Caches that are not fun.

[+Team Sand Dollar]

I have been seeing a trend lately where a couple of hiders are trying to create caches that are very hard to impossible to find. These range from puzzle that can't be broken without inside information to hides that just are not worth going after. What is the fun in hiding caches that are not meant to be found?

 

And yes I know there is an ignore function. And I know that this latest trend will blow over and these cachers will eventually stop trying to out do each other but in the mean time you end up with caches that just are just not meant to be found.

 

As an example we have a cache in the area that starts with a moderately hard puzzle. But the real problem comes in when you go after the caches.

 

1) It is 3/4 miles back in a park

2) It is hidden in an area with lots of trees and heavy leaf coverage so satellite coverage is poor.

3) It is a sub-nano type hide.

4) It is way up in a tree.

 

So in summary it requires carrying a large ladder 3/4 mile back in a wooded area with bad coverage to look for a sub-nano that may be up somewhere very high in one of the many tree that are within the search area.

 

Team Sand Dollar

[+sbell111]

I have been seeing a trend lately where a couple of hiders are trying to create caches that are very hard to impossible to find. These range from puzzle that can't be broken without inside information to hides that just are not worth going after. What is the fun in hiding caches that are not meant to be found?

 

And yes I know there is an ignore function. And I know that this latest trend will blow over and these cachers will eventually stop trying to out do each other but in the mean time you end up with caches that just are just not meant to be found.

 

As an example we have a cache in the area that starts with a moderately hard puzzle. But the real problem comes in when you go after the caches.

 

1) It is 3/4 miles back in a park

2) It is hidden in an area with lots of trees and heavy leaf coverage so satellite coverage is poor.

3) It is a sub-nano type hide.

4) It is way up in a tree.

 

So in summary it requires carrying a large ladder 3/4 mile back in a wooded area with bad coverage to look for a sub-nano that may be up somewhere very high in one of the many tree that are within the search area.

 

Team Sand Dollar

I'd ignore it, but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be listed.

[+wimseyguy]

I guess we all have different definitions of what is FUN.

 

I would have ignored the OP"s example at 'puzzle' .

[+Prime Suspect]

These situations tend to fix themselves. When fewer and fewer people bother to even attempt his new caches, he'll get the message.

[+Team Cotati]

Would you mind posting the GCxxxx waypoint code, I'd like to chcek it out.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

I have been seeing a trend lately where a couple of hiders are trying to create caches that are very hard to impossible to find. These range from puzzle that can't be broken without inside information to hides that just are not worth going after. What is the fun in hiding caches that are not meant to be found?

 

And yes I know there is an ignore function. And I know that this latest trend will blow over and these cachers will eventually stop trying to out do each other but in the mean time you end up with caches that just are just not meant to be found.

 

As an example we have a cache in the area that starts with a moderately hard puzzle. But the real problem comes in when you go after the caches.

 

1) It is 3/4 miles back in a park

2) It is hidden in an area with lots of trees and heavy leaf coverage so satellite coverage is poor.

3) It is a sub-nano type hide.

4) It is way up in a tree.

 

So in summary it requires carrying a large ladder 3/4 mile back in a wooded area with bad coverage to look for a sub-nano that may be up somewhere very high in one of the many tree that are within the search area.

 

Team Sand Dollar

I would soooo skip such a cache once it became obvious to me what it was! I am very selective about the caches which I will seek, and not only do I do a lot of screening -- based on cache type, D/T rating (I like high terrain ratings), prior logs, etc. -- by looking at cache listing pages, but once I actually reach the hide site, I eliminate another 60% of caches which had been on my list because it becomes immediately obvious that they are obnoxious or lame (by my standards...)

[+TrailGators]

I have been seeing a trend lately where a couple of hiders are trying to create caches that are very hard to impossible to find. These range from puzzle that can't be broken without inside information to hides that just are not worth going after. What is the fun in hiding caches that are not meant to be found?

 

And yes I know there is an ignore function. And I know that this latest trend will blow over and these cachers will eventually stop trying to out do each other but in the mean time you end up with caches that just are just not meant to be found.

