Jump to content

Quality of caches


Moote

Recommended Posts

Numbers is good thing sometimes ... but I feel quality has lacked...... In the good ol days you would be happy toi get 10 for a good day out and travel many miles to do so. Have to admit setting a trail recently with micros and mixture of normal caches and seems well recieved.... but its not like the old days where you would drive 30 miles for your nearest and do a massive multi in a fab walk and be happy to take that home. I did a new Dan cache recently just to remind me of the Old skool way of caching, and have to say it was a pleasant relief from those numbers, caching should be about quality, but I suppose with its populatity its sadly gone the numbers way, as means of being a sport as opposed to a hobby.

Link to comment

I believe quality has dropped off and isn't just aggravating when you hunt through the brambles and stones in a location begging for a proper cache or a micro throws out the opportunity of a place deserving a great cache by the proximity rule.

 

It is telling that a power cacher in another thread was talking about increasing his average daily haul to 60 while we now hear that driving 30 miles is unaffordable. Just what is a reasonable distance to drive to find 60+ caches?

 

Recently I asked permission of to place a cache in a wildlife reserve only to be told that the reserve was for outdoor activities. When I started to explain what Geocaching was about they said they were fully aware of Geocaching!

Link to comment

Many caches I has seen recently have drop in quality compared to the old days, could this be due to our obsession on numbers.

 

Moote

Quality is definately dropping around my neck of the woods. There are exceptions, but this year saw the start of me using the ignore list, as for the first time since I started, some caches are just not worth the effort. And I don't think it's any coincidence that the majority of poor containers are seen on our local large series or trails, so yes I think people have all got obsessed with numbers. I'd rather see one good cache rather than 30 poor ones, but I accept my views appear to be in the minority around my way now. :mad:

Link to comment

Many caches I has seen recently have drop in quality compared to the old days, could this be due to our obsession on numbers.

 

Moote

Quality is definately dropping around my neck of the woods. There are exceptions, but this year saw the start of me using the ignore list, as for the first time since I started, some caches are just not worth the effort. And I don't think it's any coincidence that the majority of poor containers are seen on our local large series or trails, so yes I think people have all got obsessed with numbers. I'd rather see one good cache rather than 30 poor ones, but I accept my views appear to be in the minority around my way now. :mad:

 

they probably aren't in the minority of all cachers, just those willing to place caches.

just wish we could convince those setters that one or two really good containers and caches on a great walk is better than 30 $$$$$ing 35mm containers strewn along a rubbish dump. After all it's less effort and cheaper to do the better option.

Link to comment

I don't think it's necessarily to do with an obsession with numbers. I think it's more to do with the increase in cachers (speaking as a relative newbie!). As the number of people who find a c*** micro dodgy hide increase, they think it's OK to hide one themselves ans so it goes on. also, as the numbers increase, the fabuous locations become taken, leaving a lot of mediocre free spots.

 

Personally, I like to think I have increased the quantity and quality in my local area. Although now I have a mental block about hiding a classic box-at-the-base-of-a-tree cache :mad:

Link to comment

Is this the scheduled 2 monthly repeat of this topic? :mad:

 

This has recently been discussed (at length, again) - why do it all over again?

Forum topics - just not what they used to be like! B)

No, this it the weekly "lite" version with added deliberate grammatical "interest". I guess the OP is missing his fix of forum angst.

 

You just need to search a bit of forum history to see what I mean.

Edited by Neath Worthies
Link to comment

Surely its horses for courses, speaking as a relative newbie, people get different things out of caching. For my kids they love finding well stocked tubs so they can trade swag, myself and my wife on the other hand really like visiting new and interesting locations. I know for others its the idea of bagging 20+ caches in a power trail or solving really devious puzzles. Round our way there is a real good mixture with something for everyone, but I can see once you have completed all the caches in your area you are going to have to travel. So just travel to the type of caches you like.

Link to comment

For my kids they love finding well stocked tubs so they can trade swag

 

I think I may have misunderstood the basis of the topic.

 

For me the quality of a cache is all about its location and its context. I don't care if the cachebox isn't like a branch of Hamleys or Debenhams. I want a lovely location and/or a bit of interesting context such as a screed of verbage on the cachepage which tells me stuff about the place or about some interesting event which happened there.

