wasting great Swag cache space with Micros or small

[+TeamFiestyMidgets]

Thanks to all of those that gave your opinions and weren't just plain rude....Mushtang...thanks for bringing out the rude in me. For the record, I believe Clan Riffster disagreed and showed me up and I wasn't mad at him. I just don't think you see or want to see the point....

[+tozainamboku]

THE POINT OF THE THREAD is placing 10 micros in the same woods to use up all the space that seems more appropriate for a mix of caches....micros some ammo boxes....small ones...very large ones.....not 10 micros in one woods.

And the point of most of the replies that you've disagreed with is that if you're disappointed in some of the caches that are hidden you can either blame yourself for not hiding bigger caches first, or get over it and only search for the caches that are bigger.

 

You know that if you filter out micros from your PQ you'll completely avoid the micro saturation you're upset about. You'll get to go on hikes and search in parks and only find big containers. And then when you and your husband decide that you want to grab a few micros that you love then you can load the PQ that includes them.

 

It's almost as easy to avoid the over saturation of micros as it is to complain about it.

I suggest Mushtang go back and re-read the OP. (I'll quote it here to save you the trouble).

Ok....So I first want to say I am sure I am going to be beaten with a trekking pole for even saying such a thing, but as a new geocacher I want to get others opinons.

 

Recently, we took a hike in a beautiful woods for a specific cache upon looking at the area, we realized that several MICRO caches were hidden in this beautiful woods (which ironically in a fairly urban city) would have been perfect for larger ammo boxes and big caches. Being the mom of boys that love to cache, becase they want to trade, maybe I am just jaded. But I get a little tired of people placing a series of caches for what seems to be the mear purpose of collecting a lot of logs in one spot. I guess I just wish if they placed those caches they would make them large enough for swag.....not micros or small. Seems like we are not keeping all types of cachers in mind.

 

Now don't get me wrong. Nothing wrong with a series of several caches, but I just wish they wouldn't "waste" the good hiding spots for the larger caches is my point. Maybe I am way off base...just wanting some other perspective. Sorry if I offended anyone, not really my purpose! Happy Caching!

The way I read it, the OP did filter the cache she wanted to find with her children. She says they took a hike in a beautiful woods for a specific cache. They looked to see if there were other caches in the area and found several micros hidden there. Now, for her, these woods were a perfect place for hiding more large caches, but because of the micros there were fewer open spots where a larger cache could be hidden.

 

Filtering out micros works in avoiding caches you may not want to take the kids to. But it also makes you see a big open space with no caches and makes you wonder why. Perhaps she would like to hide an ammo can there. Then she sees that the great spot she found where she could hide an ammo can is blocked by a micro nearby. Had that cache been an ammo can she may have thought, "No big deal, I can take my kids to find that cache". But since it was a micro, it was a "waste of cache space" as far as she was concerned.

 

Here's the problem:

 

There is a segment of the geocaching community for whom having room for swag is an important part of the cache. When they see a wooded area near town with some good hiding spots for large caches, they wonder why anyone would hide a micro there. A micro can be hidden fairly easily, even in plain sight, almost anywhere. Finding a spot for a larger cache is more difficult. Those for whom size matters will see micros that block a good large hiding place as a wasted location. It is not much different than when virtuals were being published and virtuals could block a physical cache. Many complained about virtuals blocking caches and wanted a rule that you could get a virtual archived if you found a place to hide a physical cache within .1 mile.

 

Of course there is another segment of the geocaching community for whom size matters in a different way. These people are not into trading swag so there is no reason to place a larger cache when a small one will do. Some may like the added challenge of finding a cleverly hidden micro or small. I know some will say that a micro hidden in the woods is not clever - just a needle in the haystack. But I have found many micros where the hider has found a perfect spot for micro - a crack in the rocks or a knot hole in a tree. Using a bit of geosense these are not impossible to find and can feel more rewarding that the odd tupperware under an unnatural pile of sticks. In addition, for those who for some reason feel the need to place 10 caches all at one time in an area, it is far easier to carry 10 35mm film cans than it is to carry 10 ammo cans. This may be one of the reasons that the number of micros in the woods has begun to go up.

 

So we have the basic conflict between those that prefer a larger cache with swag versus those that prefer micros or small caches. As I said in an earlier post - there is nothing that can really be done about this other than to hide more of the kind of caches you like and to encourage others (who may not have a preference of their own) to hide more large caches. The larger is better crowd often says that you don't see any complaints in the forum that there are too many large caches. It may be true that even those who enjoy finding a fake pine cone or reaching into knot holes to pull out a decon container, will accept a tupperware under sticks so long as they got to hike in some beautiful woods. But what people don't like is for other people to tell them they are being selfish or inconsiderate if they hide what they like to find because others would prefer something else. I like raspberry. Mushtang likes butterscotch and is really concerned when people try to take away his butterscotch. That's why he is so hard on people who suggest there is a need to limit some kind of cache at the expense of another.