 

As an example we have a cache in the area that starts with a moderately hard puzzle. But the real problem comes in when you go after the caches.

 

1) It is 3/4 miles back in a park

2) It is hidden in an area with lots of trees and heavy leaf coverage so satellite coverage is poor.

3) It is a sub-nano type hide.

4) It is way up in a tree.

 

So in summary it requires carrying a large ladder 3/4 mile back in a wooded area with bad coverage to look for a sub-nano that may be up somewhere very high in one of the many tree that are within the search area.

 

Team Sand Dollar

That sounds very evil and some people like stuff like that. You should use a GPS with a Sirf Star III chip. If the nano is inside something larger it wouldn't be that bad. It's hard to say without knowing more.... Edited August 17, 2007 by TrailGators

[+Team Sand Dollar]

That sounds very evil and some people like stuff like that. You should use a GPS with a Sirf Star III chip. If the nano is inside something larger it wouldn't be that bad. It's hard to say without knowing more....

 

First we believe it to be just stuck in the side of a tree. A better GPS wouldn't help since the hider used a handheld to place it and his other placements that we have found have been a bit off lately too.

 

Team Sand Dollar

[+Renegade Knight]

Trecking with a ladder 3/4 of a mile to find a nano up a tree ain't fun.

Solving a puzzle to treck with a ladder to fidn a nano up a tree less fun still.

 

Doing all that to enter the entrance of a seldom seen cave used by Jessie James as a hide out that still has his equipment intact...Yes fun.

 

When a cache stops being fun, I Stop what I'm doing, Drop the hunt and Roll on out.

Edited August 17, 2007 by Renegade Knight

[+Team GeoBlast]

I have been seeing a trend lately where a couple of hiders are trying to create caches that are very hard to impossible to find. These range from puzzle that can't be broken without inside information to hides that just are not worth going after. What is the fun in hiding caches that are not meant to be found?

 

And yes I know there is an ignore function. And I know that this latest trend will blow over and these cachers will eventually stop trying to out do each other but in the mean time you end up with caches that just are just not meant to be found.

 

As an example we have a cache in the area that starts with a moderately hard puzzle. But the real problem comes in when you go after the caches.

 

1) It is 3/4 miles back in a park

2) It is hidden in an area with lots of trees and heavy leaf coverage so satellite coverage is poor.

3) It is a sub-nano type hide.

4) It is way up in a tree.

 

So in summary it requires carrying a large ladder 3/4 mile back in a wooded area with bad coverage to look for a sub-nano that may be up somewhere very high in one of the many tree that are within the search area.

 

Team Sand Dollar

 

It's amazing trying to comprehend some folks idea of what fun is. If people in your area will seek this hiders caches, you have to accept this as proof that there's an audience for it. Personally, I'd ignore this hider.

[+Team Sand Dollar]

 

It's amazing trying to comprehend some folks idea of what fun is. If people in your area will seek this hiders caches, you have to accept this as proof that there's an audience for it. Personally, I'd ignore this hider.

 

We put together a group of 5 cachers to go out there knowing it would be a pain. Needless to say that we all gave up after a little bit and went for another cache in the area. We went with an 8 foot step ladder and now have been told is probably wasn't tall enough.

 

Didn't even bother to post a DNF on it. To claim a DNF on a cache I feel there should be at least some reasonable expectation that I should have been able to find it. Since there is no reasonable expectation this one was not worthy of a DNF.

 

Of course the owner knows we were there since the other cache was one of his too.

 

Team Sand Dollar

[+rdaines]

Not my idea of fun at all. I place caches for people to find, I get no thrill from DNFs. Placing caches up in tree could be a problem leading to the demise of the tree, I think such placements are bad.

[CivilVet]

Really, I don't mind challenging hides like that, although the up the tree bit is obnoxious and unnecessary. If you need special equipment, like a ladder, then say what is needed in the description. What annoys me is when I get out in the middle of a forest with heavy foliage, poor sat reception (even with a sirfIII) chip, and am looking for a micro. After searching for 1.5 hours I check the clue and find the clue is no help what so freaking ever.

