when does difficulty become cruel

September 9, 2009

I am wandering is it ok to hide the cache in such a manner that the hunter is having fits of frustration and the log is littered with DNF's as long as it with in the rules of hiding. Many of the caches are essentally park and grabs which negates the hunt part of the sport. The only thing I am continplating is extreme cammo in dense vegitation and in plain sight. I read about this complaining of caches being too hard though the terrain is moderate in logs. I tend to look for tuffer ones , you need to challenge your self. I feel that just being fare in the description and keeping the hint from being a total givaway is the best policy. some direction please !

Edited September 9, 2009 by porkchop401

18.9k · September 9, 2009

If you rate the difficulty appropriately, and all other aspects of the hide are within guidelines - have fun!!

However, keep in mind that vegetation is easily trampled sometimes and changes dramatically with the changing seasons. That may alter the difficulty some. Let me encourage you to not place a difficult vegetation hide in any sort of sensitive area as a few cachers will use near slash and burn techniques to find it. Mother Nature has a way of healing herself up easy enough but your difficult hide could be rendered easy.

Edited September 9, 2009 by StarBrand

September 9, 2009

Short answer:

Nano in a forest.

Nuff said.

3.9k · September 9, 2009

Also, please have someone spell check your cache page for you before you publish it.

4.1k · September 9, 2009

I follow the "longer the hike, the easier to find" approach (and want people to find my hides) but not every cacher does. As long as the terrain and difficulty rating is accurate then people can make their own decisions.

Still, "extreme cammo in dense vegetation" seems like a good way to tear up the area. I would not be happy about it if I were a land manager. The best "evil" hides I have seen are creative placements in areas where nothing ends up being damaged. It's easy to place a cache where it can't be found because it's a needle in a haystack, it's harder to place a cache where it can be found in dense vegetation without damaging the area.

Either way at least make sure your coordinates are spot on or you limit the search area so that the vegetation survives the cache.

Edited September 9, 2009 by Erickson

September 9, 2009

A difficult hide is quite acceptable as long as it is rated correctly on the cache page.

Please don't make it a 'needle in a haystack' kind of hide. Examples of these are a fake rock in a pile of rocks, or fake pine cone in a pile of pine cones.

And I'll second Mushtang's request for using a spell checker. Please.

4.8k · September 9, 2009

Also, please have someone spell check your cache page for you before you publish it.

Your post is uncalled for.

Back on topic.

A hide becomes cruel when it is the intention of the CO to cause as many DNFs as possible.

These can include NIH hides as well as many others. Some poeple deliberately post "soft coords" which, imho, is NOT in the spirit of geocaching.

Edited September 9, 2009 by bittsen

24.7k · September 9, 2009

If you rate the difficulty appropriately, and all other aspects of the hide are within guidelines - have fun!!...

There you go.

September 9, 2009

Placing a cache in the middle of dense vegetation is a great way to have the area trampled and beaten down. It doesn't go over well with any parks people, and annoys most hiders (I'm leaving room there for the bushwhack lovers).

The kinds of challenge I like are longer hikers and clever containers that allow finders a challenge without having every stump and log torn up during the search.

September 9, 2009

I certainly get your guys point about trampling the vegetation. I think getting creative with the placement is the way I will go. As for you folks that creme yourself while laying a red mark critiquing on ones question I think I will steer clear of the forum!

Edited September 9, 2009 by porkchop401

September 9, 2009

Although that is not my style of caching, I think what you propose is ok as long as you adhere to the guidelines and use common since in regards to the environment.

I personally prefer a cache that leads me to interesting places. I don't care to spend an exorbitant amount of time searching for a needle in a haystack. I searched for a cache under a sage bush one time. the area was a non descript huge open plane of sage bushes. now we all know that our GPSR can sometimes be plus or minus fifty feet giving a search area of 7853 square feet. you can fit a lot of sage bushes in that. I did find it but I won't waste my time on something like that again.

porkchop401, please don't steer clear of the forum. although there is some rude and critical behavior there is also great information to be gleaned from in here. I also believe that you and everyone has something worthwhile to offer.

Edited September 9, 2009 by brokenoaks

September 9, 2009

I certainly get your guys point about trampling the vegetation. I think getting creative with the placement is the way I will go. As for you folks that creme yourself while laying a red mark critiquing on ones question I think I will steer clear of the forum!

3.8k · September 9, 2009

Also, please have someone spell check your cache page for you before you publish it.

Where's Keystone when you need him. Jeepers.

4.8k · September 9, 2009

Why would you post this?

1.4k · September 9, 2009

As for you folks critiquing on ones question I think I will steer clear of the forum!

I only read one post that seemed to be critiquing you. That was the suggestion you use spell check. (good suggestion for anyone.)

If the feeling or trend of these post bother you, the forums may not be for you. :lol:

6.5k · September 9, 2009

I certainly get your guys point about trampling the vegetation. I think getting creative with the placement is the way I will go. As for you folks that creme yourself while laying a red mark critiquing on ones question I think I will steer clear of the forum!

