Jump to content

The State of Geocaching


DavidTO
Followers 2

Recommended Posts

It all depends on who you listen to.

 

In early years of the sport, most geocaches were regular sized caches placed in the woods at the end of a nice hike, or at places that were other otherwise interesting. Locals often used geocaches to highlight their favorite places. Often these were off the beaten path and the refrain you so often heard was "Wow, I lived here for XX years and never knew this place existed". The sport was more about discovery than anything else.

 

Now in many areas the micro is king. They are easy to create and hide and can be placed nearly anywhere - and are. Big box store parking lots, behind strip malls, on guardrails, street signs, next to fast food restaurants, under storm drains, you name it. They are often placed for the sake of placing a cache, rather than because there is anything appealing about the area. With the micros have come the numbers hounds (or the numbers hounds brought the micros - it's a chicken or egg thing). For them, it's all about racking up the smileys. The numbers hounds sow micros around like grass seed for their fellow numbers hounds and it's not unheard of to rack up 200 or more finds in a day. "Wow I never knew this place existed" has been replaced by "Thanks for the quick smiley".

 

One school of cachers I'll call the traditionalists (they have been called puritans, cache Nazis and other names in the forums) and the other I'll call the liberalists (often called Staunch Defenders of Everything Lame in the forums).

 

The traditionalists feel the sport has taken a wrong turn and that all these micros in strip malls have bastardized the sport. They complain that what they call the good caches are being ignored, not enough new good ones are being placed and when they are, it's becoming a chore to weed out all the chaff and focus on the kinds of caches they like. They will tell you that the Golden Age of geocaching has passed us by (having ended some time around 2003 or 2004 depending on where you live).

 

The liberalists will tell you that the state of the sport has never been better. There are more of every kind of cache to find and more tools than ever to select the kinds of caches you like. The liberalists will say that there is no such thing as a bad cache, because someone will enjoy finding it. They will tell you that this is the Golden Age of geocaching.

 

So that is the state of geocaching today as I see it, trying to be as balanced as I can.

 

If you want the see some action in the forums, bring up the subject of "lame micros" in in the Geocaching Topics forums and it will invariably turn into a 5 to 10 page debate between the traditionalists and the liberalists. The debate can get quite spirited. It happens about once a month.

Link to comment

It all depends on who you listen to......

 

Thanks, Brian. I've only been out twice, nabbed 7 finds, and I already know I'm a traditionalist.

 

My first time out I went on a trail I've hiked dozens of times and had that "Wow, I didn't know this was here" moment. It was just a tree a bit off the trail, but it's a nice shady spot to beat the heat here in southern california. That's what excites me. The next day I took in a stunning view and didn't find the cache. I'll be sure to go back and get a find on that cache, but the view and the hike were all well worth it.

Link to comment

It all depends on who you listen to......

 

Thanks, Brian. I've only been out twice, nabbed 7 finds, and I already know I'm a traditionalist.

 

My first time out I went on a trail I've hiked dozens of times and had that "Wow, I didn't know this was here" moment. It was just a tree a bit off the trail, but it's a nice shady spot to beat the heat here in southern california. That's what excites me. The next day I took in a stunning view and didn't find the cache. I'll be sure to go back and get a find on that cache, but the view and the hike were all well worth it.

 

In the old days all caches were like that. Now, you have to work to focus on those caches. That's one of the changes. There are more of those kinds of caches than ever before, but they are mixed in with more of everthing else.

 

I've been around long enough to watch my town go to caching hell insofar as the crap being placed and then come back around to where it's a regional mecca. Interesting. YMMV.

Link to comment

It all depends on who you listen to.

 

<snip>

 

The traditionalists feel the sport has taken a wrong turn and that all these micros in strip malls have bastardized the sport. They complain that what they call the good caches are being ignored, not enough new good ones are being placed and when they are, it's becoming a chore to weed out all the chaff and focus on the kinds of caches they like. They will tell you that the Golden Age of geocaching has passed us by (having ended some time around 2003 or 2004 depending on where you live).

 

<snip>

I agree with everything briansnat said, but wanted to highlight this statement. Last year, I did some research on the oldest caches in this area. When they were first placed, back in 2000 and 2001, they were found fairly frequently, even though there weren't very many cachers then.

 

In recent years, some of these outstanding caches had few "Found it" logs. It was almost as if they didn't exist, since there were so many other caches, of different types, to look for. I think many newer cachers, who found their first cache in the landscaping of a mini-mall just down the street from their house, think that is what caching is all about. Many of these newer cachers go on to place caches just like the first ones they found . . . :laughing:

 

I have several caches located in awesome hiking areas here. Now is the time to make those hikes, while the weather is perfect for hiking. Unfortunately, my caches remain just about as lonely now as they were during the heat of the summer . . . :P

Link to comment
I did some research on the oldest caches in this area. When they were first placed, back in 2000 and 2001, they were found fairly frequently, even though there weren't very many cachers then.

