Can you hide a Cache too well?

[+crapieflop]

I have been caching since December 2007. So far I have found 100 caches and have hidden 3. Of the 3 that I have hidden I think I might have Hidden two of them too well. I receive e-mails from seasoned cachers saying that they just cant find them and that they give up on looking for anymore of my caches. I thought that this game was about the hunt, not " here are the coords and its out in the open for you to just walk up and see it laying on the ground. " I thought that the G.P.S. was suppose to get you close to the cache not show you where it is hidden. I do hide my caches very well, but I make sure that a person can easily get to the cache and that the kids can join in on the hunt also. Is it possible to hide a cache so well that only one or two people can find it and some people not at all? Here is a copy of a E-mail I received about a cache I hid on the 29th of Aug

 

Ok that's it. I'm not trying for these anymore. I spent over an hour with the wrong shoes on and three other cachers looking for this thing. None of us were newbies. None of us found it. Good luck to anyone else who decides to go for it.

 

I went to check on the cache after I got that E-mail. I re-ajusted the coords to with-in 3ft of the cache and gave a hint that tells everyone excatly where it is and what to look for. In my opinion that just sucked all the fun out of my hidding the cache and for anyone who will be looking for the cache.

[stevev1der]

I think I might have Hidden two of them too well. I receive e-mails from seasoned cachers saying that they just cant find them and that they give up on looking for anymore of my caches. I thought that this game was about the hunt, not " here are the coords and its out in the open for you to just walk up and see it laying on the ground. "

 

This is a good topic.

 

Around here the caches that are disliked the most are the ones "hidden in rocks" or "in the ivy" with approx coords given.

 

There is nothing clever about this kind of hide. To find this cache you just need enough time and energy to check every possible location a cache might be hidden.

 

I like to say a good hide is not hiding a needle in a haystack but hiding an elephant in a haystack. It's just that you can't see the elephant right away.

[+Team GeoBlast]

I have been caching since December 2007. So far I have found 100 caches and have hidden 3. Of the 3 that I have hidden I think I might have Hidden two of them too well. I receive e-mails from seasoned cachers saying that they just cant find them and that they give up on looking for anymore of my caches. I thought that this game was about the hunt, not " here are the coords and its out in the open for you to just walk up and see it laying on the ground. " I thought that the G.P.S. was suppose to get you close to the cache not show you where it is hidden. I do hide my caches very well, but I make sure that a person can easily get to the cache and that the kids can join in on the hunt also. Is it possible to hide a cache so well that only one or two people can find it and some people not at all? Here is a copy of a E-mail I received about a cache I hid on the 29th of Aug

 

Ok that's it. I'm not trying for these anymore. I spent over an hour with the wrong shoes on and three other cachers looking for this thing. None of us were newbies. None of us found it. Good luck to anyone else who decides to go for it.

 

I went to check on the cache after I got that E-mail. I re-ajusted the coords to with-in 3ft of the cache and gave a hint that tells everyone excatly where it is and what to look for. In my opinion that just sucked all the fun out of my hidding the cache and for anyone who will be looking for the cache.

 

This boils down to your own personal style as a hider. Plan your hides with the knowledge that all seekers also have their own style and sometimes your own style is not going to be a match. I do believe that there is a point where you can make a hide too hard and some will stop having fun. It seems as if you have already encountered this.

 

Here are some things that I think about when I hide caches:

• If my cache is really hard to find, what will the impact to the area around the cache be?
  
• If my cache is going to take some searching, will muggles take notice of the seekers?
  
• At what point is the average seeker going to stop having fun?
  
• How comfortable will the seekers be looking for my cache here?
  

Here's a question that you should ask yourself about this experience. How did you feel when you got that email? If this happens frequently, will this be okay with you? For some challenging others to the point of frustration is their own style. It's more about your own style than "how it is supposed to be."

 

For me and my personal style, hiding a cache is a little bit like buying a gift for someone. How much fun will the average seeker have with this? I always tried to keep my caches below the frustration level and have backed off the difficulty in some cases. My goal is the seeker ultimately obtaining a well earned smilely with fun being had by all.

Edited August 31, 2008 by Team GeoBlast

[+Star*Hopper]

There are cache-hunters who, I firmly believe, think they should be able to exit their vehicle, lock their eyes on the GPSr screen, merely follow the needle with their hand outstretched & when the numbers get near THEIR GZ, the cache should be in their hand. And of those, a certain percentage think if it isn't, it's the hider's fault.

 

Hide your caches as you darn well please. For those who decide they don't wanta play - well, that's their decision to make, not mine. Far's I'm concerned, if they say "not playing any more" it tells more about them than it does about me. Just play your game & let them play theirs.

 

Pleasing some of the people some of the time - about all you can hope for.

Pleasing none of the people none of the time - about what you should expect.

Pleasing all of the people all of the time -- HOPELESS!!