 

If you are going to make a really difficult find, make a useful clue please, if I see a what looks like a hard find and a clue I think the clue will be helpful. Maybe it is just me but I try not to look at clues, in fact I write them in my field book encrypted and decrypt at the site if I need help.

 

My rules if I ever place a micro:

1) Give good coordinates, let you unit average for a few minutes.

2) If plentiful hiding spots exist in the area, give clue that will really help the person find it.

3) Test it on a few chacher friends, if they take 2 hours to find it make a better clue or change hiding spot.

 

At least then it is less likely people will spend hours searching because they are too stubborn to give up, like me.

 

Because the caches that I can't find after searching for close to two hours with help, take a lot of fun out of the trip for me. I want good hides, they may be difficult to find, but give a useful hint so I don't have to DNF it.

Edited August 17, 2007 by CivilVet

[+Googling Hrpty Hrrs]

I have been seeing a trend lately where a couple of hiders are trying to create caches that are very hard to impossible to find. These range from puzzle that can't be broken without inside information to hides that just are not worth going after. What is the fun in hiding caches that are not meant to be found?

 

And yes I know there is an ignore function. And I know that this latest trend will blow over and these cachers will eventually stop trying to out do each other but in the mean time you end up with caches that just are just not meant to be found.

 

As an example we have a cache in the area that starts with a moderately hard puzzle. But the real problem comes in when you go after the caches.

 

1) It is 3/4 miles back in a park

2) It is hidden in an area with lots of trees and heavy leaf coverage so satellite coverage is poor.

3) It is a sub-nano type hide.

4) It is way up in a tree.

 

So in summary it requires carrying a large ladder 3/4 mile back in a wooded area with bad coverage to look for a sub-nano that may be up somewhere very high in one of the many tree that are within the search area.

 

Team Sand Dollar

 

Just wondering. If you haven't found the cache, how are sure about all of these details?

[+TrailGators]

That sounds very evil and some people like stuff like that. You should use a GPS with a Sirf Star III chip. If the nano is inside something larger it wouldn't be that bad. It's hard to say without knowing more....

 

First we believe it to be just stuck in the side of a tree. A better GPS wouldn't help since the hider used a handheld to place it and his other placements that we have found have been a bit off lately too.

 

Team Sand Dollar

Handhelds do have Sirf Star III chips like the 60csx. But based your new info of this hider's coords being typically off I would ignore it. I can think of scenarios that this could be made to be fun but it sounds like this one may not be. You do really have to know the hider to answer that question.

 

 

Edit: Fixed typo

Edited August 17, 2007 by TrailGators

[+baloo&bd]

I have been seeing a trend lately where a couple of hiders are trying to create caches that are very hard to impossible to find. These range from puzzle that can't be broken without inside information to hides that just are not worth going after. What is the fun in hiding caches that are not meant to be found?

 

And yes I know there is an ignore function. And I know that this latest trend will blow over and these cachers will eventually stop trying to out do each other but in the mean time you end up with caches that just are just not meant to be found.

 

As an example we have a cache in the area that starts with a moderately hard puzzle. But the real problem comes in when you go after the caches.

 

1) It is 3/4 miles back in a park

2) It is hidden in an area with lots of trees and heavy leaf coverage so satellite coverage is poor.

3) It is a sub-nano type hide.

4) It is way up in a tree.

 

So in summary it requires carrying a large ladder 3/4 mile back in a wooded area with bad coverage to look for a sub-nano that may be up somewhere very high in one of the many tree that are within the search area.

 

Team Sand Dollar

 

Just wondering. If you haven't found the cache, how are sure about all of these details?

 

My question as well, especially the part about the tree.

 

To answer the two points you made that probably are dead on;

 

1. That's Caching!

2. That's why you bring a compass.

 

To the points in question;

 

3. The great thing about micros is they are appropriate anywhere. Possibly not appreciated, but appropriate.

4. If true, my guess is the ladder is not needed, one is expected to use their wit when they get there to get it.

 

As other have stated, some want the less challenging finds and stick with drive ups and ammo boxes. Some go for the ones that are challenging like micros and puzzles, others even like to combine this with a hike.