 

In recent years, some of these outstanding caches had few "Found it" logs. It was almost as if they didn't exist, since there were so many other caches, of different types, to look for. I think many newer cachers, who found their first cache in the landscaping of a mini-mall just down the street from their house, think that is what caching is all about. Many of these newer cachers go on to place caches just like the first ones they found . . . :laughing:

 

I have several caches located in awesome hiking areas here. Now is the time to make those hikes, while the weather is perfect for hiking. Unfortunately, my caches remain just about as lonely now as they were during the heat of the summer . . . :P

 

Any suggestions on how I could dig up the classic caches in my area?

 

EDIT: terracaching.com? Is that part of the answer? Feel like sponsoring me?

Edited by DavidTO
Link to comment

If you want the see some action in the forums, bring up the subject of "lame micros" in in the Geocaching Topics forums and it will invariably turn into a 5 to 10 page debate between the traditionalists and the liberalists. The debate can get quite spirited. It happens about once a month.

 

I think we are about due :laughing: I agree 100% with what you said. I'm hoping that the new version of the website will start to slowly push things back in the other direction. Unfortunately, as things currently stand, people get rewarded for placing easy to find urban micros.

Link to comment
I did some research on the oldest caches in this area. When they were first placed, back in 2000 and 2001, they were found fairly frequently, even though there weren't very many cachers then.

 

In recent years, some of these outstanding caches had few "Found it" logs. It was almost as if they didn't exist, since there were so many other caches, of different types, to look for. I think many newer cachers, who found their first cache in the landscaping of a mini-mall just down the street from their house, think that is what caching is all about. Many of these newer cachers go on to place caches just like the first ones they found . . . :laughing:

 

I have several caches located in awesome hiking areas here. Now is the time to make those hikes, while the weather is perfect for hiking. Unfortunately, my caches remain just about as lonely now as they were during the heat of the summer . . . :P

Any suggestions on how I could dig up the classic caches in my area?

 

EDIT: terracaching.com? Is that part of the answer? Feel like sponsoring me?

If you use GSAK to handle all the data from you PQs, it is easy to find the oldest caches. Just click on the column for "Placed." :D

 

TC isn't the answer for what has happened to GC.com, but around here, those caches are challenging and fun, and sometimes while heading for one, you'll find a Geocache as well. :D

Link to comment
terracaching.com? Is that part of the answer? Feel like sponsoring me?

 

It could be, but what do you do after you found both terracaches in your state?

 

Actually, despite the claims, from what I've seen there is little difference in geocache quality between TC.com and GC.com. There are just way fewer geocaches listed on TC.com. Waaaaay fewer.

Link to comment

If you use GSAK to handle all the data from you PQs, it is easy to find the oldest caches. Just click on the column for "Placed." :P

I'm on a Mac. I'll look into the Mac GC apps, see if I can do similar.

TC isn't the answer for what has happened to GC.com, but around here, those caches are challenging and fun, and sometimes while heading for one, you'll find a Geocache as well. :laughing:

Thanks. I've posted to my local forum looking for a sponsor. If nothing else, it'll get me hooked up with some local cachers, which can't be a bad thing.

Link to comment

I have no grudge against micros... what I have a grudge against are lame caches of any size/type. If the hider has some great place to visit, something interesting to show me, or a challenging bit of camo... I'm havin' fun! :laughing:

 

I've been caching for just over a year now. I finally feel like I'm beginning to find out exactly what motivates me, and I'm gravitating towards larger caches that require a bit of a walk. To me, Geocaching has more and more to give as I continue to meet other cool cachers and navigate my way across the caching landscape. I look forward this year to GeoWoodstock making a visit to my area, and to push myself towards new and interesting adventures (like learning to kayak) in order to find ever more difficult hides!

 

Don't let the quibbling dissuade you from having a good time! There's plenty out there to find, and you'll learn how to sort out the ones that interest you as you gain more experience.

 

DCC

Link to comment
terracaching.com? Is that part of the answer? Feel like sponsoring me?

 

It could be, but what do you do after you found both terracaches in your state?

 

Actually, despite the claims, from what I've seen there is little difference in geocache quality between TC.com and GC.com. There are just way fewer geocaches listed on TC.com. Waaaaay fewer.

Actually, in Southern California, there are a lot of TCs, although many of them are at the top of remote desert peaks. It may be that the cache containers are not different from the cache containers used for Geocaches, the locations are frequently very different . . . And, the swag is definitely different . . . :laughing:

 

I think the best of both worlds is to participate in both, but filter the Geocaches mercilessly to find the ones you prefer.

Link to comment

Well let's see.

I have had great geocaches since 2002 and they are still active.

I have had and even have some of the others.

 

My heart and dedication is with Geocaching since it was my FIRST love.

 

Geocaches are like life itself.