 

~*

[Scamp]

I think it *is* possible to hide a cache too well, mainly based on the fact that a cache placed in an environmentally sensitive area might cause harm to the surroundings if it is too well hidden. As a hider, you can't assume that everyone will be delicate when searching for your cache, so you should be careful to hide things in such a way that it won't do any harm. If, however, you're hiding a cache in a spot where rigorous searches won't do any harm to local flora or fauna or anything else of significance, I think being as fiendish as you like is a-ok. There's a rating available for cache difficulty; if people choose to hunt high difficulty caches, they have to expect a well-hidden cache.

Edited August 31, 2008 by Scamp

[Neos2]

You get to decide how to hide your caches. Other cachers get to decide if they like your style of hides.

 

You have to decide if you want people to enjoy finding your caches, or if you prefer to be the one that everyone cusses (while they continue to search for the cache).

 

If you want people to enjoy them, there needs to be some redeeming quality--the more redeeming qualities, the better. Redeeming qualities include (but aren't limited to) a good sturdy container, a great location, a clever hide, good cammo job, easy to understand and interesting cache page/backstory, well maintained logbook, etc.

 

Most folks don't consider needle-in-a-haystack hides to be clever hides. Having to look under 101 rocks for a micro is tedious, not challenging.

 

If it really is a clever hide, most people don't consider it a total spoiler to have some sort of clue that narrows down the places to look. I won't look in the pea gravel if I know I am looking for something larger than a softball. I won't look along the handrail of the fence if I am looking for an ammo box. So tell me how big it is, or that is it hidden in the rocks, or that it blends in with the woodwork--give me something to get me started.

 

If it really is a clever hide, rate it for the cleverness. Don't tell me it's a 1/1 if you think it's going to take me an hour to find it, and I have to have my retractable grabber to get it out of the hollow spot halfway up the tree and I have to have a blacklight to read the combination to open the box.

 

Stealth hides should be fairly easy to retrieve--the challenge there is the stealth, not the difficulty of the hide. If there will always be people around, and stealth is required, don't hide that super clever hide there unless you are willing to have it compromised. And don't be upset when it is compromised. Some cachers will do whatever it takes to find the geocache. Will that put your cache at risk? Sure it will --and even more so if what they have to do is more than palm the cache without anyone noticing.

 

Mostly though, know that any cache can be tweaked a little even after it is hidden. The page can be reworded, the hint changed, the difficulty and terrain adjusted up or down a step, etc. Difficulty rating seems to be the trickiest. It's hard to judge how difficult a cache will be to find when you are hiding it. People usually won't mind hunting a while for a well-rated 3/2, but they resent it if the cache is inaccurately rated a 1/2.

 

We learn how to make better caches by placing them and then listening to the constructive criticism. Try to take it as constructive advice and not to take it personally. Many cachers are not adept at wording their concerns about you cache, and your caches are your "creative babies" so it's difficult to step back and be analytical about the comments you receive, but if you can make yourself do that, you will be able to create better hides.

[+uxorious]

There are some cachers that like easy finds and some that like to search for hard ones. Many of us like both, depending on how much time we have available.

 

If you like to hide ones that are going to be more of a challenge to find, they will be appreciated, but it looks like you have your difficulty levels too low. If I have very little time and just want to grab a couple quick easy caches, it would be frustrating to seek a cache listed as a 1 or 2 difficulty when it should be a 2.5 or higher.

 

If the cache is harder to find, and you set your difficulty level properly, I don't think you will get many complaints.

[+DocDiTTo]

A cache that's hidden WELL isn't impossible to find. It's easy to hide something so that it can never be found, but that's not the point of geocaching. We hide stuff so non-cachers don't find it but cachers can. It sounds like you've created a couple "needle-in-a-haystack" type hides. Personally, I don't like those and a lot of others don't either.

 

It also sounds like your caches are getting a bad rep with some who've looked for them. If the people seeking your cache aren't having fun, perhaps you need to reconsider why you're hiding caches in the first place. Is it to prove you can hide something no one can find, or is it to provide a fun hunt for your fellow cachers?

[+K7CJS]

I think I might have Hidden two of them too well. I receive e-mails from seasoned cachers saying that they just cant find them and that they give up on looking for anymore of my caches. I thought that this game was about the hunt, not " here are the coords and its out in the open for you to just walk up and see it laying on the ground. "

 

This is a good topic.

 

Around here the caches that are disliked the most are the ones "hidden in rocks" or "in the ivy" with approx coords given.

 

There is nothing clever about this kind of hide. To find this cache you just need enough time and energy to check every possible location a cache might be hidden.

 

I like to say a good hide is not hiding a needle in a haystack but hiding an elephant in a haystack. It's just that you can't see the elephant right away.

 

Very well said about the elephant - I really like that!!! . I want to enjoy hunting and looking thru those rock piles is not only not fun but it's a lame excuse for a hide IMHO.

 

AND not everyone needs to be hiding caches. I won't be hiding unless I can be proud of my hide (no pun intended ).

Edited August 31, 2008 by GVJeeper

[+briansnat]

I like to hide my caches so they are not obvious to passersby, but won't be too difficult for someone who is actually looking for them. Others want to make the find a challenge.

 

Either way is fine, it's up to the owner. Just rate it properly and you shouldn't have any issues.