 

I would be interested if this is being found by others. Your possibly right and it is beyond evil, however that does not mean it can't be listed. If it ain't fun, don't do 'em. We don't get paid for this.

[CoyoteRed]

1) It is 3/4 miles back in a park

2) It is hidden in an area with lots of trees and heavy leaf coverage so satellite coverage is poor.

3) It is a sub-nano type hide.

4) It is way up in a tree.

All in all the only deal breaker for us is point "3." This pretty much makes is a "needle in a haystack" type of hunt, never mind the only reward is getting a smilie. Big whoop.

[CoyoteRed]

3. The great thing about micros is they are appropriate anywhere.

That's a few folks' opinion, yes. This is not universal by any stretch of the imagination, though.

[+Renegade Knight]

3. The great thing about micros is they are appropriate anywhere.

That's a few folks' opinion, yes. This is not universal by any stretch of the imagination, though.

I'd say quite the opposite is true. Micro's are not appropriate anywhere where a larger cache would work.

 

It's not hard to line up the pro's and con's on both takes and see that it's much easier to defend the non micro view.

[+briansnat]

I have been seeing a trend lately where a couple of hiders are trying to create caches that are very hard to impossible to find. These range from puzzle that can't be broken without inside information to hides that just are not worth going after. What is the fun in hiding caches that are not meant to be found?

 

And yes I know there is an ignore function. And I know that this latest trend will blow over and these cachers will eventually stop trying to out do each other but in the mean time you end up with caches that just are just not meant to be found.

 

As an example we have a cache in the area that starts with a moderately hard puzzle. But the real problem comes in when you go after the caches.

 

1) It is 3/4 miles back in a park

2) It is hidden in an area with lots of trees and heavy leaf coverage so satellite coverage is poor.

3) It is a sub-nano type hide.

4) It is way up in a tree.

 

So in summary it requires carrying a large ladder 3/4 mile back in a wooded area with bad coverage to look for a sub-nano that may be up somewhere very high in one of the many tree that are within the search area.

 

Team Sand Dollar

 

That one sounds like it might be a blast. I'd take that over a cache next to the 7-Eleven dumpster any day.

[+Driver Carries Cache]

I've found that the most memorable of my finds are the more difficult ones. Ones that required a long search or repeated visits to find. But a micro up a tree? I'm a big fan of placing the largest cache the site will support. That being said, I'd rather have to hunt a bit, not walk up and "there it is"... I like a challenge! Unfortunately, I see carrying an extension ladder 3/4 of a mile into the woods as more of an annoyance than a challenge.

 

DCC

[+Ambrosia]

I get frustrated very easily, whether it's an evil hide or a tough puzzle. In my mind, you put coordinates on a cache page, and use them to find a container. 'Nuff said. If I can't find it in a few minutes, I start saying out loud, "I hate caching. I don't know why I cache. I don't know how I've found over a thousand caches, because I'm no good at this".

 

Of course, I live in the wrong state.

[+Team Sand Dollar]

Just wondering. If you haven't found the cache, how are sure about all of these details?

 

Information from the owner to others in our group whom have spoken to him including one person in our group that is a reviewer.

 

Team Sand Dollar

[TeamCypherX]

There are a few of those in my area. They aren't really even that "hard" but they are just small caches placed completely randomly in the woods. I'm all for puzzle caches or ones that require long walks or carrying heavy things for long distances IF they prove to be worth the time in the end. I have one cache that many would simply ignore, but it takes you past many really nice places as you work through the stages.

 

I was actually searching for a cache last night (a micro). My GPS told me it was either in a pile of tree stumps and old concrete blocks that have been bulldozed into a huge heap, next to the pile in the chest-high raspberry bushes and plants with thorns the size of the micro itself OR behind the pile in a swamp. I gave it a quick once-over, looked around to confirm there was no scenic view or any real reason to be there, and took off to find another cache.