I have found many noteable characters across this land.

I have also found some not so nice characters.

Some people pride themselves with thier skills.

Other could care less.

Some like the numbers and other do not count.

 

I am fixing to be a part of setting the first GEOCAC benchmark.

And as many of you know that bechmarking is also a part of geocaching wich most do not partake,but for those of us who do there is that added experience and fun.

 

Diversity is the KEY but the balance is what is hard to fathom for there are as many different opinions and likes as there are geocachers.

Link to comment

I also agree with briansnat's assesment.

 

The issue of 'microspew' can be a problem. I know in my area there are several series of caches placed on end of the road guardrails, at big box stores. Most are simple MKH or 35mm film canisters, tho every so often, someone does something a little interesting here.

 

But if you don't like those kinds of hides, you can always ignore them.

 

There are STILL good caches being placed. Even in my area, I'm still seeing interesting hides.

 

For me, its one of 2 factors that make a cache interesting:

 

* an interesting location. This doesn't need to be a location deep in the woods. Even a small neighborhood park can be interesting, as you've brought people to a place they never knew existed.

 

* an interesting hide. This can be anything from a neat camo job, interesting place to hide a cache, a puzzle, or series that got you to the hide, etc. I'm seeing more puzzles caches in my area. Someone recently did a night cache that you need flashlights to see the little reflectors that lead you to the final.

 

I still like to think there are still neat places to place a hide and neat ways to hide a cache.

Link to comment

...Last year, I did some research on the oldest caches in this area. When they were first placed, back in 2000 and 2001, they were found fairly frequently, even though there weren't very many cachers then....

 

A year or two ago I did some digging on some great old caches and found exactly the same thing. If you wanted to find a cache you had to make the hike. Then more cachers and more caches came.

 

I attribute the decline to two things. More urban caches so there is less incentive to go get that remote cache because it's "The only one you haven't found yet". Plus more remote caches to choose from. You can't do them all now so even now you have to pick and choose. I think the real answer is a little of both. You can see that the finds drop off like a rock after the area 'explodes' in caches. Urban caches eclipse everthing for raw finds. They did even in the old days as well.

 

Another change that brings about is that at events all of us old timers would talk caching and we knew every cache and had either done them or heard of them. Now...we don't have as many caches in common and certainly don't know them all.

 

As for being past it's peak I'll only say it's past it's easy peak. The next peak is when the programming catches up so we can find the ones we enjoy the most and can bypass the ones we won't. Until then, you have to do the work to have the fun.

Edited by Renegade Knight
Link to comment

It all depends on who you listen to......

 

Thanks, Brian. I've only been out twice, nabbed 7 finds, and I already know I'm a traditionalist.

 

My first time out I went on a trail I've hiked dozens of times and had that "Wow, I didn't know this was here" moment. It was just a tree a bit off the trail, but it's a nice shady spot to beat the heat here in southern california. That's what excites me. The next day I took in a stunning view and didn't find the cache. I'll be sure to go back and get a find on that cache, but the view and the hike were all well worth it.

 

That just warms my heart. :anicute: I've have actually seen several "noobs" come along who consider themselves traditionalists.

 

Oh, geocaching is fine. I'll never run out of traditionalist caches to find.

Link to comment

It all depends on who you listen to.

 

 

Oh what do you know.. just kidding! :rolleyes:

 

For me, it's all about the kids.

 

That being said, the caches we enjoy the most are the ones off the beaten path, with an ammo can full of treasure.

 

Check out my gallery pics, it's nothing but smiles on two kids faces.

 

:blink:

 

And I've found a few interesting micros as well myself.

Link to comment
terracaching.com? Is that part of the answer? Feel like sponsoring me?

 

It could be, but what do you do after you found both terracaches in your state?

 

Actually, despite the claims, from what I've seen there is little difference in geocache quality between TC.com and GC.com. There are just way fewer geocaches listed on TC.com. Waaaaay fewer.

We have well over 100 TCs out here that traditionalists would enjoy. Many have a 4+ terrain rating. I've yet to see a "numbers" TC cache. I don't think they exist, nor would they likely get approved. However, there are way fewer TCs compared to thousands of GCs. If you like numbers then GC is the way to go. Regardless of TC or GC, there are many green spots on maps where the traditionalists can find the kinds of caches that they really enjoy! :rolleyes:
Link to comment
terracaching.com? Is that part of the answer? Feel like sponsoring me?

 

It could be, but what do you do after you found both terracaches in your state?

 

Actually, despite the claims, from what I've seen there is little difference in geocache quality between TC.com and GC.com. There are just way fewer geocaches listed on TC.com. Waaaaay fewer.