[+J-Way]

As others have said, make sure you rate accordingly. Your latest cache is rated a 3-star difficulty, and the FTF was 2 days after listing. That actually sounds appropriate for around my area, but I don't know what the norm is where you live. Maybe bump it up a half star or so if people keep complaining... I'd rather have one that was slightly over-rated than slightly underrated.

 

One local to me was rated as a 4-star difficulty and had several posted DNF's before a huge group descended on it after an event for the FTF (19 days later). Normal FTF time around here is within a few hours of listing.

 

Some people like hard to find caches like this, some people don't. Even "expert cachers" have bad luck at the occasional find; maybe if that group went back on a different day they'd walk right up to it. And maybe their vast experience is in finding film cans under a lamp post skirt or ammo cans under large piles of sticks.

 

Also, different topic, but I noticed that you put updated coordinates in the description. First, anything within 15-ft is fairly good, and will vary from day to day. Second, you need to update the listed coordinates because lots of cachers never bother to read the description while hunting (mass download and out the door... gotta get those smileys!!). It's easy: go to the cache page and click "Log your visit". Beside "Type of Log" click the drop-down menu and select "Update Coordinates", then click the "Add a waypoint to the log" box and enter the new coordinates.

Edited August 31, 2008 by J-Way

[+crapieflop]

A cache that's hidden WELL isn't impossible to find. It's easy to hide something so that it can never be found, but that's not the point of geocaching. We hide stuff so non-cachers don't find it but cachers can. It sounds like you've created a couple "needle-in-a-haystack" type hides. Personally, I don't like those and a lot of others don't either.

 

It also sounds like your caches are getting a bad rep with some who've looked for them. If the people seeking your cache aren't having fun, perhaps you need to reconsider why you're hiding caches in the first place. Is it to prove you can hide something no one can find, or is it to provide a fun hunt for your fellow cachers?

 

I play the game because I enjoy the hunt. Im not looking for just another number. The cache's I hide are challanging and cammo'ed. I rate the cache's properly. What I beleive is that these complainers are just looking for another number NOT the thrill of the find. They are unhappy because they feel that they wasted their time looking for somthing that should have just popped out and said "here I am" Easy to find caches are for people who are just lookig for numbers and it breaks the spirit of the game. I carefully Plan my hides, scout out places that are easy to get to and I make it kid friendly. These complainers are looking for a hand out and have forgotten the true meaning of the hunt.

Crapieflop

[+wigglesworth]

The game for me is the walk in a pleasant place, which I probably would not be doing if it was not for caching.

 

We have been caching for many years and in the early days caches were not hidden as cunningly nor did we have the aray of micros and nanos we have now. I recall that there was an unofficial guideline that the cache was visible (JUST). Sometimes you had to be viewing from the correct angle but there was always a tell tale sign!

[+off-camber]

In my short time with this hobby I have discovered one thing....if you hide a cache in spring or late fall your cache may be really hard to find come summer....why? things grow....with all the rain we have had I have noticed many locales heavily over grown....one I gave up on because I didn't want to trample all the vegetation in search of the cache. So I guess you can hide it to well but when you do hide consider the area and how it may change over the seasons.....

Edited August 31, 2008 by off-camber

[+pokerace]

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...da-0bcbbd605c0b

 

GCWBJX

 

try this one 22 DNF there were four of us hunting and we DNF next day it was found. I just can't think right some times.

[+uxorious]

I rate the cache's properly. What I beleive is that these complainers are just looking for another number NOT the thrill of the find.

 

If you really feel you rated the cache's properly, why did you go back and rate them higher after reading some of the responses on the forum.

 

What I beleive is that these complainers are just looking for another number NOT the thrill of the find.

 

Wow another newbie, that thinks anyone that plays different, is wrong. If you had these caches rated properly to begin with you might not have gotten any complaints. Now you go in and change the difficulties and call other cachers complainers. Well we know who the complainer is now don't we?

 

These complainers are looking for a hand out and have forgotten the true meaning of the hunt.

While hard to find caches are fun for some, you are being a little self centered to say that is the true meaning of the hunt. That never has been the "true" meaning of this game, just one little part of it for some.

[+crapieflop]

I rate the cache's properly. What I beleive is that these complainers are just looking for another number NOT the thrill of the find.

 

If you really feel you rated the cache's properly, why did you go back and rate them higher after reading some of the responses on the forum.

 

What I beleive is that these complainers are just looking for another number NOT the thrill of the find.

 

Wow another newbie, that thinks anyone that plays different, is wrong. If you had these caches rated properly to begin with you might not have gotten any complaints. Now you go in and change the difficulties and call other cachers complainers. Well we know who the complainer is now don't we?

 

These complainers are looking for a hand out and have forgotten the true meaning of the hunt.

While hard to find caches are fun for some, you are being a little self centered to say that is the true meaning of the hunt. That never has been the "true" meaning of this game, just one little part of it for some.