 

That said, I am not a huge fan of Micros to begin with, although the urban micros I do enjoy. I flat out dislike nanos but I will give them 5 minutes of my time as long as they are not in the middle of the woods and do not require special tools. The reason I dislike them so much is that they are too small to even include a proper logbook. Maybe they will cache on someday when GPS is accurate down to the sub-meter, but until then they prove to be more of an annoyance in my area where tree cover is in places too heavy to get a good signal, even on my 60CSx.

[+Team Sand Dollar]

As for GPS's there the 4 garmin 60s with at least one of them being a 60CSx. I'm the odd man out with a Magellan but they do tend to work better under heavy tree cover than a Garmin with the exception of the 60CSx.

 

Team Sand Dollar

[+9Key]

GC14XAH?

[TeamCypherX]

That's the Zodiac killer's cipher. Not that hard once you look on the net and find the key to solving it. Point taken though. Should they not tell you that was what you were looking for you'd be SOL for sure!

[+Team Sand Dollar]

That's the Zodiac killer's cipher. Not that hard once you look on the net and find the key to solving it. Point taken though. Should they not tell you that was what you were looking for you'd be SOL for sure!

 

Puzzle really wasn't that hard and was much easier than his earlier one that added a twist. The puzzle just eliminates around 99% of the cachers around here from even trying it. Problem is even if you can break the puzzle you really don't have much of a chance of finding it.

 

Team Sand Dollar

[+Mudfrog]

I'm not keen on #3 and i'm not even sure i could solve the puzzle, otherwise, that cache sounds like it would be right up my alley.

 

Caches are not meant to be found by every cacher. As long as the difficulty ratings are correct then it's up to the potential cache finder to make the call as to whether they want to tackle it. If for some reason the owner decides they want more find logs coming in, then that owner can change up the cache to make it easier to find. My guess is that he is after quality, not quantity!

 

One other thing, The OP should have logged the DNF!

[+baloo&bd]

It's not hard to line up the pro's and con's on both takes and see that it's much easier to defend the non micro view.

 

That would take quite a stretch to do, but to each his own.

[+Misha]

do you mean like this one GCVNMR, Funky's Revenge - Playing The Numbers Game

 

Misha

[+yorelken]

To me, the beauty of geocaching is the choice to do as you wish regarding finding caches.

Having said that, I wouldn't do that one.

[+Renegade Knight]

It's not hard to line up the pro's and con's on both takes and see that it's much easier to defend the non micro view.

 

That would take quite a stretch to do, but to each his own.

 

Here you go. I'll only cover key differences since that's what it comes down to.

 

Largest reasonable container.

Pros

Less Impact from searching.

Swag

 

Micro

Cons;

More impact from searching.

little to no swag.

 

Other than that I'd say they are the same. larger has two more pros than micros.

 

You may see it differently.

[+Genoist]

My GC14V01 cache is designed to be a very difficult and frustrating search, but so far everyone who has found it has enjoyed it quite a bit.

 

In my defense, this is not a micro, it is a decon container, and I could even use a larger container if I wanted to (and also wanted to make it more frustrating when people can't find an ammo container at the coordinates, lol.

 

Edited August 18, 2007 by Genoist

[+Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking]

It's not hard to line up the pro's and con's on both takes and see that it's much easier to defend the non micro view.

 

Here you go. I'll only cover key differences since that's what it comes down to.

 

Largest reasonable container.

Pros

Less Impact from searching.

Swag

 

Micro

Cons;

More impact from searching.

little to no swag.

 

Other than that I'd say they are the same. larger has two more pros than micros.

 

You may see it differently.

 

Or.......

 

Largest reasonable container

Con

Easy to find and presents no challenge.

 

Micros

Pros

Presents a fun mental challenge to those who enjoy the thrill of the hunt.

 

We like both large caches and micros. There is plenty of room in geocaching for those who like micros and those who like macros. Kumbaya.

[+Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking]

Caches are not meant to be found by every cacher. As long as the difficulty ratings are correct then it's up to the potential cache finder to make the call as to whether they want to tackle it.

 

Good point.

 

Im not so sure I would have gone after that cache. Another Arizona cacher summed it up once on another impossible find "I searched until it stopped being fun."

