MrPloppy Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 I hope you all don't mind a "geocashette" (that is someone new to this geocaching lark! ) joining in with his twopenneth. For me, geocaching offers the opportunity to go out walking with a purpose in mind - this is, at least, my stance when I'm trying to get the kids out. They certainly love it, and I love the walking. While I remain certainly a new chap at all this, I cannot see the argument for trying to get as many as one can. I wouldn't have thought that was the point, surely? Its like climbing a mountain - you climb a mountain to reach the top and enjoy the journey - not, perhaps, to add one to your mountain climb list. In this respect, while mini-caches may not be ideal, they are certainly better than nothing, right? And once you've found them, you've reached the top of the mountain (or hill in this case), and enjoyed the journey to get there. I've certainly found little areas I didn't know about right on my doorstep as a result of geocaching, and while something like 80% of my small number of caches I've got are mini-caches, I've enjoyed every one of them. However, having said all that, I can see how certain caches would stick in the mind. One of the ones I've found had a big surprise where it was hid which made me and kids jump back. This one was brilliant, and I said so, but the cache was still a minicache. Having read all the posts on here, I've thought long and hard about my first caches that I will put down. I will try and put them down with this criteria in mind, which is my thought on what constitutes the best caches: 1. Put a few down which follow a trail. 2. It doesn't matter if most are minicaches... 3. ...but the walker should be rewarded with something at the end. 4. Make some of them unique - something people will remember them for. This way, I hope that the second of the OP's points wouldn't be a problem; that people won't just write "TFTC" at the end, but something a little more detailed - online. As I say, just my twopenneth worth. Probably all wrong...! MrP. Quote Link to comment
+*mouse* Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 Having read all the posts on here, I've thought long and hard about my first caches that I will put down. I will try and put them down with this criteria in mind, which is my thought on what constitutes the best caches: 1. Put a few down which follow a trail. 2. It doesn't matter if most are minicaches... 3. ...but the walker should be rewarded with something at the end. 4. Make some of them unique - something people will remember them for. This way, I hope that the second of the OP's points wouldn't be a problem; that people won't just write "TFTC" at the end, but something a little more detailed - online. As I say, just my twopenneth worth. Probably all wrong...! MrP. There's no right or wrong - we're always going to have people with different opinions. Personally the only one of your points that would make my criteria for a best cache is the 4th one (that's not to say either of us is right or wrong, just that we like different things). To me the best caches stand alone and are not part of a trail. I'm more likely to forget a trail. Size is important to me and I like to see the biggest container that can be accommodated - I see trading and travel bugs as an integral part of caching and micros and nano's inhibit this. I will always find a imaginative cache better than a film pot. Maybe we should all take a pledge not to use film pots or magnetic nanos anymore - then I'm sure things would improve as micros would either become more imaginative or be replaced with bigger boxes! Quote Link to comment
+Bill D (wwh) Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 I've just looked through the nearest 50 caches to my home co-ords, and 33 are micros. That's 66% micros. Almost two out of every three! But wait... Four of those 50 are virtuals - if I only count the nearest 50 containers then 34 are micros - 68%, or just over two out of every three... I've placed 12 caches of my own, some sadly now archived. Of those 12, one is a virtual and one was a locationless. Of the other ten, the physical containers, only two are micros, and each of those is a micro because each location is a "must visit" spot, and anything larger than a micro would be impossible, and offsets are not realistic at those spots. So of my own hidden containers, 20% are micros - just one in five. Quote Link to comment
+ITCHYthirdEYE Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 I'M SURE THIS HAS BEEN SAID BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT A CACHE ONLINE IT TELLS YOU WHAT SIZE IT IS, IF YOU DON'T LIKE MICROS DON'T DO THEM! WHAT IS COMPLICATED ABOUT IT?? Quote Link to comment
+keehotee Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 I'M SURE THIS HAS BEEN SAID BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT A CACHE ONLINE IT TELLS YOU WHAT SIZE IT IS, IF YOU DON'T LIKE MICROS DON'T DO THEM! WHAT IS COMPLICATED ABOUT IT?? If micros everywhere is what you are used to because it's the only caching you've ever known (in the last 2 months), nothing is complicated. However, not all micros are labelled as micros...... Quote Link to comment
+currykev Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 Caching = find container + sign log....then move on to next cache. Forums = gain info / meet and chat with fellow cachers / whinge. Quote Link to comment
+currykev Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 However, not all micros are labelled as micros...... oh yes they are! Quote Link to comment
+keehotee Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 (edited) .. Edited April 3, 2009 by keehotee Quote Link to comment
+keehotee Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 oh yes they are! All together now - Oh no they're not.... LGMS 1 LGMS 2 all the way to LGMS 24 Quote Link to comment
+Pharisee Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 I'M SURE THIS HAS BEEN SAID BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT A CACHE ONLINE IT TELLS YOU WHAT SIZE IT IS, IF YOU DON'T LIKE MICROS DON'T DO THEM! WHAT IS COMPLICATED ABOUT IT?? OK.... we get the message. Would you like to stop shouting now? Quote Link to comment
+currykev Posted April 5, 2009 Share Posted April 5, 2009 oh yes they are! All together now - Oh no they're not.... LGMS 1 LGMS 2 all the way to LGMS 24 Surely as an experienced cacher you know what an X in the size box means? Micro / Nano alert !! Quote Link to comment
+drdick&vick Posted April 5, 2009 Share Posted April 5, 2009 Caching = find container + sign log....then move on to next cache. Forums = gain info / meet and chat with fellow cachers / whinge. Yup that's about it for me as well. I don't like puzzle caches but would not dream of moaning about them, I just make sure that my PQ does not include them. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
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.