[+Destitute]

[i wouldn't go in the woods and put 10 ammo boxes all over the place!

 

Leave room for others!

 

Why? If no one else has hidden anything, go for it. I hid three in an area near my home. I was going to put more cans out then others came along and hid so, which is cool. If they hadn't, I planned to take up the space myself.

 

Btw, I saw an ammo can hidden in Murfreesboro, Tn this weekend at GW7. It was among a sea of micros in a very urban area. Found several micros in places that could have held something larger, but I found no micros in the woods, thank goodness.

 

No sure any of this help, but I can feel your pain, so to speak. I favor small to large caches myself but I also like hunting micros at every tenth of a mile.

 

Good luck and "Endeavor to persevere".

[+TeamFiestyMidgets]

THE POINT OF THE THREAD is placing 10 micros in the same woods to use up all the space that seems more appropriate for a mix of caches....micros some ammo boxes....small ones...very large ones.....not 10 micros in one woods.

And the point of most of the replies that you've disagreed with is that if you're disappointed in some of the caches that are hidden you can either blame yourself for not hiding bigger caches first, or get over it and only search for the caches that are bigger.

 

You know that if you filter out micros from your PQ you'll completely avoid the micro saturation you're upset about. You'll get to go on hikes and search in parks and only find big containers. And then when you and your husband decide that you want to grab a few micros that you love then you can load the PQ that includes them.

 

It's almost as easy to avoid the over saturation of micros as it is to complain about it.

I suggest Mushtang go back and re-read the OP. (I'll quote it here to save you the trouble).

Ok....So I first want to say I am sure I am going to be beaten with a trekking pole for even saying such a thing, but as a new geocacher I want to get others opinons.

 

Recently, we took a hike in a beautiful woods for a specific cache upon looking at the area, we realized that several MICRO caches were hidden in this beautiful woods (which ironically in a fairly urban city) would have been perfect for larger ammo boxes and big caches. Being the mom of boys that love to cache, becase they want to trade, maybe I am just jaded. But I get a little tired of people placing a series of caches for what seems to be the mear purpose of collecting a lot of logs in one spot. I guess I just wish if they placed those caches they would make them large enough for swag.....not micros or small. Seems like we are not keeping all types of cachers in mind.

 

Now don't get me wrong. Nothing wrong with a series of several caches, but I just wish they wouldn't "waste" the good hiding spots for the larger caches is my point. Maybe I am way off base...just wanting some other perspective. Sorry if I offended anyone, not really my purpose! Happy Caching!

The way I read it, the OP did filter the cache she wanted to find with her children. She says they took a hike in a beautiful woods for a specific cache. They looked to see if there were other caches in the area and found several micros hidden there. Now, for her, these woods were a perfect place for hiding more large caches, but because of the micros there were fewer open spots where a larger cache could be hidden.

 

Filtering out micros works in avoiding caches you may not want to take the kids to. But it also makes you see a big open space with no caches and makes you wonder why. Perhaps she would like to hide an ammo can there. Then she sees that the great spot she found where she could hide an ammo can is blocked by a micro nearby. Had that cache been an ammo can she may have thought, "No big deal, I can take my kids to find that cache". But since it was a micro, it was a "waste of cache space" as far as she was concerned.

 

Here's the problem:

 

There is a segment of the geocaching community for whom having room for swag is an important part of the cache. When they see a wooded area near town with some good hiding spots for large caches, they wonder why anyone would hide a micro there. A micro can be hidden fairly easily, even in plain sight, almost anywhere. Finding a spot for a larger cache is more difficult. Those for whom size matters will see micros that block a good large hiding place as a wasted location. It is not much different than when virtuals were being published and virtuals could block a physical cache. Many complained about virtuals blocking caches and wanted a rule that you could get a virtual archived if you found a place to hide a physical cache within .1 mile.

 

Of course there is another segment of the geocaching community for whom size matters in a different way. These people are not into trading swag so there is no reason to place a larger cache when a small one will do. Some may like the added challenge of finding a cleverly hidden micro or small. I know some will say that a micro hidden in the woods is not clever - just a needle in the haystack. But I have found many micros where the hider has found a perfect spot for micro - a crack in the rocks or a knot hole in a tree. Using a bit of geosense these are not impossible to find and can feel more rewarding that the odd tupperware under an unnatural pile of sticks. In addition, for those who for some reason feel the need to place 10 caches all at one time in an area, it is far easier to carry 10 35mm film cans than it is to carry 10 ammo cans. This may be one of the reasons that the number of micros in the woods has begun to go up.

 

So we have the basic conflict between those that prefer a larger cache with swag versus those that prefer micros or small caches. As I said in an earlier post - there is nothing that can really be done about this other than to hide more of the kind of caches you like and to encourage others (who may not have a preference of their own) to hide more large caches. The larger is better crowd often says that you don't see any complaints in the forum that there are too many large caches. It may be true that even those who enjoy finding a fake pine cone or reaching into knot holes to pull out a decon container, will accept a tupperware under sticks so long as they got to hike in some beautiful woods. But what people don't like is for other people to tell them they are being selfish or inconsiderate if they hide what they like to find because others would prefer something else. I like raspberry. Mushtang likes butterscotch and is really concerned when people try to take away his butterscotch. That's why he is so hard on people who suggest there is a need to limit some kind of cache at the expense of another.