[+~Hylife~]

Sounds like this one:Jacobus Challenge 1: Hangover and its challenge companions..

 

Very frustrating..

 

It's like they're not MEANT to be found.. ;(

[+benh57]

My GC14V01 cache is designed to be a very difficult and frustrating search, but so far everyone who has found it has enjoyed it quite a bit.

 

Just because people SAY they've enjoyed it on a log, does not mean that they actually did.

 

Everyone i know hates bush hides like that, but only 1 in 10 will say that on their log. Most just say thanks or something similar.

[ElementalJay]

I found Stack of Sticks Cache just as I was getting tired of looking. It's a micro embedded in a stick thrown into the middle of a pile of other sticks in the middle of an illegal dump just off a highway. The place smelled bad and the "view" mostly consisted of broken glass, a shattered bowling ball, several large appliances, and many bags of trash. Not interesting. Not a nice place. Make sure your tetanus shots are up to date and don't take small children. Of course, none of this is outlined on the cache page.

 

On the plus side, the container was very creative, and if it had been hidden in a better area it would have been a challenging find that was worth the hike. I still would not recommend this cache to anyone because everything AROUND the cache took all the fun out of finding the cache.

 

edit: and yes, I am guilty of adding to the wrong perception of this cache by not stating any of my negative thoughts in the log. Anyone else who read my log would likely think this would be a cache worth looking for. I'm not going to go back and edit my log, but I try to be more careful about not giving the wrong impression of a cache while still not coming across as a negative old fart now.

Edited August 18, 2007 by ElementalJay

[+Team-Mikkelsen]

I am one of those ehh Odd cachers who loves to make and place caches more then finding them

 

Sayin that I mean that is is important not to spoil the sport but letting the cachers and the kids ( important ! ) find the cache but to log it is anthoter challenge

I made a box inside the cache who is a magic one , has no movable parts, but you need to open it to be able to log your find

 

But still kids can trade and they have found the treasure

Driving the parents mad is ok

 

Log me if you can

[+Renegade Knight]

It's not hard to line up the pro's and con's on both takes and see that it's much easier to defend the non micro view.

 

Here you go. I'll only cover key differences since that's what it comes down to.

 

Largest reasonable container.

Pros

Less Impact from searching.

Swag

 

Micro

Cons;

More impact from searching.

little to no swag.

 

Other than that I'd say they are the same. larger has two more pros than micros.

 

You may see it differently.

 

Or.......

 

Largest reasonable container

Con

Easy to find and presents no challenge.

 

Micros

Pros

Presents a fun mental challenge to those who enjoy the thrill of the hunt.

 

We like both large caches and micros. There is plenty of room in geocaching for those who like micros and those who like macros. Kumbaya.

 

I'm not going to give up that point so easily.

 

One of the best Hide's I've ever seen was an ammo can in the woods. They had found a natural hole in the rocks and another rock that covered it so perfectly that several folks missed it. It was a true pleasure to come along later and find that cache.

 

Pro and con also illustrates the one I said about micros causing more impacts from more searching all other things being the same.

 

Since we are talking general rules I'll spot you that larger containers are normally easier to find.

[+treasure_hunter]

As for GPS's there the 4 garmin 60s with at least one of them being a 60CSx. I'm the odd man out with a Magellan but they do tend to work better under heavy tree cover than a Garmin with the exception of the 60CSx.

 

Team Sand Dollar

 

I have to disagree with you there. I have the 76CSx, I don't believe I have lost signal in the woods since I have owned it.

 

We went searching for a cache that was in a parking garage, we even had signal on the lower level. I love that thing.

 

As far as Magellan, I once owned one, it seemed like a descent GPS. I traded it in for Lowrance, which wasn't too much different for signal.

[Mushtang]

It's not hard to line up the pro's and con's on both takes and see that it's much easier to defend the non micro view.

 

That would take quite a stretch to do, but to each his own.

 

Here you go. I'll only cover key differences since that's what it comes down to.

 

Largest reasonable container.

Pros

Less Impact from searching.