We have well over 100 TCs out here that traditionalists would enjoy. Many have a 4+ terrain rating. I've yet to see a "numbers" TC cache. I don't think they exist, nor would they likely get approved. However, there are way fewer TCs compared to thousands of GCs. If you like numbers then GC is the way to go. Regardless of TC or GC, there are many green spots on maps where the traditionalists can find the kinds of caches that they really enjoy! :rolleyes:

 

Here they just piggyback TC.com geocaches on existing GC.com geocaches. I can't think of a single one of the closest 100 caches listed on TC.com that isn't within a few hundred feet of a previously existing GC.com cache. Often closer. Pointless.

Link to comment

One of the best and least used way to find great caches is to use bookmark lists. Most of my best caches have been first spotted on other cachers bookmark list. If someone else talks greatly about a caches and describes it as something to your liking, then that's a cache worthwhile getting. I usually find one or a few great caches to get, and then cache along the route to these specific caches. You get a couple of easy, maybe even not so great caches, but you'll get that one cache that makes it all worthwhile.

So please everyone, bookmark your favorites, it will help others enjoy the great caches as much as you did.

Link to comment
terracaching.com? Is that part of the answer? Feel like sponsoring me?

 

It could be, but what do you do after you found both terracaches in your state?

 

Actually, despite the claims, from what I've seen there is little difference in geocache quality between TC.com and GC.com. There are just way fewer geocaches listed on TC.com. Waaaaay fewer.

We have well over 100 TCs out here that traditionalists would enjoy. Many have a 4+ terrain rating. I've yet to see a "numbers" TC cache. I don't think they exist, nor would they likely get approved. However, there are way fewer TCs compared to thousands of GCs. If you like numbers then GC is the way to go. Regardless of TC or GC, there are many green spots on maps where the traditionalists can find the kinds of caches that they really enjoy! :rolleyes:

Here they just piggyback TC.com geocaches on existing GC.com geocaches. I can't think of a single one of the closest 100 caches listed on TC.com that isn't within a few hundred feet of a previously existing GC.com cache. Often closer. Pointless.

We have some like that too and I agree that 100 feet apart is stupid. Many times I've found all the GCs in an area and a new TC in that area gives me a little extra motivation to revisit that cool area. Anyhow, my point is that most TCs are no better/worse than traditionist GC caches, but for me they are a lot better than GC "numbers" caches.
Link to comment

It all depends on who you listen to......

 

Thanks, Brian. I've only been out twice, nabbed 7 finds, and I already know I'm a traditionalist.

 

My first time out I went on a trail I've hiked dozens of times and had that "Wow, I didn't know this was here" moment. It was just a tree a bit off the trail, but it's a nice shady spot to beat the heat here in southern california. That's what excites me. The next day I took in a stunning view and didn't find the cache. I'll be sure to go back and get a find on that cache, but the view and the hike were all well worth it.

I read briansnat's remarks and had to smile. He may be right if you go back to 2001 or so. By the time I started in 2003, there was already the divide between what brian calls traditionalist and what he call liberalist and for me it was best exemplified by a couple of cachers right in DavidTOs backyard. They even made a movie about it. There have always been some geocachers who prefer hikes and others that prefer urban hide. And a least as long as I've been caching there have always been some who enjoy finding caches just for the sake of finding them (often referred to a just for the smiley) and others who don't care as much about finding the cache as about the adventure of being taken to a new place or area.

 

One thing that has changed is that there are more of every type of cache. Whether you like urbans or hikes you'll find many more caches than you used to. Some will complain that there are so many urbans in uninteresting places like mall parking lots or hidden with out much thought that it is harder to find the urban caches that either are in interesting places or that have been hidden so that the hunt is challenging or perhaps in some humorous manner. It is perhaps the lack of an ability, short of reading the descriptions and logs of each cache, to filter for the caches you enjoy the most that causes the most discussion and debate in this forum.

Link to comment
It all depends on who you listen to......
Thanks, Brian. I've only been out twice, nabbed 7 finds, and I already know I'm a traditionalist.

 

My first time out I went on a trail I've hiked dozens of times and had that "Wow, I didn't know this was here" moment. It was just a tree a bit off the trail, but it's a nice shady spot to beat the heat here in southern california. That's what excites me. The next day I took in a stunning view and didn't find the cache. I'll be sure to go back and get a find on that cache, but the view and the hike were all well worth it.

I read briansnat's remarks and had to smile. He may be right if you go back to 2001 or so. By the time I started in 2003, there was already the divide between what brian calls traditionalist and what he call liberalist and for me it was best exemplified by a couple of cachers right in DavidTOs backyard. ...
By late 2001, that divide had come to the forums.
Link to comment
It all depends on who you listen to......
Thanks, Brian. I've only been out twice, nabbed 7 finds, and I already know I'm a traditionalist.

 

My first time out I went on a trail I've hiked dozens of times and had that "Wow, I didn't know this was here" moment. It was just a tree a bit off the trail, but it's a nice shady spot to beat the heat here in southern california. That's what excites me. The next day I took in a stunning view and didn't find the cache. I'll be sure to go back and get a find on that cache, but the view and the hike were all well worth it.

