldn't go out of my way to hunt along one of these; I seldom hurry to a park that is covered in caches by only one hider, either. I prefer variety in the caches I seek out. The more minds that are at work behind the hides in an area, the greater the chances the hides will be different--so I'd be drawn to an area where 10 people hid 10 caches faster than I would to a spot where 1 person hid 10 caches. Of course, no one has to find every cache just because it's out there--so if I wanted to do a certain trail and it had only hides by one person on it, I'd likely look over the caches to see which ones I wanted to find.

 

An area that is rich in hides is not automatically poor in quality. One of my favorite places to take visitors is an old country club where some of our areas finest cachers have put out about a dozen caches. Each cache is different and fun, but you can walk the entire area is less than an hour or so. It's a small taste of our local flavor and visitors love it.

Link to comment
An area that is rich in hides is not automatically poor in quality. One of my favorite places to take visitors is an old country club where some of our areas finest cachers have put out about a dozen caches. Each cache is different and fun, but you can walk the entire area is less than an hour or so. It's a small taste of our local flavor and visitors love it.

 

Sounds like a cool area! I wish I had a nickel for every trail out here that had 10 caches on it. Anyhow, that is not a power trail in California terms. Power trails out here typically have 30-40 caches that are all about 528 feet apart or so. I don't think they have to all be hidden by one person to qualfy as a power trail. However, I totally agree that just because there are a lot of caches doesn't mean they are poor in quality. They can be very enjoyable. My point was a concern that if we go overboard in some parks that we will start losing priviledges. I thought that the power trail portion of the guideline was there to give reviewers some latitude to stop people from overdoing it in some areas.

 

I also think that our present state of caching out here will be the future state of other areas... B) So if you want a glimpse into the future come out here or to some other area that has a very high cache density.

Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment

I also think that our present state of caching out here will be the future state of other areas... B) So if you want a glimpse into the future come out here or to some other area that has a very high cache density.

I made a quick comparison of your area and ours, using a five mile view. 60033513-662f-4ca1-b0b1-eb4ac428a00f.jpg

The red checks in the Lousiville view make it look more cluttered, but if I had to guess, I'd say that the two areas were pretty close as far as density.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...