 

OH THANK YOU FOR UNDERSTANDING....I felt like I was speaking German to my children! LOL BTW Ich denke, Mushtang Unterhose könnte zu eng!

[+sbell111]

I guess that I still fail to see the OP's point.

 

She went caching and found a large cache in the woods. She pulled up nearby caches and they were micros. Therefore, all caches in the woods were not micros. A person who hated micros could still take a nice little hike and find a larger cache.

 

I assume that the OP doesn't want a rule stating that all caches in woods should be large, so I'm not sure what she is going for.

 

Here's the way cache placements shake out. The first geocacher who is interested in hiding a cache finds a suitable (in his opinion) spot for it and plops it down. He gets to hide the cache that he wishes to hide, as long as it meets the guidelines. Future geocachers agree that the general area is a good place for caches and also hide some. Those caches may be big or little at the cache hiders whim. Almost uniformly, the caches hidden will be caches that the cache owners would like to find. This is what I call 'good' caches.

 

At some point, a cacher may come to that area and wish that the 'size' ratio of these caches were more to his liking. He may also wish that he could plop down a 'good' cache in the general area, but it may have become saturated. Either way, it's too bad for that cacher. In this game, first come first served is the rule. Those cachers that first decide to hide guidelines meeting caches get to decide what to hide. People who disagree with their decisions should have hidden a cache in that spot first, or should go elsewhere to find/hide caches. Alternatively, golf is still a perfectly acceptable activity.

[+L0ne.R]

Well, I'm another supporter of RK's position. I'd like to think most people agree, but it's been shown many don't.

 

What can you do? Micros are simply cheaper to deploy. If these caches you speak of are all listed as micros, just skip them.

 

I feel irked by the space a micro takes up, because now a full sized cache can't be placed in that vicinity. It irks me more when the same person places 2 micros in a smallish woodlot thus occupying the whole woodlot. I recently posted a similar comment on the boards and got similar responses - some agreements, most "well don't look for them then".

 

I agree that the most likely reason micros are placed in the woods are because it's cheap - film canisters are free, a rolled up piece of scrap paper is free, no trinkets to supply (free and no need to maintain the cache - just archive it when it goes missing or leave the cache page hanging there for months with multiple dnfs until someone gets around to putting a SBA on the cache). Small however is probably placed because it's easier to hide. I'm OK with small if there's room for a couple of small items, i.e. the logbook doesn't take up all the room (which essentially makes the small a micro).

 

What can you do? Peer pressure - leave a note in the logs questioning the placement of a micro in the woods.

[Mushtang]

Mushtang likes butterscotch and is really concerned when people try to take away his butterscotch. That's why he is so hard on people who suggest there is a need to limit some kind of cache at the expense of another.

That's not it at all.

 

I don't prefer any cache size over another. But I do get my boxers in a bunch when someone complains that someone else didn't hide the kinds of caches that they prefer to find. It's even more irritating when they suggest that the hiders were obviously thinking only of themselves and not of other cachers.

 

My reply was to try and suggest that if she thought there were too many micros in some area, she has two options to solve her "problem". 1) Hide a larger cache before someone hides a micro, 2) Filter out the micros and never have to see the proliferation.

 

But she prefers to complain about all the micros taking up valuable real estate. In her view the larger containers are better, and is upset that the hiders of the micros were not taking her preferences into account when they selfishly hid the micro containers. They were thinking only of themselves.

 

She then claims that I'M the one that is missing the point.

[+TeamFiestyMidgets]

Mushtang is entilted to his "understanding" of what I am talking about. I am glad most of you understand that WHAT I AM SAYING...Is I don't understand the need for a SERIES of micros taking up almost the entire wooded area (10) to be exact. If they like micros in the woods great....I don't mind them either. I don't however see the point in putting that many in one specific location. Leaving no room for any others.....types and challenges....or low challenges for the little tykes that geocache. My point about the three mile hike is that kids are likely to stay involved if they realize they are going to "get" something out of it! SO a nice balance of large med small micro and nano would be nice is ALL I am saying.

 

This is not about me wanting it my way....It is about thinking of ALL geocachers when placing caches. Remembering that the wooded area is beautiful and it would be nice for ALL types of caches back there. To make younger families get in the activity and stay with it!

 

And for the record....I would have put my own there IF I COULD HAVE...but I can't because there are 10 MICROS taking up the rest of the free space. Again...my fault for not joining the sport earlier...lol...and beating her to placing the cache.

 

But I will say this....I do know that I am lucky to have so many people placing caches...I live in a very active geocaching area and I sure would rather have this problem than that of people that are the only ones placing caches more creative than a simple skirt lift! So for that I will say, I am blessed!