I read briansnat's remarks and had to smile. He may be right if you go back to 2001 or so. By the time I started in 2003, there was already the divide between what brian calls traditionalist and what he call liberalist and for me it was best exemplified by a couple of cachers right in DavidTOs backyard. ...
By late 2001, that divide had come to the forums.

I'm sure there was a divide but the spread of non-traditionalist caches was much less than it is now. Even Markwell's Chicago area study shows that the vast majority of caches prior to 2004 were traditionalist caches. By the way, I'm avoiding the whole good and bad thing and trying to stay objective. So let's not go there... :rolleyes:
Link to comment
terracaching.com? Is that part of the answer? Feel like sponsoring me?

 

It could be, but what do you do after you found both terracaches in your state?

 

Actually, despite the claims, from what I've seen there is little difference in geocache quality between TC.com and GC.com. There are just way fewer geocaches listed on TC.com. Waaaaay fewer.

We have well over 100 TCs out here that traditionalists would enjoy. Many have a 4+ terrain rating. I've yet to see a "numbers" TC cache. I don't think they exist, nor would they likely get approved. However, there are way fewer TCs compared to thousands of GCs. If you like numbers then GC is the way to go. Regardless of TC or GC, there are many green spots on maps where the traditionalists can find the kinds of caches that they really enjoy! :rolleyes:

 

Here they just piggyback TC.com geocaches on existing GC.com geocaches. I can't think of a single one of the closest 100 caches listed on TC.com that isn't within a few hundred feet of a previously existing GC.com cache. Often closer. Pointless.

 

I've heard you say that before. I'm coming to your area this summer (uh, apparently I like to plan way ahead), and I'd have to agree with you, after looking at all the Terracaches. Except for those crazy-arsed ones by Splicing Dan on Staten Island. :blink:

Link to comment

 

Any suggestions on how I could dig up the classic caches in my area?

 

 

paleolith has recently hidden the Santa Monica Mtns History Adventure (GC18DXW) a challenge cache where you must first find 62 out of the 64 oldest active caches in the Santa Monica Mountains. This list would certainly count as some of the classic caches in your area. Not all are hiking caches, though most are, including a couple of 4.5 star terrain ones.

Link to comment
It all depends on who you listen to......
Thanks, Brian. I've only been out twice, nabbed 7 finds, and I already know I'm a traditionalist.

 

My first time out I went on a trail I've hiked dozens of times and had that "Wow, I didn't know this was here" moment. It was just a tree a bit off the trail, but it's a nice shady spot to beat the heat here in southern california. That's what excites me. The next day I took in a stunning view and didn't find the cache. I'll be sure to go back and get a find on that cache, but the view and the hike were all well worth it.

I read briansnat's remarks and had to smile. He may be right if you go back to 2001 or so. By the time I started in 2003, there was already the divide between what brian calls traditionalist and what he call liberalist and for me it was best exemplified by a couple of cachers right in DavidTOs backyard. ...
By late 2001, that divide had come to the forums.

I'm sure there was a divide but the spread of non-traditionalist caches was much less than it is now. Even Markwell's Chicago area study shows that the vast majority of caches prior to 2004 were traditionalist caches. By the way, I'm avoiding the whole good and bad thing and trying to stay objective. So let's not go there... :blink:

 

Yes, this divde definitely took place in different area's at different times. I'd say not until late 2004 in my area, after I was a well-established cacher. I'm trying to stay objective too. Oh, never mind, that's not gonna happen. :rolleyes:

Link to comment

After finding a traditional cache in an area with broken glass and a dead rabbit with no view whatsoever I decided that there had to be something different. So I created historical geocaches. If a cacher is into numbers, the cacher does not want to do my geocaches with a couple exceptions. And the "rewards" are only micros -- not ammo cans.

Edited by Rose Red
Link to comment
It all depends on who you listen to......
Thanks, Brian. I've only been out twice, nabbed 7 finds, and I already know I'm a traditionalist.

 

My first time out I went on a trail I've hiked dozens of times and had that "Wow, I didn't know this was here" moment. It was just a tree a bit off the trail, but it's a nice shady spot to beat the heat here in southern california. That's what excites me. The next day I took in a stunning view and didn't find the cache. I'll be sure to go back and get a find on that cache, but the view and the hike were all well worth it.

I read briansnat's remarks and had to smile. He may be right if you go back to 2001 or so. By the time I started in 2003, there was already the divide between what brian calls traditionalist and what he call liberalist and for me it was best exemplified by a couple of cachers right in DavidTOs backyard. ...
By late 2001, that divide had come to the forums.