[/quote

 

After reading a few responses from the forum I thought about my rating and decided that I was too soft on the rating and I raised the bar. By the way other people have found the cache since I made my first post and before I changed the rating. So I stand by my complainer remark. Also I dont think that people who play differnt are wrong they can play how ever they like. For myself the thrill of the find is the true meaning of the hunt and you calling me " A little self centered " was a little out of line, but we all have opinions and yours is worth as much as mine..

[+TropicalParadise]

The game for me is the walk in a pleasant place, which I probably would not be doing if it was not for caching.

 

Me too! For instance today I walked down this road that I would never have gone down otherwise, and saw all these beautiful mansions that I never knew existed. (I'm one of those people who loves to look at big houses and dream).

 

Another thing to consider, crapie, is that your descriptions of the cache aren't very detailed. One only says 'No room for trade, log book only'. Why not describe why you put the cache there? If it was historical or a beautiful place or has some meaning to you. That way, even if people STILL do not find the cache, they might not feel so negatively about it, because they got to see something pretty they wouldn't have normally, or learned about something they might not have known about otherwise. Most people wouldn't go so out of their way to complain if you bring them to a good spot. They still get something out of it.

 

If you can't get an elephant in a haystack, why not try for a needle in a field of flowers?

[+cpine]

There are cache-hunters who, I firmly believe, think they should be able to exit their vehicle, lock their eyes on the GPSr screen, merely follow the needle with their hand outstretched & when the numbers get near THEIR GZ, the cache should be in their hand. And of those, a certain percentage think if it isn't, it's the hider's fault.

 

Hide your caches as you darn well please. For those who decide they don't wanta play - well, that's their decision to make, not mine. Far's I'm concerned, if they say "not playing any more" it tells more about them than it does about me. Just play your game & let them play theirs.

 

Pleasing some of the people some of the time - about all you can hope for.

Pleasing none of the people none of the time - about what you should expect.

Pleasing all of the people all of the time -- HOPELESS!!

 

~*

 

I agree with this. there have been caches that I just could not find... so I emailed the owner or in one case the person who last found it (Did not get reply from owner) and they have without exception gave me a clue and I eventally fond it. Again hide your caches as you please and if some don't liek it well then thats there choice!

 

Chris (new to geocaching but hooked for sure! )

[+Headhardhat]

From my own personal experience it is better to first put out some caches that are relatively easy to find. The reason being that the hider gets a thrill out of the number of findes they create. This is exciting and encourages us to want to do more. As time goes by and you figure out the types of hides you like to find yourself and the types of hides you really want to put out there, then you can start getting more clever. I am actually getting to this point but with so many cachers that know my hides they will adapt to the harder challenges. In fact they have actually started requesting more difficult challenges and I am happy to comply.

 

My point, if you are starting out hiding caches you may not want to make them real zingers. That also goes with multi's and mystery caches. Most cachers shy away from them and you will get less finds. It does not mean never do them but if you want to see a bunch of finds on your hinds, go the route that people like to search for. Then drive'm crazy.

 

-HHH

[+va griz]

To me it makes sense to TRY and hide the kind of caches you would like to find. In my case that means the "hidden from muggles but findable by cachers" sort of hides. I consider those clever even if difficult to find. Of course it's up to the finders to really be the judge of the hide.

 

So are your caches the sort you would like to find? The reason I ask is you mentioned that you found all that you have looked for. It seems if you were looking for the difficult challenges you would bump into the occasional DNF. And last, please updat the listed coords, not just note them in the description.

[+CapeDoc]

Hide as well as you like, but give accurate coordinates. I agree that needle in haystack hides are just plain silly.

[+Harry Dolphin]

I thought that the G.P.S. was suppose to get you close to the cache not show you where it is hidden.

 

I think this is the part that bothered me. The coordinates for the cache should be as accurate as you can make them. They should not be deliberately off. It sounds as though you have corrected that problem.

As to whether cachers choose not to look for your caches (or mine) in the future, that's their problem, not mine. If your hides are needle-in-a-haystack hides, then I'd probably ignore your caches too. If they're well-hidden, clever hides, then I'd look forward to finding them

[+tlbeers]

I think it is up to the cacher is looking for the cache, are they in for the numbers or the fun of the hunt??? On Okinawa we had a cacher that love to hide caches in SAW TOOTH PALMETTO TREES/BUSHES. They are no longer station here but those trees hurt. Or try to find a white cache in white coral rock, with the cords off because of bounce.

 

Happy caching around the world

Edited September 1, 2008 by tlbeers

[+DocDiTTo]

 

I play the game because I enjoy the hunt. Im not looking for just another number. The cache's I hide are challanging and cammo'ed. I rate the cache's properly. What I beleive is that these complainers are just looking for another number NOT the thrill of the find. They are unhappy because they feel that they wasted their time looking for somthing that should have just popped out and said "here I am" Easy to find caches are for people who are just lookig for numbers and it breaks the spirit of the game. I carefully Plan my hides, scout out places that are easy to get to and I make it kid friendly. These complainers are looking for a hand out and have forgotten the true meaning of the hunt.