[+sbell111]

... What can you do? Peer pressure - leave a note in the logs questioning the placement of a micro in the woods.

Way to make friends and influence people.

 

I'm not sure if I would delete that log or leave it so I could point it out to others. Either way, it would color my opinion of the logger, but not alter the caches that I choose to hide, at all.

[+sbell111]

Who knew that Ft Wayne was such an urban wasteland. It's shameful that there is only enough green space in the entire region to hide ten caches. It is especially shameful that in the last seven or eight years, other cachers have snagged all ten of these spots without leaving room for newbies to place a cache.

 

It's terrible, I tell you.

 

On the other hand, 24 of the 40 caches nearest to the micro that the OP hid yesterday are non-micros. Further, there are 44 non-micros within 5 miles of that micro that the OP hid yesterday. I guess it isn't all that micro-congested in the OP's area.

Edited May 28, 2009 by sbell111

[+love2sing41]

I'm relatively new to this "sport" so I've only dreamed of putting out my own geocaches, so I didn't know there was a saturation limit. Hmm. I'd better study the rules.

 

I had to respond, though, to point out that it's not only 8 year olds that enjoy caches full of swag. My husband doesn't see the point of looking for caches if there won't be any toys, and he's in the 50+ set. I've seen a few very fine micro hides, and some are just... well... hides. I don't relish guardrail hides because there's very often bees, What would the fun be if they were all perfect?

[+tozainamboku]

I sure would rather have this problem than that of people that are the only ones placing caches more creative than a simple skirt lift! So for that I will say, I am blessed!

Statements like this is what is causing you problems with sbell111 and Mushtang. Just because you don't like skirt lifters or because you cache with young children and prefer big caches with swag doesn't mean that these kind of caches are are not enjoyed by someone else. Even if you could show that a majority of cachers prefer the caches you like that doesn't mean we should tell others they are being inconsiderate because they are hiding the kinds of caches they like to find.

 

If your purpose in posting here was just to express your frustration that micros are taking up space where you think a larger cache could be hidden that is OK. If you are lobbying for a change to the guidelines or review process to favor one kind cache over another base on whether the cache is placed in a wooded area versus a parking lot then I wonder why any cache type needs an affirmative action program.

[+TeamFiestyMidgets]

I'm relatively new to this "sport" so I've only dreamed of putting out my own geocaches, so I didn't know there was a saturation limit. Hmm. I'd better study the rules.

 

I had to respond, though, to point out that it's not only 8 year olds that enjoy caches full of swag. My husband doesn't see the point of looking for caches if there won't be any toys, and he's in the 50+ set. I've seen a few very fine micro hides, and some are just... well... hides. I don't relish guardrail hides because there's very often bees, What would the fun be if they were all perfect?

 

I totally agree...not just the kids like the cache, you are soooooo correct. But that does help the parents when making the day of geocaching go smoother! (in general) exceptions to all the rules!

 

Actually my 10 year old loves SWAG but loves the micros too. He found his first nano and was just thrilled. (now granted he immediately said, now lets go get an ammo box...haha) but we are trying to teach him the true thrill of the sport. It is a slow moving process though.

 

My youngest son has Asperger's syndrome (which is a form of autism) we have a hard time getting him to pick up garbage....but we as a family think that is one of the best parts of the game! He does not...haha, I am thinking about getting him a litter pick up stick (whatever they might be called) maybe that will help!

 

 

Back on track there is no saturation limit other than you can't place one closer than .1 mile in proximity to the next. But any kind is ok. My point was, I don't prefer it when a geocacher places a series of ten of the same kind of caches in one spot! Just my opinion. As you can see others feel different....some feel the same!

[Turrry]

I'm really glad the people who introduced me to geocaching are not like many of the people in this thread....

 

I guess having a HOBBY that many people don't know about/etc gives a lot of you an elitist attitude about it. My two cents as a relatively new cacher is come down off your high horse and listen to some of the new people. Fresh ideas keep the whole hobby fresh.

 

to the OP, I would disregard the obviously rude and unhelpful inupt in this thread, sometimes being part of a small group "empowers" some people and they become prideful of it. Go about caching as you see fit, and follow the established rules as best you can.

[+Renegade Knight]

....You are not alone. My rule of thumb (which others oppose) is to use the largest cache container the area can reasonably support. I mofied the rule to appease those "others" to "use the largest cache container the hide can reasonably support. That was to allow for some hides needing to be a micro to fit some theme or whatever the owners muse demands.......

I have always felt this same way and am not ashamed of it. I've seen film can caches placed in spots that could easily hide a 55 gallon drum. What a waste.

I've seen difficult puzzle caches hidden where a traditional cache could have been hidden. What a waste.

Don't like puzzles? I like puzzles that lead to largest container that the final location can reasonably support myself.