Now that there's funny, I don't care who you are.

Back OT-

Post accurate coords, rate it correctly, and those cachers who enjoy that type of hunt will enjoy it.

Post soft coords, rate it too low, and you are bound to get plenty of well deserved complaints.

And there is nothing wrong with using all the available tools at your disposal. I have my browser set to auto-Czech my spelling for me and underline in read anything that isn't correctly spelled. :lol:

September 9, 2009

I certainly get your guys point about trampling the vegetation. I think getting creative with the placement is the way I will go. As for you folks that creme yourself while laying a red mark critiquing on ones question I think I will steer clear of the forum!

I'm not trying to be mean like the others were...but what does the last part mean? I can't decipher it for the life of me.

But anyways...I agree with the other guys. I don't mind difficult hides, but just try not to make them "needle in a haystack" hides, at least not in broad daylight with the sun beating down. If I'm looking for a magnetic nano that you just dropped on the ground or into a hole in a tree, I'd probably just get pissed. I know that "turn over every leaf" is a phrase, but perhaps it shouldn't be in geocaching, at least sometimes.

Excellent camo is most appreciated. Puzzles can be neat, if they have to be solved on site. I've always wanted to see one that was electronic and only opens for 1 minute each day, like something out of World of Warcraft.

Terrain ratings don't really bother me...I'll do whatever it takes to get to a cache...but I want all the difficulty points to be accrued on site...not milked from the terrain rating.

If you have a true five on a traditional that doesn't require me to look closely at every rock in a rock pile, I'm all for it.

September 9, 2009

And there is nothing wrong with using all the available tools at your disposal. I have my browser set to auto-Czech my spelling for me and underline in read anything that isn't correctly spelled.

I think you mean 'Cheque' :lol:

3.6k · September 9, 2009

Hard caches are fine. As noted, just rate it properly. What you think may be a hard cache may end up being easier than you thought or vice versa, so you may need to tweak the difficulty to find the right balance.

One of a few things will happen. People will want to seek said cache and it will got a lot of action (and DNFs) if it's hard and have glowing logs even if they didn't find it.

Or, people will just ignore it because people in your area may not like hard caches, and it will go unfound for long periods here and there.

Or, people will try to find it and tear up the area out of frustration and curse you out and give everyone they know the exact hiding spot so it suddenly gets tons of finds.

38.2k · September 9, 2009

I am wandering is it ok to hide the cache in such a manner that the hunter is having fits of frustration and the log is littered with DNF's as long as it with in the rules of hiding. Many of the caches are essentally park and grabs which negates the hunt part of the sport. The only thing I am continplating is extreme cammo in dense vegitation and in plain sight. I read about this complaining of caches being too hard though the terrain is moderate in logs. I tend to look for tuffer ones , you need to challenge your self. I feel that just being fare in the description and keeping the hint from being a total givaway is the best policy. some direction please !

That's fine. You should have seen the two I hunted this past weekend (one DNF and one find). Talk about dense vegetation. My legs are still scratched and scarred. It was fun. Go for it!

September 9, 2009

Why would you post this?

I'll come out of my self-imposed exile long enough to answer your question. Because it's how he gets his jollies, by participating actively in a forum by posting replies designed to alienate others. Kind of like a dog who craps in his own bed. Like the guy who criticized his spelling and the other one who told him to go elsewhere if his skin isn't thick enough to take it.

Which makes this forum, like any other, better suited for reading than actually posting in. Who needs it?

3.9k · September 10, 2009

Why would you post this?
I'll come out of my self-imposed exile long enough to answer your question. Because it's how he gets his jollies, by participating actively in a forum by posting replies designed to alienate others. Kind of like a dog who craps in his own bed. Like the guy who criticized his spelling and the other one who told him to go elsewhere if his skin isn't thick enough to take it.

Which makes this forum, like any other, better suited for reading than actually posting in. Who needs it?

My post may have come across to some people as being mean, but it wasn't intended to sound that way. I'm sorry, and apologize if it did.

But the message is a good one. He was asking how to make a good cache (specifically the difficulty) and I decided to give some advice that would make his cache page better too. His original post was (and as of this post still is) filled with grammatical mistakes which leads me to believe his cache page might end up that way too. Again, not trying to be mean, just making a suggestion that would hopefully improve his cache page.

A couple of other people agreed with me, so they've probably seen cache pages with similar grammatical issues as well.

And no, I'm not perfect with my grammar, nor have I ever claimed to be. I've always welcomed corrections to my spelling on my cache pages, and in these forums, and am happy to fix things that I've gotten wrong.

So again, if I came across as being mean, or if I've hurt anyone's feelings, I honestly apologize. That was not my intent.