 

Yes, the cache contents can be important, especially for kids. That's why many cache creators list an inventory of the goodies on the cachepage and that's why many cachefinders update it by saying what they took/contributed. The geo"stashing" game started that way and that's still a major organ of the heart of the game, but for me the "Quality" of a cache is about its location and its context.

Link to comment

I agree wholeheartedly with Forester. In any case, Geocaching is essentially an adult game but which is also suitable for children under adult supervision. So let's get away from this perceived need to provide the little darlings with lots of free toys at every cache and let's teach them about the non material pleasures of life.

 

It's never had anything to do with toys for kids. I'm afraid that's just another of the misconceptions that's crept in over the past couple of years!!!

 

If your idea of non-material pleasure is finding an empty film pot at the side of the road, you can keep it - and your opinion - thanks.

Link to comment

I agree wholeheartedly with Forester. In any case, Geocaching is essentially an adult game but which is also suitable for children under adult supervision. So let's get away from this perceived need to provide the little darlings with lots of free toys at every cache and let's teach them about the non material pleasures of life.

 

It's never had anything to do with toys for kids. I'm afraid that's just another of the misconceptions that's crept in over the past couple of years!!!

 

If your idea of non-material pleasure is finding an empty film pot at the side of the road, you can keep it - and your opinion - thanks.

I think you may find that everyone is entitled to their opinion, so to tell someone to keep theirs to themselves is just dam.n right rude. :(

 

I certainly have nothing against toys being in caches for the kids, in fact I make sure my caches are full of goodies when placed, but my daughter fully understands that caching is about the location and not necessarily about what toys she can swap. Despite now being 11 and probably grown out of the swap idea now, she has had this frame of mind for several years. Therefore she appreciates caching regardless of type or size of cache she finds, like myself it's more about the location and any other information the cache owner has shared with us.

Link to comment

I agree wholeheartedly with Forester. In any case, Geocaching is essentially an adult game but which is also suitable for children under adult supervision. So let's get away from this perceived need to provide the little darlings with lots of free toys at every cache and let's teach them about the non material pleasures of life.

 

It's never had anything to do with toys for kids. I'm afraid that's just another of the misconceptions that's crept in over the past couple of years!!!

 

If your idea of non-material pleasure is finding an empty film pot at the side of the road, you can keep it - and your opinion - thanks.

I think you may find that everyone is entitled to their opinion, so to tell someone to keep theirs to themselves is just dam.n right rude. :(

 

I certainly have nothing against toys being in caches for the kids, in fact I make sure my caches are full of goodies when placed, but my daughter fully understands that caching is about the location and not necessarily about what toys she can swap. Despite now being 11 and probably grown out of the swap idea now, she has had this frame of mind for several years. Therefore she appreciates caching regardless of type or size of cache she finds, like myself it's more about the location and any other information the cache owner has shared with us.

 

My comment wasn't aimed at being rude to anybody - it was stating that they could keep whatever kind of cache they wanted to find pleasure in!

And I don't recall telling anybody to keep their opinionto themselves???

Edited by keehotee
Link to comment

I agree wholeheartedly with Forester. In any case, Geocaching is essentially an adult game but which is also suitable for children under adult supervision. So let's get away from this perceived need to provide the little darlings with lots of free toys at every cache and let's teach them about the non material pleasures of life.

 

It's never had anything to do with toys for kids. I'm afraid that's just another of the misconceptions that's crept in over the past couple of years!!!

 

If your idea of non-material pleasure is finding an empty film pot at the side of the road, you can keep it - and your opinion - thanks.

I think you may find that everyone is entitled to their opinion, so to tell someone to keep theirs to themselves is just dam.n right rude. :(

 

I certainly have nothing against toys being in caches for the kids, in fact I make sure my caches are full of goodies when placed, but my daughter fully understands that caching is about the location and not necessarily about what toys she can swap. Despite now being 11 and probably grown out of the swap idea now, she has had this frame of mind for several years. Therefore she appreciates caching regardless of type or size of cache she finds, like myself it's more about the location and any other information the cache owner has shared with us.

 

My comment wasn't aimed at being rude to anybody - it was stating that they could keep whatever kind of cache they wanted to find pleasure in!

And I don't recall telling anybody to keep their opinionto themselves???

My bold is where you told Neath Worthies to keep their opinions to themselves.