[+JacobBarlow]

I'd rather not have to sift through all the sticky toys and signature business cards to get to the log.... personally... so the smaller caches are better in my opinion... based only on the face that they hold less junk

[Andronicus]

 

Carrying my own ammo box? Really? Not the same as finding your so delicately put "McCrap" ...again I am not trying to offend. Just pointing out that challenging micro and nano puzzles and caches can be placed ANYWHERE.....that is the point. Deep in the woods is the ONLY place you can put an ammo box of "McCrap"

 

Not sure about that. I have a ammo box in the middle of a big box store shoping complex parking lot. OK, not in the midle, more off to the side, but definatly in a built up urban environment.

 

But I agree with you. If you have a micro on a 161m grid covering the entire park/forested area, that sucks. I like a chalange, but can't take my kids for a day of micro hunting. (8years, 3years, and 1year).

 

If on the other had, the park has lots of spots left to hide stuff, the complaint should be "why don't more ammo box loving cachers hide stuff." The answer may be that they cost more than a film canister. A fully kitted ammo box will likely cost atleast $20; a film canister, about $0.25.

[+RonnieGeo]

Wow.... I love geocaching, and sometimes I think "why don't I go into the forums more so I can communicate with other cachers?" Then I see how some people like to bash on a simple poster that was very careful to be polite, then I remember why I don't spend much time here.

 

To the OP - there is a poster somewhere here with a signature line that basically says that the GeoCaching forums are NOT indicative of the GeoCaching community - luckily that appears to be true in my experience. People on here seem to like bashing others for their opinions.

 

To the rude people, the OP simply stated an opinion, and you could have just said - "No, I don't feel that way, and here is why".

 

To people like Renegade Knight, Write Shop Robert, and others I can't remember (sorry) - thanks for keeping a (positive) balance in the forums.

 

Now on to my opinion (just my opinion, nothing more) - I agree with the poster that a saturation of micros in rural areas (especially by one cacher) can be disappointing. I don't think it is "wrong", just disappointing. I didn't get the feeling that the OP was saying "This is wrong and needs to change", but rather just venting about something that is frustrating.

 

To the person that said they just put 2 micros in the woods - great! Nothing wrong with that - but that isn't what the OP was talking about. I had an experience where some cachers (great people, and fun for the caching community) decided to put out a series - all small or micros, and 50+ of them - all in rural areas. This served a purpose for the people that like a power trail, or just going for numbers (which I sometimes do), but did kind of eliminate that area for larger ones. Luckily, that region still had other trails that were available.

 

I just don't understand why some people want to get so angry over an opinion on a forum. ( I am not angry right now, just kind of saddened that it can't seem to be a civil discussion.)

Edited June 3, 2009 by RonnieGeo

[+coffeeandspiders]

I agree, I recently went to a nice spot at a dam where there was a micro hidden, and a large cache could have easily been put here to go along with the fun setting and the vast range of hiding spots. I almost want to go back and put my own very close by but it'd sort of upset things. :/

[+popokiiti]

Just adding my 2 cents - went for a few large caches in the woods when we were starting out as we figured they would be easy to find. They were, but had next to nothing in them...logbook and two items in a few cases and were of the size of two shoeboxes. Size doesn't necessarily mean anything when it comes to the amount of swag. Could be due to T something(s) LN, or cost to the cache owner of replenishing. Maybe it is time for us all to think about the "KidKachers" and place at least one or two caches that are child oriented as they will be the next generation of cachers! We have a Family Fun multi and I would like to do another.

[+Firefly911]

Yep I totally agree that a rural setting with mostly micros is kind of a waste. When we spend a good amount of time and energy bushwacking though tall grass, thorns, PI etc. we really want to be rewarded with a nice size cache not a little tiny micro. No we don't always trade but it's just a lot more fun to us to have something more "substantial" for all our efforts. Even though we aren't kids anymore we do find these caches much more enjoyable. A few micros out in the country....fine...but tons of them blanketing the area is not too much fun in our opinion.

Edited June 3, 2009 by Firefly911

[+Wild Thing 73]

Yep.

 

I understand exactly how the OP feels.

 

I also understand the comments from the other posters... but I empathise most with those FiestyMidgets. Just one decent sized box in those woods isn't too much to hope for, is it?

 

MrsB

Wow what a gang of misguided cachers, a cacher can hide an "Ammo Box" or larger container almost any where, Woods, Urban , downtown....It is all skill in the camoflough and placement of the box......It is only 528 feet separation between cache placements. Your reviewer will help you that guidance. Keep your mind open and enjoy all types of caches. As for me I just like the "traditional" with log.....stay safe and hide those caches for other cachers to log.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

There is nothing Groundspeak can do about the types of caches being hidden.

 

There are, however, things that YOU can do!

 

Hide the type of cache that you like to find. Even in a heavily cache-populated area there is room if you look for it.

 

Lead by example. Hide caches. If the locals like them they will follow your lead. You CAN change the habits of hiders in your area simply by hiding caches that stand out from the rest.

 

Form or join a local geocaching club or association, maybe start a local forum, and talk with local cachers (which does not mean try to tell them how caching 'should be done'!).