Crapieflop

 

I think some of the best caches are the kind that are "hidden in plain sight". Anyone can see them, but few recognize them for what they are. I love caches like that. Yes, they can be frustrating at times, but they're the kind I'll return to again and again until I figure them out. Unfortunately, too few caches are hidden like that anymore...

 

On the other hand those "needle/haystack" hides that no one can find without a lot of time and luck aren't fun. If I encounter an overwhelming sense of futility while seeking a cache, I'll leave and most likely won't return.

 

Striking a balance between "hard" and "fun" is key, but I've learned over time that "fun" trumps "hard".

At the end of the day, caching should be fun for you as a hider and for those who have hunted your cache. If that's not the case, then something should be changed. It's up to you to figure out what.

[rogheff]

The answer to your question is YES, you can hide a cache that's too hard to find. Cachers who don't read the cache description or ratings will go try to find every cache in a given area, then log nasty notes about your cache.

 

Hide the caches however you want to hide them. Give descriptions how you like to give them. Give hints how YOU like to give them.

 

Be very accurate in your cache rating. If people complain about not being able to find a 4 or 5 star difficulty cache, then too bad. They're supposed to be difficult to find. If you want to place a cache that's an easy walk up, then place a 1 star difficulty cache.

 

Place them your way.

Edited September 1, 2008 by rogheff

[Dinoprophet]

Thing is, on one of those caches, the first four logs are DNFs, followed by "Oops, it's missing". It then has a few more DNFs. I don't mind a tough find, but with that history, I would want a *lot* of reassurance that it was even there before I spent any time looking for it. And fair or not, people are likely to give your other caches a little extra scrutiny because of that one.

[+Blaidd-Drwg]

I thought that the G.P.S. was suppose to get you close to the cache not show you where it is hidden.

 

I re-ajusted the coords to with-in 3ft of the cache and gave a hint that tells everyone excatly where it is and what to look for.

 

Since geocaching started the day SA was turned off, I believe the intent of the activity is to provide as accurate as possible coordinates for the hide. If close were good enough, this game could have started years before it did. There is no excuse (except mystery caches) for giving coordinates that are intentionally inaccurate.

[+buttaskotch]

From reading the logs, it appeared that some newbie cachers completely trashed the area, which I find, personally disturbing.

That is not in the spirit of the game not is it enviromentally friendly. We must leave no trace when we cache, there are a few times that I found shrubs literally turned up because a cacher took it upon himself to pull them up from the roots to shake the cache out.

I think you really should add to the cache description a little bit more about the area, ask that people don't turn up everything in their path, and with a 3 difficulty, I personally feel something about the hiding spot be revealed. Something like "near the tree with the weird markings" that way newbie cachers or children won't trash and everything in sight

[+wigglesworth]

if the area is 'trashed' as a result of multiple cachers (newbie or not) attempting to find a cache there is a real problem. The problem though is that the cache is in the wrong place. When designing a cache the cache setter is responsihbel for assessing the area and the likely damage.

 

The cache should be located where there is no danger of damage. If this cannot be avoided then the damage can be prevented by a well written cache description describing what steps the seeker should take.

 

We cannot blame the seekers for a wrongly placed cache!!

[+wimseyguy]

Quotes from some of my local geo-pals:

"Anyone can hide a cache that no one can find. Great hiders place hides that are difficult, but can be found."

"When we first started playing this game, it was all about hiding our caches from muggles. Now we hide them from each other as well."

I also like the line about the elephant in the haystack.

 

Yes, you can hide a cache too well. It all depends on what you want out of this game as a hider. Some of mine are harder to find than others. I've even posted a DNF on one of my own when I wasn't able to find it on a maintenance run, but it was found the next day.

 

LBC-I suspect that 'under rocks' isn't really a very helpful hint in your terrain. I don't understand why the better coords aren't the posted ones-what's the point of posting soft coords unless you don't want your caches found.

LA-I'm puzzled why you have selected 'other' as the size but suggest a need for tweezers in the text. I read that as a pico or nano, with should be listed as a micro.

 

One of the greatest things about geocaching is that there is something out there for everyone. If you want to be the hider that frustrates many and has a rep for hard to find caches-great go for it. Just don't complain when your caches don't get looked for as often as the others nearby.

[+wapahani]

I've got 2 type of hides that I do.

One is just a regular LockNLock type hide that most generally EVERYONE can find withing 10 minutes of starting.

The other are called "EVIL" hides. I have 4 of them, and they are different levels of EVIL in how they are hid.

3 of the 4 have been found, while one hasn't been.

None of them are "needles in a haystack" but they are almost TOO OBVIOUS and that seems to make them more difficult to find.

 

I've learned that most ways of hiding in Caching are already used. I've often found that after a period of time, most cachers have a preconceived notion on what a cache will be when they arrive. Sometimes hiding it in the most obvious spot can be the easiest way to confuse them!

 

One cacher after they found one of my evil hides called me "The king of obvious". I had to chuckle, but it is true.