15.3k · September 10, 2009

In addition to the damage that could be caused by repeated, intense searching for a 4-star camouflage cache, consider your own ability to maintain it. If it's a fake rock in a pile of rocks, then you'll need to search them all too, when you need to replace a full log. That's another downside of needle-in-a-haystack hides. In contrast, the cache owner should be able to retrieve a good in-plain-sight camouflage cache without difficulty.

1.4k · September 10, 2009

and the other one who told him to go elsewhere if his skin isn't thick enough to take it.

Man you sure manage to read a lot into a post. No where did I tell him to go elsewhere if his skin isn't thick enough. HE is the one that suggested that, (in a rather obscene post I might add.) I was just agreeing with him.

I would hope he would stay with this forum. However, I hope if he does he cleans up his posts, this is a family friendly forum. (or is suppose to be anyway. :laughing: )

Edited September 10, 2009 by uxorious

4.7k · September 10, 2009

I certainly get your guys point about trampling the vegetation. I think getting creative with the placement is the way I will go. As for you folks that creme yourself while laying a red mark critiquing on ones question I think I will steer clear of the forum!

i'm more concerned about the inappropriateness of this remark.

but yes, people in general should proofread their cache pages. forum posts and logs not so much. but cache pages, they are the front page and care should be taken with them.

2.4k · September 10, 2009

Don't take these guys comments too hard.

They are trying to make suggestions. Don't take it personal. They do it to everyone.

Take the good out of it and ignore the rest.

These forums can also be pretty hilarious at times. (man I hope I spelled that right)

For me, I get pretty pissed off if it's a micro in a sensitive area.

Micros are for the city. Caches in the woods need something like, "you don't have to leave the trail to get this one"

I've seen micros in the woods, (or haven't seen them is more like it) and at historical sites where they shouldn't be. These areas are subject to trashing and I have seen too much of that: the evidence of it, and actually seen people distroying a park looking for a cache.

My partner was with a group that laid bare every blade and branch in an entire area, and there was nothing he could do to stop it.

On the other hand, I've seen some very clever stuff that's really tough in areas that aren't subject to trashing.

I didn't even mind the proverbial needle in a haystack when I came across one that said, "in a stump" and drove up to an ENTIRE FIELD of stumps. HUNDREDS. It was an area that was long ago trashed by loggers so couldn't be trashed any worse.

One was "hidden in plain sight" in an area that was just back of houses wooded area. Nothing to see here. Nothing to worry about trashing. No problem with that one. Kind of a crummy area anyway.

In the woods I vastly prefer people who use large containers and leave clues. Just for the sake of the area, and for the sake of the future of geocaching.

Clues are good because GPSr's are always off under tree cover. If there's no clue, places get trashed.

Geocaches already aren't allowed in the state park's in my state and many other parks because of the damage people do while finding the caches.

We don't want geocaching to be outlawed. And it could be.

Play our cards right, and we'll be able to keep playing for a long time.

4.8k · September 10, 2009

We don't want geocaching to be outlawed. And it could be.

Play our cards right, and we'll be able to keep playing for a long time.

When geocaches are outlawed, only outlaws will geocache!!

September 10, 2009

"Hiding" is such a broad term.....and too often I think people think of it in terms of size relation.

A nano in a forest isn't a hide....it's just kind of abusive. But you're allowed to be abusive....but you also lose the right to complain when no one wants to take a crack at your cache.

Be original. Be innovative. Make folks move out of their comfort zone to find something whether it be an item in a place they would not normally have thought to look or have it be of a manner of camo that they are prone to accept for what it is.

9.3k · September 10, 2009

My favorite "evil" hide was an urban micro in a pavillion. I spent 15 hours searching for it over multiple trips. When I finally found it, the feeling of accomplishment was quite high. At one point, the owner hosted a meet, eat & greet event there, and invited folks to search for it. About 30 people scoured the pavillion for a couple hours, coming up empty handed. That cache became sort of a badge of honor amongst locals, whether they found it or not.

Had that same level of difficulty been in a natural setting, it probably wouldn't have been so popular.

7.9k · September 11, 2009

There is no accounting for taste.

Some folks enjoy being tied up and whipped with a bull whip.

Some folks enjoy being the one wielding the whip.

'Do not do unto others as you would expect they should do unto you. Their tastes may not be the same.' --George Bernard Shaw

September 11, 2009

Appropriate subject for today. An extremely well known, tenacious, and experienced Australian cacher spent a whole day trying to log an FTF on a 5/5 that I created, and a caching mate placed. He spent most of the day attempting to open the cache. He failed.

The cache, http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...f7-5fc875c7aeb5

The thread on the Geocaching Australia forums about the cache, http://forum.geocaching.com.au/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=11819 :anibad:

Cheers

Bundy

September 11, 2009

Bugger, double post

Cheers

Bundy

Edited September 11, 2009 by Bundyrumandcoke

9.3k · September 11, 2009

From the cache page it sounds like a version of a monkey puzzle?

when does difficulty become cruel

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Join the conversation