Link to comment

And we are going to attract or even keep cachers with these kinds of attitude being displayed?

Get over it people and play the game in the way that you enjoy most.

Where in the rules does it say You MUST only put out xxx type of container and NEVER use YYY type container or you MUST only look for this type of container and nevr that type.

We all like to play it in a different way, I enjoy all types of caches except puzzles but I don't come on here and continually slag them off, I simply use the 'MY' filter when I select which caches I am going to find.

I think the NO MICROS, NO POWER TRAILS, ONLY RUSTY AMMO BOXES/BIG BOXES subject has been flogged to death.

Lets just play the game our way and leave others to do it their way.

SUn is shining outside and that is exactly what I am going to do.

Edited by DrDick&Vick
Link to comment

Many caches I has seen recently have drop in quality compared to the old days, could this be due to our obsession on numbers.

 

Moote

I don't think it has anything to do with anyone having an obsession with numbers on finding, but it may have some link with those that have an obsession with numbers with placing. Now I do not wish to tar everyone with the same brush, as there are people out there with placed caches in the excess of 50, yet most or even all of their caches are well thought out and are enjoyable. But we must not forget that there are also people out there with well over 50 placed caches that just drop them off any old place because they can, it's these caches that may have the knock on effect of saying this is the standard you need to set.

 

It could also be to do with cache saturation, all of the good places have been taken and people just want to get more caches out there, so they put them anywhere, and thus leads us to micros being placed all over the place.

 

Another possible thought is that in the early days, when you held an event you would place 3 or 4 caches for people to find on the day. It is now starting to get that when an event is organised, many even into the 100's of caches are being placed for the event. Why so many I don't know as you can only find a fraction if you want to attend the event and enjoy the company of others. this then has the knock on effect of people saying, well such an event placed in excess of 100 caches, so it must be the norm to get as many caches placed as possible for my event!

 

If I am not mistaken it was due to cache saturation in the US, that the 0.1 mile rule was brought into effect.

Link to comment

I agree wholeheartedly with Forester. In any case, Geocaching is essentially an adult game but which is also suitable for children under adult supervision. So let's get away from this perceived need to provide the little darlings with lots of free toys at every cache and let's teach them about the non material pleasures of life.

 

It's never had anything to do with toys for kids. I'm afraid that's just another of the misconceptions that's crept in over the past couple of years!!!

 

If your idea of non-material pleasure is finding an empty film pot at the side of the road, you can keep it - and your opinion - thanks.

I think you may find that everyone is entitled to their opinion, so to tell someone to keep theirs to themselves is just dam.n right rude. :(

 

I certainly have nothing against toys being in caches for the kids, in fact I make sure my caches are full of goodies when placed, but my daughter fully understands that caching is about the location and not necessarily about what toys she can swap. Despite now being 11 and probably grown out of the swap idea now, she has had this frame of mind for several years. Therefore she appreciates caching regardless of type or size of cache she finds, like myself it's more about the location and any other information the cache owner has shared with us.

 

My comment wasn't aimed at being rude to anybody - it was stating that they could keep whatever kind of cache they wanted to find pleasure in!

And I don't recall telling anybody to keep their opinionto themselves???

My bold is where you told Neath Worthies to keep their opinions to themselves.

That's not the way I read it - or the way I intended it.

Link to comment

Many caches I has seen recently have drop in quality compared to the old days, could this be due to our obsession on numbers.

 

Moote

 

Expansion of members has a lot to do with it as well. I don't know if quality has dropped. There's an increase in urban caches (usually considered to be lower quality), but there's also in increase in the rural caches--it just depends on how far you're willing to drive. I love the rural caches, I just don't have much time nowadays to get to them and caching is usually done between photo shoots or my daughter's schedule.

Link to comment

Hmm... if you want to see 'quality' hides, get out there and hide them. Why do people complain about a spot being taken up by a micro - would they prefer to see no cache there at all?

 

Maybe it's only the people obsessed with numbers who actually complain about quality of hides. After all, if you're happy to skip looking for certain caches a micro shouldn't bother you - but if you absolutely must find every single cache - then you're going to run into this problem.

 

I've seen a few micros in the woods, sometimes, yes, a bigger container could have been used - but for me I can take away the thrill of the hunt even if it wasn't a nice location.