[CoyoteRed]

I thought that this game was about the hunt, not " here are the coords and its out in the open for you to just walk up and see it laying on the ground. "

Umm... A 1 star cache is exactly that. If you read the description of a one star difficulty it says it's pretty much in the open or in an obvious place. If the hobby was all about the hunt, then the easiest cache would not start at where it does now. It would start with completely hidden from view and takes some time to find. In other words, you thought wrong.

 

I thought that the G.P.S. was suppose to get you close to the cache not show you where it is hidden.

A GPS can't show you where it is. It should take you to the spot that both units, the hider and the seeker, can reasonably point you to. Depending on how much effort both put into it this can be around +- 6' with consumer-grade hand held units. (Though the standard tolerated by the community due to time and effort is around 50' on the outside.)

 

I took a look at your three caches. It looks like only one I would enjoy from looking at aerial photos and that is one at the pond. The others, if I attempted at all, would probably receive maybe a few minutes of look time before going on my ignore list.

 

Before you jump up and down about how we hide caches follow the appropriate links to see our caches. We do have urban caches, none are micros. One received "Best Camo" award for this state twice and it's a SAW can that folks walk within inches of and never know it's there.

 

When I'm seeking a cache I want it to be fun. It can be tedious, work, hard, painful, all those things, but it absolutely has to be fun or I'm going to move on to something else.

 

Can you hide a cache too well? No. But that's not really a complete answer to an incomplete question. Many folks above have given good answers to the question that should have been asked.

[+crapieflop]

I have been caching since December 2007. So far I have found 100 caches and have hidden 3. Of the 3 that I have hidden I think I might have Hidden two of them too well. I receive e-mails from seasoned cachers saying that they just cant find them and that they give up on looking for anymore of my caches. I thought that this game was about the hunt, not " here are the coords and its out in the open for you to just walk up and see it laying on the ground. " I thought that the G.P.S. was suppose to get you close to the cache not show you where it is hidden. I do hide my caches very well, but I make sure that a person can easily get to the cache and that the kids can join in on the hunt also. Is it possible to hide a cache so well that only one or two people can find it and some people not at all? Here is a copy of a E-mail I received about a cache I hid on the 29th of Aug

 

Ok that's it. I'm not trying for these anymore. I spent over an hour with the wrong shoes on and three other cachers looking for this thing. None of us were newbies. None of us found it. Good luck to anyone else who decides to go for it.

 

I went to check on the cache after I got that E-mail. I re-ajusted the coords to with-in 3ft of the cache and gave a hint that tells everyone excatly where it is and what to look for. In my opinion that just sucked all the fun out of my hidding the cache and for anyone who will be looking for the cache.

 

Thankyou to everyone who has posted a reply. I have read all and I now have an understanding about what I might have done, should have done or will definitly do when I place another cache. All of your comments and opinions were very helpful (even the ones I did'nt like ) Like some of you have said I am still new to this game and I still have a lot to learn about playing it. although it hard to predict what style of cache most cachers enjoy to find I beleive that all of your opinions have given me a new direction and a better way to think about the way I play the game. I understand that we all play differnt and this great game means something differnt to each of us. In the end all that really matters is that we all have Fun..This is my last post on this topic. I will Definitly post a new topic when I have another question. Once again thankyou to all for your help.

[CoyoteRed]

I've learned that most ways of hiding in Caching are already used. I've often found that after a period of time, most cachers have a preconceived notion on what a cache will be when they arrive. Sometimes hiding it in the most obvious spot can be the easiest way to confuse them!

...or hiding a SAW can in a spot most would hide a micro will confound those who love micros. Had one group with many thousands of finds between them come up empty and one insinuated that if they couldn't find it then...

[Neos2]

LBC-I suspect that 'under rocks' isn't really a very helpful hint in your terrain. I don't understand why the better coords aren't the posted ones-what's the point of posting soft coords unless you don't want your caches found.

LA-I'm puzzled why you have selected 'other' as the size but suggest a need for tweezers in the text. I read that as a pico or nano, with should be listed as a micro.

I can think of a reason to list a nano as an "other" and tell people to bring tweezers: If the nano is camouflaged inside a much large container. It's misleading to list it as a micro. And misleading in a way that may cause needless damage to the area.

 

Looking everywhere for something tiny, when you should be looking for something larger sometimes leads to folks to trashing the area (Not that there is any excuse for that type of wanton destruction). In that case, listing it as "unknown" and implying that the log is tiny should be a clue that there may be something interesting about the camouflage on the cache.

 

Soft coords? There is no reason to deliberately create fuzzy coords for a cache. The GPS units we use are not that sensitive. Even the best will only get you in the general area of the cache. Ten to twenty feet accuracy is about as good as it gets most days. Double that number, because both the hider and the searcher have that amount of error, and that's a big area to search for a small container. If I figure out a cacher in my area is deliberately putting out soft coords, their caches immediately go on my ignore list! A good hide does not depend on poor coords to be challenging.

 

If you (the generic you, not just the OP) need to add more accurate coords, update the coords that appear at the top of the page. Chose "edit" the cache and there will be a link that says you can change the coords with a log. It creates a new log that specifies both the old and new coords and it changes the coords at the top of the page. That way people who read the cache page at home or on their PDA will be able to tell whether they have the old or the new coords.