Swag

 

Micro

Cons;

More impact from searching.

little to no swag.

 

Other than that I'd say they are the same. larger has two more pros than micros.

 

You may see it differently.

RK, those pros and cons are what it comes down to, for you. From your points I'm assuming that you don't like to have to search, and that you enjoy swag.

 

Others, however, love the added difficulty of searching for the cache and don't think it's all that fun to come across an ammo can sitting in one of the few possible places to put it. It's not that far from walking to the coords and having the ammo can sitting on a stump painted dayglo orange. For them it's not entirely about being in on a secret, playing with their GPS, etc. They enjoy someone trying to outsmart them with a hide.

 

There are some that also don't like swag. They may trade for stuff for the first dozen caches they ever find, but then every other cache they find they only go for the logbook and ignore the rest. Small containers that don't hold swag eliminate having to deal with all the useless broken toys, soggy stuffed animals, etc. that are often found in ammo cans.

 

So some people may actually find it much easier to defend the pro-micro view.

 

You may see it differently.

 

Personally I find it easier to defend the anti-nothing (that follows the guidelines) point of view. Variety is one of the things that makes this game fun. If we get rid of everything that somebody doesn't like, we'll have no game left to play.

[+KBI]

Caches are not meant to be found by every cacher. As long as the difficulty ratings are correct then it's up to the potential cache finder to make the call as to whether they want to tackle it. If for some reason the owner decides they want more find logs coming in, then that owner can change up the cache to make it easier to find. My guess is that he is after quality, not quantity!

I absolutely agree, one hundred percent.

 

I have never agreed with the "all caches are meant to be found" philosophy. Who says every cache must be findable by every finder? Not me. There are plenty of easy caches out there if easy is what you want. If a hider wants to create a truly extreme challenge, I say bring it on.

[+KBI]

As an example we have a cache in the area that starts with a moderately hard puzzle. But the real problem comes in when you go after the caches.

 

1) It is 3/4 miles back in a park

2) It is hidden in an area with lots of trees and heavy leaf coverage so satellite coverage is poor.

3) It is a sub-nano type hide.

4) It is way up in a tree.

 

So in summary it requires carrying a large ladder 3/4 mile back in a wooded area with bad coverage to look for a sub-nano that may be up somewhere very high in one of the many tree that are within the search area.

 

Team Sand Dollar

 

That one sounds like it might be a blast. I'd take that over a cache next to the 7-Eleven dumpster any day.

Same here. The more challenging the hide, the more satisfying the find. (Although I must point out that the two are not mutually exclusive -- I've been stumped by (and enjoyed) more than one behind-the-store-Dumpster-area hide, the kind with lots of DNFs on the page.)

 

One of my all-time favorite caches was a teeny tiny micro ten feet up in a tree. I didn't find it until I got help, either -- on my third attempt I brought my brother along, and after a while he spotted it. Once we knew where it was we could see it from 100 feet away. The whole thing was set up in such an unexpected and clever way. It was awesome!

 

There are caches that have taken me five or six visits and many hours of searching to crack. At others I have spent just as much effort only to walk away with a DNF. I have enjoyed both experiences, sometimes much more that what the typical one-star can provide.

 

Why shouldn’t a few caches here and there be next to impossible? I don’t like ALL caches, but one of my favorite things about this game is the wide and rich variety of available experiences. There is something for everyone.

 

Please don’t discourage the super-demanding and extremely challenging hides. Some of us like them.

[+KBI]

I have been seeing a trend lately where a couple of hiders are trying to create caches that are very hard to impossible to find. These range from puzzle that can't be broken without inside information to hides that just are not worth going after. What is the fun in hiding caches that are not meant to be found?

 

And yes I know there is an ignore function. And I know that this latest trend will blow over and these cachers will eventually stop trying to out do each other but in the mean time you end up with caches that just are just not meant to be found.

I think "not meant to be found" is probably an exaggeration, and therefore an erroneous conclusion. These folks are apparently trying to create extreme challenges, most likely for each other's benefit (or anyone else like them) more than for general consumption. I doubt they’re actually going for "impossible."