Link to comment

Hmm... if you want to see 'quality' hides, get out there and hide them. Why do people complain about a spot being taken up by a micro - would they prefer to see no cache there at all?

 

Maybe it's only the people obsessed with numbers who actually complain about quality of hides. After all, if you're happy to skip looking for certain caches a micro shouldn't bother you - but if you absolutely must find every single cache - then you're going to run into this problem.

 

I've seen a few micros in the woods, sometimes, yes, a bigger container could have been used - but for me I can take away the thrill of the hunt even if it wasn't a nice location.

 

point 1. yes there are many micro caches that I have seen and found that I think would have been better if nothing had been there. Due to the filthy unpleasant unsavoury nature of the location.

 

Point2. If the quality goes down, new people find a large proportion of caches that would be better to either not exist or could have been placed better with better containers. They then form the impression that this is the norm and so the degradation continues and grows.

 

Point 3. micros in woods are harder to find. This leads to excessive searching. Which rapidly degrades the location due to every piece of rotting wood and moss being moved. So what you might think? But tell that to the owner/ warden. They often are happy to have us visit their land thinking that we leave the location better than we find it. Then they see the resultant ploughing that occurs and they reconsider. Removal of permission and bad reviews of us get passed on to other wardens.

Link to comment

There are some god awful caches out there, I despair of them. A cache I visited recently was simply the worst cache location I have ever seen, in an urban drinking den, littered with broken glass and goodness knows what else. There was no way I was moving ANYTHING with my hands to find it.

Again, pointless nanos in urban areas suck the life out of geocaching for me. I'm with Forester on this, it's about the journey and the location, not the numbers.

Link to comment

Snip of previously quoted items to make the post smaller.

 

That's not the way I read it - or the way I intended it.

In that case it is very obvious to me that my grasp of the English language is somewhat different to yourself!! :(

 

I think I shall leave it at that!

 

Agreed.

If that is what I had intended, then that is what I would have written. I'm not usually known for mincing my words, and in this instance I didn't come in here looking for a fight....

Link to comment

:( I did 18 caches yesterday, most of them micros, most of them in "nothing special places".

I had the very same conversation with Woodbury Walker this morning about this subject.

 

No disrespect for the newer cachers out there, but the more people that have joined this hobby the quality of caches does seem to have come down.

 

Caches seem to be set without to much thought.

 

IMHO we should not be allowed to set a cache until we have found a certain amount, that way we could get a measure of what is good and what is not so good.

 

Nowadays caches are set by people who have not even found any, how do they know what "good" is?

 

Just my opinion :)

Link to comment

:( I did 18 caches yesterday, most of them micros, most of them in "nothing special places".

I had the very same conversation with Woodbury Walker this morning about this subject.

 

No disrespect for the newer cachers out there, but the more people that have joined this hobby the quality of caches does seem to have come down.

 

Caches seem to be set without to much thought.

 

IMHO we should not be allowed to set a cache until we have found a certain amount, that way we could get a measure of what is good and what is not so good.

 

Nowadays caches are set by people who have not even found any, how do they know what "good" is?

 

Just my opinion :)

 

you placed you first cache with less then 50 finds and about 3 weeks after you started. Surely you have been learning as you go along? Would you have been pleased with such a restriction as a new cacher? How do you look back on your first cache now?

 

Placing a restriction on a free recreational sport is less then constructive imo. Tis probably far better for people to start being a bit more honest in logs, and/or start talking to/mailing CO's their thoughts about their cache. Not every cacher reads the forums, most happily cache away and log/place caches without ever looking here.

Link to comment

 

IMHO we should not be allowed to set a cache until we have found a certain amount, that way we could get a measure of what is good and what is not so good.

 

Nowadays caches are set by people who have not even found any, how do they know what "good" is?

 

Just my opinion :(

 

I agree and also just my opinion :)

Link to comment

 

IMHO we should not be allowed to set a cache until we have found a certain amount, that way we could get a measure of what is good and what is not so good.

 

Nowadays caches are set by people who have not even found any, how do they know what "good" is?

 

Just my opinion :(

 

I agree and also just my opinion :)

 

again, your own first cache placed without a 'significant' amount of finds.

 

I'm not picking a fight here, just trying to prove a point.

 

It doesnt matter about the amount you find, if you have found 150 crap caches it doesn't suddenly make you an expert. Numbers isn't where it is at all. Restrictions are not the answer, education is.