[Neos2]

Thankyou to everyone who has posted a reply. I have read all and I now have an understanding about what I might have done, should have done or will definitly do when I place another cache. All of your comments and opinions were very helpful (even the ones I did'nt like ) Like some of you have said I am still new to this game and I still have a lot to learn about playing it. although it hard to predict what style of cache most cachers enjoy to find I beleive that all of your opinions have given me a new direction and a better way to think about the way I play the game. I understand that we all play differnt and this great game means something differnt to each of us. In the end all that really matters is that we all have Fun..This is my last post on this topic. I will Definitly post a new topic when I have another question. Once again thankyou to all for your help.

Graciously put. Have fun...and here's hoping all your caches are ones that everyone near you will want to put on their favorites list.

 

(Edited to take out a stray letter

Edited September 1, 2008 by Neos2

[+GallifreyStands]

So I have a multi, and the 1st stage is VERY easy to find.....its a film canister jetting out from a tree horizontally AT EYE LEVEL.....several cachers have already found this (i was with 3 of them when they found every stage!)..... but this person (who probably uses a magellan) has over 8,000 finds and I was surprised at the response I got after giving him a hint....

 

"--==>nycdancerboi had this to say: Go back to stage 1 (in regards to my multi cache) and Look on the North side of the tree to the right of the bench and look on the right side of the tree... AND BAM! stage 1!<==--

 

==> ANONYMOUS had this to say: Thanks for the hint, but, no I won't retry Douglas and Elizabeth Abbott's Cache because I don't trust your coordinates. Your description puts the redirector about 50 feet from where my GPSr zeroed out. If the remaining stages of Abbott's are as far off I would just be wasting time."

 

Am I just over reacting to think this was kind of rude??? Clearly this person is about the numbers and not the find..... Plenty of others have found this no problem (p.s. its on the ONLY tree in the friggin park!!!!!)

[Clan Riffster]

I thought that the G.P.S. was suppose to get you close to the cache not show you where it is hidden.

I'll echo the sentiments expressed by many others: On those occasions when I determine a hider is deliberately using "soft" coords, (intentionally posting inaccurate coords), I'll place every one of their caches in my ignore file.

 

Having said that, I'll hop down from my soap box.

 

Hide what you like to find, and live with the results. If needle in a haystack is your kind of hunt, drop a film can in the middle of 100 acres of saw palmetto and pat yourself on the back for creating a challenge. If creating hides that are fun for the majority is more your style, adjust accordingly.

[+GallifreyStands]

I've never heard of "soft coordinates" I always set the gpsr on top of the cache and leave it for about 30 seconds and usually take 3 readings to be safe...

[Neos2]

I've never heard of "soft coordinates" I always set the gpsr on top of the cache and leave it for about 30 seconds and usually take 3 readings to be safe...

We do something similar...We let one reading average for several minutes and take three or more additional readings. (On a good day with a low accuracy reading, we take three more, on a day with wild fluctuations or larger accuracy numbers we take more--and we go back another day to double check). We always walk away from the cache and come back between readings, too. That can make a difference.

 

If all the coord reading are close, we go with the ones from the averaged reading. If they vary quite a bit, we recheck another day. If most are close, we throw out the outliers and average the ones that are near each other. We get compliments on our good coords, so it must work. To be honest, now that we have the gps that averages (a 60 CSx), we've found that the averaged reading is usually right on the mark.

 

But soft coords...

 

Well, there was this joker around here that thought it was "too easy" to find a geocache if the coords were good, since (in his words) "the gps take you right to the cache". So he deliberately changed coords by 20 to 40 feet in some random direction for each of his caches. "Just to make things more interesting" he said at an event.

 

We were not interested.

 

Apparently others weren't either. Only a few folks searched for his caches, and most of them only went after a few of them before getting bored with searching an acre or more for each cache. He eventually stopped caching and I can't tell you when because none of us noticed. Now that is pretty sad.

[+TropicalParadise]

Am I just over reacting to think this was kind of rude??? Clearly this person is about the numbers and not the find..... Plenty of others have found this no problem (p.s. its on the ONLY tree in the friggin park!!!!!)

 

It was kind of rude, but some people who are very good and very experienced at something think that they can't do anything wrong. It can't possibly be THEM that made a mistake. Think of a grandmaster chess player who gets beat by a kid - "Oh it's just luck, they didn't do anything special it was just by chance, a few lucky moves". If they are that rude when you try to help them out geocaching, they're probably rude in other areas of life, and so I wouldn't worry too much about them. Leave them to be so nasty to people.

[+GallifreyStands]

Am I just over reacting to think this was kind of rude??? Clearly this person is about the numbers and not the find..... Plenty of others have found this no problem (p.s. its on the ONLY tree in the friggin park!!!!!)

 

It was kind of rude, but some people who are very good and very experienced at something think that they can't do anything wrong. It can't possibly be THEM that made a mistake. Think of a grandmaster chess player who gets beat by a kid - "Oh it's just luck, they didn't do anything special it was just by chance, a few lucky moves". If they are that rude when you try to help them out geocaching, they're probably rude in other areas of life, and so I wouldn't worry too much about them. Leave them to be so nasty to people.