 

Invite local cachers to join you for a day of geocaching and go to a few of the caches that you like. No need to lecture or try to convert, if they enjoy finding them they will soon imitate them.

[Jolard]

I definitely sympathize with the OP. In any large city, there are going to be some wooded areas, and then large swaths of area where large ammo cans can't be hidden. It does seem a bit of a shame to have those few areas where large caches can be hidden already saturated with micros.

 

It is not just the finding, it is the hiding too. Finding a great spot for a large cache is hard enough as it is, but when most green spots near your home are covered already with caches, it makes the remaining spots exceptionally valuable. I would be very happy to spend the money on a large can and good swag, and hide in a great local wooded area. But already many of them are full.

 

As for my family and I? I am happy to find micros, but I generally don't put them on my list when the whole family goes, unless they are interesting for some reason. For the kids the swag is a big part of the fun, not just swapping, but also leaving. Two of my kids have signature items they love to bring and place in the caches, and they are unable to do that when the caches are micros.

 

So....... I don't think it needs to be a rule that is enforced, but I do like the idea that cachers should try and use a large cache if the location would allow it.

[Mushtang]

....You are not alone. My rule of thumb (which others oppose) is to use the largest cache container the area can reasonably support. I mofied the rule to appease those "others" to "use the largest cache container the hide can reasonably support. That was to allow for some hides needing to be a micro to fit some theme or whatever the owners muse demands.......

I have always felt this same way and am not ashamed of it. I've seen film can caches placed in spots that could easily hide a 55 gallon drum. What a waste.

I've seen difficult puzzle caches hidden where a traditional cache could have been hidden. What a waste.

Don't like puzzles? I like puzzles that lead to largest container that the final location can reasonably support myself.

I was trying to illustrate a point. Just because someone doesn't like puzzles doesn't mean that a puzzle cache is a waste of a spot. And just because someone prefers a container that holds swag, doesn't mean that a micro is a waste of a spot.

 

I actually like puzzles, but that's beside the point.

[+sbell111]

....You are not alone. My rule of thumb (which others oppose) is to use the largest cache container the area can reasonably support. I mofied the rule to appease those "others" to "use the largest cache container the hide can reasonably support. That was to allow for some hides needing to be a micro to fit some theme or whatever the owners muse demands.......

I have always felt this same way and am not ashamed of it. I've seen film can caches placed in spots that could easily hide a 55 gallon drum. What a waste.

I've seen difficult puzzle caches hidden where a traditional cache could have been hidden. What a waste.

Don't like puzzles? I like puzzles that lead to largest container that the final location can reasonably support myself.

I was trying to illustrate a point. Just because someone doesn't like puzzles doesn't mean that a puzzle cache is a waste of a spot. And just because someone prefers a container that holds swag, doesn't mean that a micro is a waste of a spot.

 

I actually like puzzles, but that's beside the point.

Puzzles take up spots that could be used for traditionals. They should be banned.

[Clan Riffster]

There is nothing Groundspeak can do about the types of caches being hidden.

They could hire teams of Ninja to sanction any film canisters found outside, which do not contain film?

Of course, that would be unsound, fiscally.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Curious. I read through the forum. Usual complaints about micros. Fine. The fora are for discussion. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Then I see comments about 'rudeness'. (We quickly learn to take, with a grain of salt, the regulars who will take opposite side just for the sake of argument.) I was thinking that the OP might want to check forum guidelines for proper behaviour.

If one has the mindset that "I am right. Everyone else is wrong. And Anyone who disagrees with me is being rude." That is not a discussion. That is an edict.

My opinion is that a well hidden micro is a good cache, whether it be in the forest or in a suburban mall. A poorly hidden cache, no matter the size or location, is a poor cache. IMHO, I have never found a film cannister that I considered to be a good cache. But that's my opinion, and I'm entitled to it.

[+sbell111]

Curious. I read through the forum. Usual complaints about micros. Fine. The fora are for discussion. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Then I see comments about 'rudeness'. (We quickly learn to take, with a grain of salt, the regulars who will take opposite side just for the sake of argument.) I was thinking that the OP might want to check forum guidelines for proper behaviour.

If one has the mindset that "I am right. Everyone else is wrong. And Anyone who disagrees with me is being rude." That is not a discussion. That is an edict.

My opinion is that a well hidden micro is a good cache, whether it be in the forest or in a suburban mall. A poorly hidden cache, no matter the size or location, is a poor cache. IMHO, I have never found a film cannister that I considered to be a good cache. But that's my opinion, and I'm entitled to it.

That's cause all the film cans you have found have been part of puzzles and all puzzles are bad caches.

[+TeamFiestyMidgets]

All the same...I see that we all have different opinions. I am however glad that some people READ and took the INTENT of the post the way it was intended

 

....Not saying micros are bad

 

....Not saying micros in the woods are bad

 

 

....Simply saying leave some space for others...10 film cans taking up all the space seems like overkill IMO

 

Hey....if not, no big deal, I can buy gas....drive and find the areas I like to cache in. I was just stating that I think people should think of all cachers when placing caches....I know I will!