 

We can jump up and down all day long about what quidelines should be in place, in the end it all matters little as none will be applied by TPTB. I think if people spend half the energy on talking to new cachers as they do on complaining about those caches it would probably get more results then anything else.

 

How about pointing new cachers to 'interesting caches'? So they can get that xp behind them, and maybe some novel ideas of their own? Just one of many things that can be done to actively promote quality.

Link to comment

:) I did 18 caches yesterday, most of them micros, most of them in "nothing special places".

I had the very same conversation with Woodbury Walker this morning about this subject.

 

No disrespect for the newer cachers out there, but the more people that have joined this hobby the quality of caches does seem to have come down.

 

Caches seem to be set without to much thought.

 

IMHO we should not be allowed to set a cache until we have found a certain amount, that way we could get a measure of what is good and what is not so good.

 

Nowadays caches are set by people who have not even found any, how do they know what "good" is?

 

Just my opinion ;)

 

you placed you first cache with less then 50 finds and about 3 weeks after you started. Surely you have been learning as you go along? Would you have been pleased with such a restriction as a new cacher? How do you look back on your first cache now?

 

Placing a restriction on a free recreational sport is less then constructive imo. Tis probably far better for people to start being a bit more honest in logs, and/or start talking to/mailing CO's their thoughts about their cache. Not every cacher reads the forums, most happily cache away and log/place caches without ever looking here.

 

As i said; "In my humble opinion"......................... :(

If there was a restriction, when I started, I would have had to abide by it, same with all sports/hobbies :)

How do I look back on my first cache?

It wasn't a bad first effort, read the recent logs, it seems that people like it, it has views, a nice walk and it's not a 35mm micro and it's an interesting hide.

 

Just my opinon....................like my signature line says, everyone is entitled to express their views!

Link to comment

I strongly disagree with this quality/quantity equation.

 

I had found about three caches when I created my own first cache. That cache is of good quality and has been described as such plenty of times. It's almost six years old and still going strong (albeit with a new box or lid once or twice in its career).

 

The second cache I created is also going strong. In fact it has recently been flattered with the description: "It still is high on my list of "Great Caches of Oman" due to the stunning scenery in which it is hidden".

 

My third created cache was a failure. I still only had three finds to my credit, but I really don't think that my inexperience in finding caches was in any way to blame. That cache was muggled, almost certainly within a few tens of minutes of my leaving its location. Even if I'd found a hundred caches, I really don't think that I would have avoided making the mistake I made which led to that cache being muggled.

 

I just don't see any connection between any particular number of finds and an ability to intelligently and creatively hide a cache of your own.

Link to comment

 

I had found about three caches when I created my own first cache. That cache is of good quality and has been described as such plenty of times. It's almost six years old and still going strong (albeit with a new box or lid once or twice in its career).

 

But had you found 3 micros in a dusty ivy covered tree on the side of an A road or 3 quality hides in fabulous surroundings? In my opinion, it's what you've found not how many which governs how "good" your hides are. My first was under a pile of sticks at the base of a tree because that's what I'd mainly found. My second & 3rd were similar, my 4th far better.

Edited by HouseOfDragons
Link to comment

Good point HoD.

 

My first find was of average quality, for those days. It was a medium sized box hidden in a fairly pleasant bit of woodland.

 

My second find was in a lovely riparian locale in the lower Highlands of Scotland. It too was a mid-sized tupperware box.

 

My third find was a cracking multi-trail which had enormous educational value as it formed what amounted to a well-researched and cleverly constructed tour of a historic town. The cachebox itself was a small container and was located in the dodgiest imaginable location. It was hiddeen under a fallen tombstone in an abandoned graveyard which was littered with syringes, condom wrappers, broken Buckfast bottles and clear evidence that it was inhabited at night, regularly, by rough-sleepers.

 

My impression of how large a cachebox ought to be was certainly influenced by those three finds, though I doubt that it would have changed much thirty three finds later.

Link to comment

point 1. yes there are many micro caches that I have seen and found that I think would have been better if nothing had been there. Due to the filthy unpleasant unsavoury nature of the location.

 

Point2. If the quality goes down, new people find a large proportion of caches that would be better to either not exist or could have been placed better with better containers. They then form the impression that this is the norm and so the degradation continues and grows.