I'm sure there was a divide but the spread of non-traditionalist caches was much less than it is now. Even Markwell's Chicago area study shows that the vast majority of caches prior to 2004 were traditionalist caches. By the way, I'm avoiding the whole good and bad thing and trying to stay objective. So let's not go there... :rolleyes:

A quick review of caches that I found from mid-2001 to early 2002 revealed that about half the caches from back then would not be favored by the 'traditionalists'. I guess that it just shows that we all tend to remember things through rose colored glasses. Heck, by the end of 2001, LCs were getting popular. Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

 

paleolith has recently hidden the Santa Monica Mtns History Adventure (GC18DXW) a challenge cache where you must first find 62 out of the 64 oldest active caches in the Santa Monica Mountains. This list would certainly count as some of the classic caches in your area. Not all are hiking caches, though most are, including a couple of 4.5 star terrain ones.

 

You know, I had stumbled across this before I really understood how valuable it is. Thanks for the link and the reminder. I'm going to do that. It's going to be awesome!

Link to comment

It all depends on who you listen to......

 

Thanks, Brian. I've only been out twice, nabbed 7 finds, and I already know I'm a traditionalist.

 

My first time out I went on a trail I've hiked dozens of times and had that "Wow, I didn't know this was here" moment. It was just a tree a bit off the trail, but it's a nice shady spot to beat the heat here in southern california. That's what excites me. The next day I took in a stunning view and didn't find the cache. I'll be sure to go back and get a find on that cache, but the view and the hike were all well worth it.

I read briansnat's remarks and had to smile. He may be right if you go back to 2001 or so. By the time I started in 2003, there was already the divide between what brian calls traditionalist and what he call liberalist and for me it was best exemplified by a couple of cachers right in DavidTOs backyard. They even made a movie about it. There have always been some geocachers who prefer hikes and others that prefer urban hide. And a least as long as I've been caching there have always been some who enjoy finding caches just for the sake of finding them (often referred to a just for the smiley) and others who don't care as much about finding the cache as about the adventure of being taken to a new place or area.

 

One thing that has changed is that there are more of every type of cache. Whether you like urbans or hikes you'll find many more caches than you used to. Some will complain that there are so many urbans in uninteresting places like mall parking lots or hidden with out much thought that it is harder to find the urban caches that either are in interesting places or that have been hidden so that the hunt is challenging or perhaps in some humorous manner. It is perhaps the lack of an ability, short of reading the descriptions and logs of each cache, to filter for the caches you enjoy the most that causes the most discussion and debate in this forum.

 

Great info. Thanks!

Link to comment
It all depends on who you listen to......
Thanks, Brian. I've only been out twice, nabbed 7 finds, and I already know I'm a traditionalist.

 

My first time out I went on a trail I've hiked dozens of times and had that "Wow, I didn't know this was here" moment. It was just a tree a bit off the trail, but it's a nice shady spot to beat the heat here in southern california. That's what excites me. The next day I took in a stunning view and didn't find the cache. I'll be sure to go back and get a find on that cache, but the view and the hike were all well worth it.

I read briansnat's remarks and had to smile. He may be right if you go back to 2001 or so. By the time I started in 2003, there was already the divide between what brian calls traditionalist and what he call liberalist and for me it was best exemplified by a couple of cachers right in DavidTOs backyard. ...
By late 2001, that divide had come to the forums.

I'm sure there was a divide but the spread of non-traditionalist caches was much less than it is now. Even Markwell's Chicago area study shows that the vast majority of caches prior to 2004 were traditionalist caches. By the way, I'm avoiding the whole good and bad thing and trying to stay objective. So let's not go there... :rolleyes:

A quick review of caches that I found from mid-2001 to early 2002 revealed that about half the caches from back then would not be favored by the 'traditionalists'. I guess that it just shows that we all tend to remember things through rose colored glasses. Heck, by the end of 2001, LCs were getting popular.
There is a big difference in this area from 2003 to 2008. I found my first LC in mid 2004. As TheWhiteUrkel said it does depend on the area. I agree with that.
Link to comment

It all depends on who you listen to.

 

 

Agree with everything here.

 

I think this is a case of "letting the market decide."

 

If people want more of the hikes in the woods/nice view/cool container type caches, people will hunt for them and that cache type will get more common. If people want more caches in the Walmart parking lot, people will hunt for those instead and that cache type will get more common.

 

Most of our caches were placed in 2003 or 2004. Most involve a trip to the woods and are associated with a nice view or something interesting to see (IMO) I've noticed that the find rate on our caches has dropped some in the last couple of years despite the increase in the number of cachers out there. Meanwhile the local "1/1" on the city street corner is more popular than ever.

 

I guess for now, for better or worse, THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN! Caching in the Wally World parking lot is more popular. We'll see what the future brings.

Link to comment
It all depends on who you listen to......
Thanks, Brian. I've only been out twice, nabbed 7 finds, and I already know I'm a traditionalist.