 

That's all i needed to hear so I know im not crazy!

[CoyoteRed]

I've never heard of "soft coordinates" I always set the gpsr on top of the cache and leave it for about 30 seconds and usually take 3 readings to be safe...

Do you know that technique is accurate? If you come back on another day and try it again do you get very similar results? 30 seconds might not be long enough. An electronic location (versus physical location) drifts fairly slowing. I doubt you're getting a good center with only 30 seconds. Averaging should take place over several minutes to get the signal time to drift around the physical location.

 

Funny that you make a crack at Magellan, but if you look at that person's gallery (I think I have the right person) he uses a Garmin.

 

I haven't tried it with my new Garmin, but did this with my Magellan before the WAAS bird change. I experimented with taking readings in my backyard. A fellow cacher and forum user mentioned a technique that I started using and was able to get readings repeatable ±0.001 minutes--that's about an arm's span.

 

No soft coords please.

[+va griz]

a technique that I started using and was able to get readings repeatable ±0.001 minutes

 

If that's repeatable over the span of days I would like to try it. Can you direct me to a copy of the method? I average over a couple minutes, and a week later the same GPSr will say that waymark is 10 feet off. I try to average the averages over time, but that's not always possible. Thanks, Griz

[CoyoteRed]

a technique that I started using and was able to get readings repeatable ±0.001 minutes

If that's repeatable over the span of days I would like to try it. Can you direct me to a copy of the method? I average over a couple minutes, and a week later the same GPSr will say that waymark is 10 feet off. I try to average the averages over time, but that's not always possible. Thanks, Griz

Here's how I did it with the SporTrak. You must note, though, that the older Magellan no longer get WAAS so this technique no longer works for them.

 

In a basic nutshell, you let your GPS unit auto-average for 15-20 minutes with good satellite geometry. You need to let it average longer in less-than-ideal situations. How you do this is dependent on your unit. With the SporTraks you had to let it average for about 5 minutes, break the averaging and then let it average for about 15-20 minutes. The reason is the SporTraks and some of the other Magellans averaged the coords even when not sitting still. This caused a "sling shot effect" a lot of folks didn't like.

 

The best thing is to experiment in your back yard to see what works best for your unit. Sissy is in Hawaii with our Garmin so I won't be able to start with my experiments for a couple more weeks. I plan on doing it just for the peace of mind so I know my coords are as accurate as I can make them.

[+wigglesworth]

Rather than standing in one place to get coords it is sometmes necessary to take readings from a small area to take account of trees, rocks etc. The calculate the best coords.

Remember that every body will be expecting these coords to be perfect when searching. How often wen searching have you got to within 3m and expected to find the cache exactly there!

[+fox-and-the-hound]

Back OT... it's a great question and one we've asked ourselves a couple times. When we first started setting caches I think we surprised some of the local vets because they had to look 2 or 3 times to find them. We had some interesting feedback, but in the end some of these same people rave about those caches now. So don't worry about the bad hype. Rate accordingly, give good coords and let everyone play their own way. While you might get less hits, your cache will probably last without issues for much longer, too.

[+GallifreyStands]

I've never heard of "soft coordinates" I always set the gpsr on top of the cache and leave it for about 30 seconds and usually take 3 readings to be safe...

Do you know that technique is accurate? If you come back on another day and try it again do you get very similar results? 30 seconds might not be long enough. An electronic location (versus physical location) drifts fairly slowing. I doubt you're getting a good center with only 30 seconds. Averaging should take place over several minutes to get the signal time to drift around the physical location.

 

Funny that you make a crack at Magellan, but if you look at that person's gallery (I think I have the right person) he uses a Garmin.

 

I haven't tried it with my new Garmin, but did this with my Magellan before the WAAS bird change. I experimented with taking readings in my backyard. A fellow cacher and forum user mentioned a technique that I started using and was able to get readings repeatable ±0.001 minutes--that's about an arm's span.

 

No soft coords please.

 

I do go back and check a few days later (usually as soon as its published) and they're still dead on! (although i've only hid one with heavy tree cover so maybe thats why, all the rest are fairly clear views of the sky!)

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Back OT... it's a great question and one we've asked ourselves a couple times. When we first started setting caches I think we surprised some of the local vets because they had to look 2 or 3 times to find them. We had some interesting feedback, but in the end some of these same people rave about those caches now. So don't worry about the bad hype. Rate accordingly, give good coords and let everyone play their own way. While you might get less hits, your cache will probably last without issues for much longer, too.

 

Placing a cache that is very difficult to find is not all that hard. Just find a spot that has lots of potential hiding places (like a large field of rocks), choose a container that can fit in many different spots, and combine it with an environment which produces a low accuracy for a GPS (i.e. heavy tree cover, a deep canyon). Placing a cache that is very difficult to find *despite* the availability of good reception and a limited number of hiding spots and you've got a much more interesting cache that is likely going to get favorable reviews.