 

There will always be a subset of cachers who enjoy hiding and/or finding extremely challenging caches. They care less about trade swag and views of waterfalls than they do about bragging rights and a high sense of accomplishment. All we can reasonably ask of the folks who hide such patience-testing caches is to label them with lots of difficulty stars. Beyond that, why begrudge them their fun? Like you said, you’re free to ignore it.

 

I’m not very smart, but I don’t get personally offended or annoyed when people hide puzzle caches that require super intelligent code-cracking skills. Neither do I get offended at the existence of hides on islands and buoys on the lake near my house just because I don’t own a boat.

 

I do, however, find that I sometimes enjoy an extremely challenging cache, so please don’t discourage the exceptionally tough ones.

[+DeRock & The Psychic Cacher]

 

I have never agreed with the "all caches are meant to be found" philosophy. Who says every cache must be findable by every finder? Not me. There are plenty of easy caches out there if easy is what you want. If a hider wants to create a truly extreme challenge, I say bring it on.

 

OK CaptRussell, the next time you're in GRR I'll make sure our mutual friends take you out to the OP's cache in question. And I'll tag along like I did the last time (and Mike too). Heck, I'll even bring my ladder again (you should have seen it strapped to the twin's stroller). Oh wait, maybe I should pack the 28 ft extention ladder like we did on Zodiac 1.

 

Seriously- the fun for me on the hunt for these two caches hasn't been the thrill of finding them or the challange of the hunt. It has been the friendship shared. I think the OP is just venting a little. Right SD?

 

Capt- look forward to meeting you someday, if our mutual friends stop bogarting you !

 

Deane

AKA: DeRock & the Psychic Cacher - Grattan MI

[+CaptRussell]

I have never agreed with the "all caches are meant to be found" philosophy. Who says every cache must be findable by every finder? Not me. There are plenty of easy caches out there if easy is what you want. If a hider wants to create a truly extreme challenge, I say bring it on.

OK CaptRussell, the next time you're in GRR I'll make sure our mutual friends take you out to the OP's cache in question. And I'll tag along like I did the last time (and Mike too). Heck, I'll even bring my ladder again (you should have seen it strapped to the twin's stroller). Oh wait, maybe I should pack the 28 ft extention ladder like we did on Zodiac 1.

Sounds like fun. Count me in!

 

Got a link to the cache page?

 

And ... is there absolutely NO way to get to it without a ladder? If so, is it properly rated with five (5) terrain stars?

 

Seriously- the fun for me on the hunt for these two caches hasn't been the thrill of finding them or the challange of the hunt. It has been the friendship shared. I think the OP is just venting a little. Right SD?

I'm sure he was. He was obviously frustrated, and sounded like he was hoping for lots of people to commiserate with him and agree with him.

 

He asked who would ignore such a cache. I provided my answer.

 

Capt- look forward to meeting you someday, if our mutual friends stop bogarting you !

 

Deane

AKA: DeRock & the Psychic Cacher - Grattan MI

You're on. Lunch is on me. I've got no wheels when I'm in town, so I'm at their mercy -- unless you beat them to the hotel, that is!

[+Renegade Knight]

...RK, those pros and cons are what it comes down to, for you. From your points I'm assuming that you don't like to have to search, and that you enjoy swag....

 

True to a point. Some of it's subjective and some of it's not. The subjective part is also true of more people than less based on what I've been reading in the forums. Most of us like swag over no swag even if we don't trade because there is some enjoyment (sort of like checking your mail even though it's normally bills).

 

Part shouldn't be subjective.

For example most of us would agree that of two caches that the one that takes longer to find has more impact to the surrounding terrain than the one that takes less time to fine. That has nothing to do with how much fun the cache is. Just that less stomping about is better than more, where terrain can be impacted.

 

You could argue against the swag, but I think most people would be hard pressed to argue that more impact is better. (CITO being the exception!)

[+KBI]

... most of us would agree that of two caches that the one that takes longer to find has more impact to the surrounding terrain than the one that takes less time to fine.

Not if the surrounding terrain is asphalt.