 

My first time out I went on a trail I've hiked dozens of times and had that "Wow, I didn't know this was here" moment. It was just a tree a bit off the trail, but it's a nice shady spot to beat the heat here in southern california. That's what excites me. The next day I took in a stunning view and didn't find the cache. I'll be sure to go back and get a find on that cache, but the view and the hike were all well worth it.

I read briansnat's remarks and had to smile. He may be right if you go back to 2001 or so. By the time I started in 2003, there was already the divide between what brian calls traditionalist and what he call liberalist and for me it was best exemplified by a couple of cachers right in DavidTOs backyard. ...
By late 2001, that divide had come to the forums.

I'm sure there was a divide but the spread of non-traditionalist caches was much less than it is now. Even Markwell's Chicago area study shows that the vast majority of caches prior to 2004 were traditionalist caches. By the way, I'm avoiding the whole good and bad thing and trying to stay objective. So let's not go there... :rolleyes:

A quick review of caches that I found from mid-2001 to early 2002 revealed that about half the caches from back then would not be favored by the 'traditionalists'. I guess that it just shows that we all tend to remember things through rose colored glasses. Heck, by the end of 2001, LCs were getting popular.

 

Looking at my finds, my first find was on 9/2001. My first park-n-grab didn't come 'till nearly a year later (7/2002) in California with my 28th find. My first micro wasn't until my 36th find. I didn't encounter my first lame micro until 1/2003 with my 96th find in upstate NY.

 

Looking at my first 100 finds, I'd say 97 can be considered "traditionalist" caches. This is not using any filtering methods. Just loading waypoints and hitting GOTO, so it can't be said I was targeting any type of cache. My glasses might be rose colored, but them's the facts.

 

Micro spew obviously came to your area earlier than many others.

 

There have always been some geocachers who prefer hikes and others that prefer urban hide.
It's not a matter of hikes vs. urban caches. I've found many urban/suburban caches that I would

consider "traditionalist". What I would call "non traditionalist" caches are what some call micro spew. That really didn't take off until 2003/2004.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment
It all depends on who you listen to......
Thanks, Brian. I've only been out twice, nabbed 7 finds, and I already know I'm a traditionalist.

 

My first time out I went on a trail I've hiked dozens of times and had that "Wow, I didn't know this was here" moment. It was just a tree a bit off the trail, but it's a nice shady spot to beat the heat here in southern california. That's what excites me. The next day I took in a stunning view and didn't find the cache. I'll be sure to go back and get a find on that cache, but the view and the hike were all well worth it.

I read briansnat's remarks and had to smile. He may be right if you go back to 2001 or so. By the time I started in 2003, there was already the divide between what brian calls traditionalist and what he call liberalist and for me it was best exemplified by a couple of cachers right in DavidTOs backyard. ...
By late 2001, that divide had come to the forums.

I'm sure there was a divide but the spread of non-traditionalist caches was much less than it is now. Even Markwell's Chicago area study shows that the vast majority of caches prior to 2004 were traditionalist caches. By the way, I'm avoiding the whole good and bad thing and trying to stay objective. So let's not go there... :rolleyes:

A quick review of caches that I found from mid-2001 to early 2002 revealed that about half the caches from back then would not be favored by the 'traditionalists'. I guess that it just shows that we all tend to remember things through rose colored glasses. Heck, by the end of 2001, LCs were getting popular.
There is a big difference in this area from 2003 to 2008. I found my first LC in mid 2004. As TheWhiteUrkel said it does depend on the area. I agree with that.

I still fondly remember the first LC I found, in the spring of 2005. That was such a clever cache. :D Not long after that, I hid one of my own. B) But, my excuse for that was that I had injured my knee and couldn't walk very far. Now that I can, when I go to town, I leave my GPSr off . . . :blink:

 

I think the biggest change around here started about this time when Night Hunter posted:

36 new caches within 15 miles of SANTEE in the last 7 days.

 

You People Are OUT OF CONTROL

That was the beginning of what some people started calling the S.C.U.M -- Santee Carpy Urban Micro. B)

Link to comment
Micro spew obviously came to your area earlier than many others.
At first, I was somewhat insulted by that post, but then I got over it. I don't think that you intended to insult any specific cachers or locations, you simply were indelicate in your post.

 

As it turned out, there may have been more micros that you would turn your nose up at in my local area early on. That being said, in that first year or so, I had lots of finds in completely different geographic areas. Also, I apparently found many more caches than you did early on. Perhaps, my early experience is, therefore, more indicative of what was out there than yours was.

Link to comment

 

...A quick review of caches that I found from mid-2001 to early 2002 revealed that about half the caches from back then would not be favored by the 'traditionalists'. I guess that it just shows that we all tend to remember things through rose colored glasses. Heck, by the end of 2001, LCs were getting popular.

Maybe half back then but....

 

a quick review of new caches (less than 1 year old) I looked up for a recent trip reveals that 70% are micros and 85% would be non-tradtionalist types.