[Clan Riffster]

That's cause all the film cans you have found have been part of puzzles and all puzzles are bad caches.

I believe it was South Park's Mr Mackey who said: "Don't do puzzle caches, m'kay? 'Cuz puzzle caches are bad, m'kay?"

[Mushtang]

Hey....if not, no big deal, I can buy gas....drive and find the areas I like to cache in. I was just stating that I think people should think of all cachers when placing caches....I know I will!

If there were 10 ammo cans in the park instead of 10 micros, would you be equally upset about all the spaces being taken up and no room left for those that prefer something else?

[+TeamFiestyMidgets]

Hey....if not, no big deal, I can buy gas....drive and find the areas I like to cache in. I was just stating that I think people should think of all cachers when placing caches....I know I will!

If there were 10 ammo cans in the park instead of 10 micros, would you be equally upset about all the spaces being taken up and no room left for those that prefer something else?

 

If you READ my threads...you would see...yes! I would be just as upset about someone placing all ammo cans. It is about a balance....about thinking of ALL geocachers! It is about a word not often seen or used....Respect.

[+TeamFiestyMidgets]

Ok.. sorry for the generalization, because some people are respectful in placing caches. Didn't mean to generalize!

[+sbell111]

Enough of the hypothetical. Based on your stats, it appears that the caches in your area are pretty varied. Please identify the specific area about which you are getting all angsty over.

[+TeamFiestyMidgets]

Enough of the hypothetical. Based on your stats, it appears that the caches in your area are pretty varied. Please identify the specific area about which you are getting all angsty over.

 

No thank you. I am not going to directly hurt someone's feelings by "outing" them in a public forum. Hypothetical is fine. If you are a cacher in my area and go to this particular park...you will realize where this is. The hypothetical discussion was NEVER intended to hurt this cachers feelings as I truly believe they were placing them for the good of the game, but think they UNINTENTIONALLY forgot that maybe others would appreciate a variety.

 

But I would never intentionally hurt them, just to prove a point to you in the forum. I am shocked you would ask me to do that to someone. Actually, based on this thread and your attitude towards me...LOL...I am not shocked at all! I recant that statement...

[+Cliff's Notes]

Midgets complaining about micros. Hmmm....

 

As someone said, the cache size is listed on the page. If you don't want to find micros, don't hunt for them! Of course, just because a cache is large doesn't mean that it will have good swag.

 

What I am getting from this conversation is the frustration of seeing great potential for regular sized caches in locations that have cache seventytwelve of the micros honoring table salt series. There are awesome micros with great puzzles that bring you to places you would never have gone to without the carrot dangling in front of you. Or series that are thoughtful and fun. But I have met people who were talking about a great location they put a micro before someone else put a cache in that spot.

 

That someone else may have been oggling the spot and making up a camoed cache that looks like it belongs there.

 

I have a cool stamp for logbooks that takes up three lines in the micro if I use it. I also like to find/see signature items and cache cards I also drop WheresGeorge starter kits in caches.

 

I also drop in personalized pens in the caches and other tradeable grabbable items that don't fit in the pill fob from CVS pharmacy.

[+Cliff's Notes]

Darned double post glitch

Edited June 9, 2009 by Cliff's Notes

[+sbell111]

Enough of the hypothetical. Based on your stats, it appears that the caches in your area are pretty varied. Please identify the specific area about which you are getting all angsty over.

No thank you. I am not going to directly hurt someone's feelings by "outing" them in a public forum. Hypothetical is fine. If you are a cacher in my area and go to this particular park...you will realize where this is. The hypothetical discussion was NEVER intended to hurt this cachers feelings as I truly believe they were placing them for the good of the game, but think they UNINTENTIONALLY forgot that maybe others would appreciate a variety.

Personally, I don't see how posting a snapshot of your area to show that it is overrun with micros would be 'outing' any individual. I think that it would simply be a good counterpoint to your stats which suggest that there is actually a pretty good distribution of caches in your area (sizewise). I thought that it would help everyone better discuss your issue. My bad.

But I would never intentionally hurt them, just to prove a point to you in the forum. I am shocked you would ask me to do that to someone. Actually, based on this thread and your attitude towards me...LOL...I am not shocked at all! I recant that statement...

Attitude towards you? I have no idea what you are talking about. I have noted that you have stalked me in other threads, but I haven't given you any real 'attitude'. I have merely attempted to have an honest discussion of your topic (with the exception of my two posts about puzzle caches which were an obvious attempt at injecting humor into the thread). I guess my point is that just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean that you are being attacked. That's a lesson that everyone who participates in forums should learn or they will not be satisfied with their experience. Edited June 9, 2009 by sbell111

[+L0ne.R]

If there were 10 ammo cans in the park instead of 10 micros, would you be equally upset about all the spaces being taken up and no room left for those that prefer something else?

 

I doubt anyone would be upset about 10 ammo cans in a forest/park. Can you point me to forum posts where people are complaining about too many regular size caches in the forest?