 

Point 3. micros in woods are harder to find. This leads to excessive searching. Which rapidly degrades the location due to every piece of rotting wood and moss being moved. So what you might think? But tell that to the owner/ warden. They often are happy to have us visit their land thinking that we leave the location better than we find it. Then they see the resultant ploughing that occurs and they reconsider. Removal of permission and bad reviews of us get passed on to other wardens.

 

Which validates my point: unless you're all about the numbers you don't have to go after every single cache. If you are concerned about the local wildlife where someone has heartlessly tossed a micro - don't go trampling all over the wildlife searching for said micro!

 

And on that point your concern is moot anyway. People - humans - are destructive and ignorant by nature. There's already so much damage taking place to local environments through vandalism, fires, flytipping and carelessness, a micro in an inappropriate place is just an extension of that.

 

If someone is insensitive enough to hide any sized cache at a sensitive spot, what makes you think that by not being a geocaching and not hiding caches they are going to be any better upstanding citizen.

 

Simply by partaking in the sport, and hiding caches (however badly) may actually be raising their awareness of the local environment - even if it's not up to your own high standards.

 

...

 

And all the talk of restrictions on newbies and their influence about what constitutes a good hide is BS. My first find was on at the top of a mountain with a spectacular view and a large container - how do you like them apples?

 

Fact of the matter is, most people are going to know what is a good or bad area - you can learn as much from bad caches as you can good. But despite my first find, my first cache was a nano. It was not a spectacular hide either, mainly just for the historical interest, but I was psyched to get my first logs and be providing a new cache for people to find.

 

...

 

Even if you didn't use geocaching.com, there is nothing stopping people from hiding containers wherever they like and using other listing sites - are you going to get all narked over them too?

Link to comment

Fact of the matter is, most people are going to know what is a good or bad area - you can learn as much from bad caches as you can good. But despite my first find, my first cache was a nano. It was not a spectacular hide either, mainly just for the historical interest, but I was psyched to get my first logs and be providing a new cache for people to find.

Just out of interest, why did you put the size down as unknown, and not micro?

 

Edited to correct typo

Edited by keehotee
Link to comment

Fact of the matter is, most people are going to know what is a good or bad area - you can learn as much from bad caches as you can good. But despite my first find, my first cache was a nano. It was not a spectacular hide either, mainly just for the historical interest, but I was psyched to get my first logs and be providing a new cache for people to find.

Just put of interest, why did you put the size down as unknown, and not micro?

 

Misinterpreting size guidelines and haven't got round to changing it yet.

 

ETA: Which I've just fixed now on 2 of my caches.

Edited by _TeamFitz_
Link to comment

 

Which validates my point: unless you're all about the numbers you don't have to go after every single cache. If you are concerned about the local wildlife where someone has heartlessly tossed a micro - don't go trampling all over the wildlife searching for said micro!

 

And on that point your concern is moot anyway. People - humans - are destructive and ignorant by nature. There's already so much damage taking place to local environments through vandalism, fires, flytipping and carelessness, a micro in an inappropriate place is just an extension of that.

 

If someone is insensitive enough to hide any sized cache at a sensitive spot, what makes you think that by not being a geocaching and not hiding caches they are going to be any better upstanding citizen.

 

Simply by partaking in the sport, and hiding caches (however badly) may actually be raising their awareness of the local environment - even if it's not up to your own high standards.

 

Even if you didn't use geocaching.com, there is nothing stopping people from hiding containers wherever they like and using other listing sites - are you going to get all narked over them too?

 

Get all narked. I wonder if you are aware of the fact that people cant just place caches where everthey want to. There's this little hassle called permission.

Then I wonder if you're aware of the GAGB? We go to lots of trouble to arrange large areas of agreement with land owners. THEY get really "narked" if people trash areas of wildlife that they control. The result of that will be that they cancel the agreement and tell other organisations to also say no.

 

So, by one persons actions of placing a micro that results in damage being done, everyone else loses.

 

It's not just a matter of just not doing ones that "my high standards" mean that I don't like, I and everyone else who can see the problems that can occur should tell people to stop it happening and try to make people think.

 

Sorry if you think that any of that means I'm being too fussy or trying to impose my standards on other people. They aren't my standards they are the standards of landowners.

Link to comment

Get all narked. I wonder if you are aware of the fact that people cant just place caches where everthey want to. There's this little hassle called permission.