Link to comment

 

...A quick review of caches that I found from mid-2001 to early 2002 revealed that about half the caches from back then would not be favored by the 'traditionalists'. I guess that it just shows that we all tend to remember things through rose colored glasses. Heck, by the end of 2001, LCs were getting popular.

Maybe half back then but....

 

a quick review of new caches (less than 1 year old) I looked up for a recent trip reveals that 70% are micros and 85% would be non-tradtionalist types.

Most of the ones that show up when I plan a route are also micros or drive-bys. Of course, I suspect that this is because of how I pull my 'route' queries and that my destinations tend to be heavily urban. I'm not convinced that the average cache differs that much from those caches back then.

 

Of course, I guess it would be possible that they do, since the raw numbers of caches have increased so greatly. I bet that it also follows that the raw numbers of caches that would be enjoyed by the 'traditionalists' would also be greatly increased from the few that existed back in 2001.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
There is a big difference in this area from 2003 to 2008. I found my first LC in mid 2004. As TheWhiteUrkel said it does depend on the area. I agree with that.
Why would LCs depend on the area? After all, they were locationless.
I thought you meant Lamppost Cache by saying LC... Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment

...We have some like that too and I agree that 100 feet apart is stupid. Many times I've found all the GCs in an area and a new TC in that area gives me a little extra motivation to revisit that cool area. Anyhow, my point is that most TCs are no better/worse than traditionist GC caches, but for me they are a lot better than GC "numbers" caches.

 

Two of my caches were listed on Navicache to prove a point. The point being Location matters.

One was because 528' away was a parking lot. 380 feet (give or take) was a Rockface that you could climb up.

 

Another was also in a rock face where you climb a crack onto the top of a bench where you are hidden from view by both the park and the road. Rather nice. 100' away is a roadside cache (not a bad roadside cache mind you, but you are visible to traffic) and 300 or so feet to the other side is a cache hidden behind the dog pound.

 

100' can make all the difference and can spawn a non GC.cache because of a better location. Maybe it's rare but it's not unheard of.

Link to comment

I guess for now, for better or worse, THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN! Caching in the Wally World parking lot is more popular. We'll see what the future brings.

I don't look at it this way. There is room for many types of caches and what is probably need are better methods to filter hides so that people have a higher chance of enjoying the caches they do go looking for. The initial adopters of geocaching were people who already had a GPS. These tended to be hikers, hunters, mountain bikers, 4x4 owners, i.e., people already were involved in other outdoor activities. As a result most early caches were hidden off-the-beaten-path. Even so, some people found that you could hide a cache in a local urban park or even at a strip mall. As geocaching grew, it began to attract more of what I call "urban" cachers. For them the idea of finding hidden boxes became primary. Geocaching was no longer something do while on your hike or bike ride. It was now a activity that you would just do. More urban caches were hidden and a higher pecentage of these were park 'n grabs.

 

There have always been some geocachers who prefer hikes and others that prefer urban hide.
It's not a matter of hikes vs. urban caches. I've found many urban/suburban caches that I would

consider "traditionalist". What I would call "non traditionalist" caches are what some call micro spew. That really didn't take off until 2003/2004.

You didn't quote my next sentence.

And a least as long as I've been caching there have always been some who enjoy finding caches just for the sake of finding them (often referred to a just for the smiley) and others who don't care as much about finding the cache as about the adventure of being taken to a new place or area.
This is consistent with what I said above about the early adopter versus the later adopters of geocaching.

 

You start out with mostly hikes because you had a bunch of hikers who had GPS units they didn't know what to do with. You get some people hiding some caches in urban areas but they generally put the cache some place they think is interesting or worth noting, hoping that others will visit the location they have waymarked by placing a cache there. Sometimes it's an historic or scenic area, but I remember finding a cache early on near the dumpster behind the cache owner's business. As the "urbans" adopt caching, they no longer see being taken to an interesting place as a necessary part of geocaching. It is sufficient that there is something to find that non-geocachers don't know about. They don't view microSpew as bad or any cache as particularly lame. Every cache is an opportunity for a hunt (and perhaps a smiley). Still even in areas with a high density of urban micros, you can find hiders that spend time selecting a nicer location - a local park, a plaza with a fountain or sculpture, an historic area - or perhaps they camouflage or hide the cache in some creative way so that you don't mind that its in the Wal*Mart parking lot. The issue for "traditionalists" should be how to select these urban hides from all those that they think are lame.

Link to comment

 

paleolith has recently hidden the Santa Monica Mtns History Adventure (GC18DXW) a challenge cache where you must first find 62 out of the 64 oldest active caches in the Santa Monica Mountains. This list would certainly count as some of the classic caches in your area. Not all are hiking caches, though most are, including a couple of 4.5 star terrain ones.

 

Slightly OT: is the best way to get these caches into my Colorado to send them one by one? How do I use a bookmarked list most efficiently?

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 2
×
×
  • Create New...