 

I think the problem with micros are that they usually indicate a cache placed with little care and thought (not all of them, but from my experience most of them - maybe one in 50 are placed because it's the only size that will fit in the interesting location). A micro in a forest generally indicates a placement done because it's cheap - a piece of paper for a logbook, a free film canister, often not even a pencil provided (when a small one will fit - but the cache owner doesn't want to have to cut one down to size).

[+sbell111]

If there were 10 ammo cans in the park instead of 10 micros, would you be equally upset about all the spaces being taken up and no room left for those that prefer something else?

 

I doubt anyone would be upset about 10 ammo cans in a forest/park. Can you point me to forum posts where people are complaining about too many regular size caches in the forest?

 

I think the problem with micros are that they usually indicate a cache placed with little care and thought (not all of them, but from my experience most of them - maybe one in 50 are placed because it's the only size that will fit in the interesting location). A micro in a forest generally indicates a placement done because it's cheap - a piece of paper for a logbook, a free film canister, often not even a pencil provided (when a small one will fit - but the cache owner doesn't want to have to cut one down to size).

Wow. You have a great skill for reading the minds of others. OK, Carnac, what am I thinking right now?

[Clan Riffster]

I think the problem with micros are that they usually indicate a cache placed with little care and thought

While I certainly agree with your evaluation of most micros, I don't think that's why the OP raised the issue.

As I understood their posts, for them it's an issue of balance. X number of acres taken up by a single size, instead of a variety.

Maybe?

[Clan Riffster]

OK, Carnac, what am I thinking right now?

Nachos & Guinness?

[+JohnE5]

AMMO BOXES CAN'T GO IN PLAIN SIGHT...

Yes they can. I've seen them. Just because no one in your area has figured out how to do it doesn't mean it can't be done.

I have a very large multi I can see from both sides of the highway. And a bird house in a public park. They both took a lot of time and energy but regular and large sizes can be hidden in plain sight.

[+sbell111]

OK, Carnac, what am I thinking right now?

Nachos & Guinness?

You are correct, sir.

[+L0ne.R]

I think the problem with micros are that they usually indicate a cache placed with little care and thought

While I certainly agree with your evaluation of most micros, I don't think that's why the OP raised the issue.

As I understood their posts, for them it's an issue of balance. X number of acres taken up by a single size, instead of a variety.

Maybe?

A whole forest/park filled with micro caches placed with little thought or care - because they are cheap and easy to hide - is unbalanced. I wouldn't consider a whole forest placed with ammo cans (can't call them cheap, hiding them takes careful placement if you don't want your $10 investment to go missing right away) unbalanced. Maybe for me it's not so much about size. The balance lies in interesting thoughtful caches. It's possible to saturate a woodlot with good thoughtful creative micros but I have yet to see it.

[+herrozerro]

out of my 4 planted caches 4/4 of them are micros. It was not always that way, one was a small lock and lock that was muggled and a mcnuggits container filled with rocks was in its place and another was lost when the stream was low in the summer.

 

For myself, the choice to go micro with my caches was out of need to have unmuggled caches.

 

I do have plans and containers for smalls and a regular but they will require more planning.

[vagabond]

Enough of the hypothetical. Based on your stats, it appears that the caches in your area are pretty varied. Please identify the specific area about which you are getting all angsty over.

 

1 A army general

2 A bay in Okinawa

3 A park in Fort Wayne

 

what do the 3 have in common??

might be the answer

[+sbell111]

Fifteen caches hidden between March 2005 and December 2008 by six cache owners. Most are micros, but there are three larger caches plus an earthcache. The series of micros wasn't hidden until 12/08.

 

Given that the park had caches in it since 2005 and three years passed between those first caches being placed and teh series of micros being placed, I don't think that it's fair to characterize them as having wasted space that should have been used for larger caches. If people had wanted to place larger caches there, they had ample opportunity.

 

It should also be noted that the park has room for larger caches to be hidden in the woods, if someone wanted to do so.

[Andronicus]

 

Carrying my own ammo box? Really? Not the same as finding your so delicately put "McCrap" ...again I am not trying to offend. Just pointing out that challenging micro and nano puzzles and caches can be placed ANYWHERE.....that is the point. Deep in the woods is the ONLY place you can put an ammo box of "McCrap"

 

Not sure about that. I have a ammo box in the middle of a big box store shoping complex parking lot. OK, not in the midle, more off to the side, but definatly in a built up urban environment.

 

But I agree with you. If you have a micro on a 161m grid covering the entire park/forested area, that sucks. I like a chalange, but can't take my kids for a day of micro hunting. (8years, 3years, and 1year).

 

If on the other had, the park has lots of spots left to hide stuff, the complaint should be "why don't more ammo box loving cachers hide stuff." The answer may be that they cost more than a film canister. A fully kitted ammo box will likely cost atleast $20; a film canister, about $0.25.

 

Well after about 3 months my ammo can has been muggled, so maybe your were right.