Then I wonder if you're aware of the GAGB? We go to lots of trouble to arrange large areas of agreement with land owners. THEY get really "narked" if people trash areas of wildlife that they control. The result of that will be that they cancel the agreement and tell other organisations to also say no.

 

So, by one persons actions of placing a micro that results in damage being done, everyone else loses.

 

It's not just a matter of just not doing ones that "my high standards" mean that I don't like, I and everyone else who can see the problems that can occur should tell people to stop it happening and try to make people think.

 

Sorry if you think that any of that means I'm being too fussy or trying to impose my standards on other people. They aren't my standards they are the standards of landowners.

And to re-iterate my point - since geocaching.com - an American site - is open to anyone in the world to sign up and place caches irrespective of agencies that operate under the banner of "Geocaching" and limited to certain state boundaries, anyone can place a cache.

 

Anyone can place a cache even without signing up to geocaching.com. Just like anyone can litter without signing up to littering.com.

 

You can't police the internet and you can't police people who litter -- or place bad caches.

 

Of course, if a landowner opposes a cache they can contact Groundspeak and get the LISTING removed. But just like a landowner can't prevent litterers, trespassers who are non-cachers, landowners can't actually prevent cache placers either - who are simply using geocaching.com as a service for listing it.

 

Anyway land ownership is a red herring argument you are making. Assuming that a local council gave people permission to place caches at the local rubbish dump - there is no obligation for you to go find that cache - unless you are compulsively obsessed by numbers - which was my original point.

 

I guess that if the GAGB wanted, they could start their own website, elect you as the reviewer then you could make sure that every single GAGB placement was legit. Might have less GAGB caches listed than those on geocaching.com but at least you would be happy not having to see those little icons appear in places you personally disagree with.

Link to comment

Well put TeamFitz. Well worth putting caching in perspective. There are many caches in my home area that are not listed on the internet on any caching site and - guess what - never had permission and never cause a problem.

 

I'd also like to point out that it's perfectly feasible to hide a cache in an environmentally sensitive area without encouraging people to trash the area; it's poorly-designed caches that are to blame in these circumstances. What we should do is encourage people to criticise such hides in their log; "Note. Didn't start looking for this one as it would have entailed trampling through some wild flowers. So turned back. I suggest cache owner review.". Or, "DNF. Even with the hint there was a big area to search. I wasn't keen to ransack such an unspoilt spot so I left after a quick inspection. Suggest improving the description to pinpoint the cache position, before the area gets trashed.".

 

As for finding a micro in a dump, as you approach said dump, why not just turn back? Then log a to-the-point note; "Note. Didn't like the look of this area so turned back.". No need to lay into the hapless cache owner; enough of that type of logging and he'll get the hint.

 

If you just don't like a particular type of cache (because of location, container size, cache type or whatever), I suggest taking the Forester's advice and trying to deduce this from the cache description / logs etc, then avoiding such caches. There seems to be plenty of good ones around if you're selective. Obviously, if the area is packed with caches then any new ones are not going to be in the best locations, so if location is your thing look for older caches.

Link to comment

If you just don't like a particular type of cache (because of location, container size, cache type or whatever), I suggest taking the Forester's advice and trying to deduce this from the cache description / logs etc, then avoiding such caches. There seems to be plenty of good ones around if you're selective. Obviously, if the area is packed with caches then any new ones are not going to be in the best locations, so if location is your thing look for older caches.

 

Easier said than done. Until people stop logging caches "TFTC" regardless of whether they liked it or not, there's little point in using the logs as any basis for filtering out caches you might not enjoy.

 

And location seems to get mentioned a lot in this thread. There is NO shortage of great places to hide caches in the UK - unless you're too worried/lazy/unfit to walk further than the width of your car door. Even around areas full of micro trails, there's still plenty of space to hide new caches.

Link to comment

 

Easier said than done. Until people stop logging caches "TFTC" regardless of whether they liked it or not, there's little point in using the logs as any basis for filtering out caches you might not enjoy.

 

 

Probably reaching but what about using attributes.. eg. I know there's an attribute for 'thorns'... still it probably needs to be a combination of things. I suppose you could get into discussing voting systems which I know have been discussed on this forum in the past.

Edited by _TeamFitz_
Link to comment

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...