A series of 16 in a state park and most are micro's!

October 22, 2009

Hi all,

I didn't think micro's were so bad, even in the woods. I'll give them a go, makes me work harder on seeing what's around me.

There's a park not too far from me I want to hike the trails on this weekend. I looked for some caches and was just in heaven seeing how many are out there. I was surprised to find the majority of them are micro's, and one series on a trail is almost nothing but micro's. I have a feeling that I'm going to work my butt off, literally, walking around these trails but leave with a small amount of smiley's.

Why so many micro's in a series set in the woods? There aren't any hints given, either.

4.2k · October 22, 2009

Yeah, not always my cup of tea either so I filter them out.

10.2k · October 22, 2009

Hi all,

I didn't think micro's were so bad, even in the woods. I'll give them a go, makes me work harder on seeing what's around me.

There's a park not too far from me I want to hike the trails on this weekend. I looked for some caches and was just in heaven seeing how many are out there. I was surprised to find the majority of them are micro's, and one series on a trail is almost nothing but micro's. I have a feeling that I'm going to work my butt off, literally, walking around these trails but leave with a small amount of smiley's.

Why so many micro's in a series set in the woods? There aren't any hints given, either.

Well, I've always subscribed to the "largest cache the area can support" theorem, and I'd like to think I'm universally agreed with, but I'm not. :laughing:

I filter out caches on a one-by-one basis as they are published, so I'd take a look at these, and decide whether or not to ignore most or all of them. The fact that someone is dropping a micro in the woods power trail would probably weigh into my decision.

A series of 16 micros in the woods is in a State Park is rather unusual. Who knows what the hiders motivation is? I do know that micro caching is very well established in NE Ohio though.

Edited October 22, 2009 by TheWhiteUrkel

3.2k · October 22, 2009

"Largest an area will support" is unimaginative and wasteful, unless of course a creative hide in an urban setting is what we are talking about. Any container the CO feels appropriate is ...well...appropriate. Micros are always an appropriate choice when well hidden as long as they are rated properly with a clear explanation of the container.

I love it when I find a ammo box, they make for good number runs as they are more often than not easily spotted from 50 or more feet away. I have hidden sizes ranging from micro to regular, with most I think larger than small, so I have nothing against any of the types

We all have different reasons for being in the hobby. While I don't filter any cache by size, type, terrain or difficulty, I do prefer the more challenging caches when I run across them. The majority of the regular and larger just do not offer any challenge and are more along a LPC in the woods with a longer walk. There are exceptions, however they are far and in between and often the challenge is related to the cache being a puzzle, multi or difficult terrain.

OK guys, in the words of Johnny Storm, FLAME ON.

October 22, 2009

Hi all,

I didn't think micro's were so bad, even in the woods. I'll give them a go, makes me work harder on seeing what's around me.

There's a park not too far from me I want to hike the trails on this weekend. I looked for some caches and was just in heaven seeing how many are out there. I was surprised to find the majority of them are micro's, and one series on a trail is almost nothing but micro's. I have a feeling that I'm going to work my butt off, literally, walking around these trails but leave with a small amount of smiley's.

Why so many micro's in a series set in the woods? There aren't any hints given, either.

Well, I've always subscribed to the "largest cache the area can support" theorem, and I'd like to think I'm universally agreed with, but I'm not.

I filter out caches on a one-by-one basis as they are published, so I'd take a look at these, and decide whether or not to ignore most or all of them. The fact that someone is dropping a micro in the woods power trail would probably weigh into my decision.

A series of 16 micros in the woods is in a State Park is rather unusual. Who knows what the hiders motivation is? I do know that micro caching is very well established in NE Ohio though.

Well, I generally agree with the "largest cache the area can support" theorem. Although there are a few that I would say are OK exceptions. There is a series in our area that are all micros hidden in an area where larger caches could be hidden OK. But I think these are an exception to that theorem, as they are all hidden in fake frogs, lizards, bees, etc... They are cute caches and kids enjoy finding them as well, especially boys, who generally like to pick up frogs and lizards and such anyway.

Maybe the ones in the SP will be something interesting and special!

Good luck and have fun!

6.7k · October 22, 2009

"Largest an area will support" is unimaginative and wasteful, unless of course a creative hide in an urban setting is what we are talking about. Any container the CO feels appropriate is ...well...appropriate. Micros are always an appropriate choice when well hidden as long as they are rated properly with a clear explanation of the container.

I love it when I find a ammo box, they make for good number runs as they are more often than not easily spotted from 50 or more feet away. I have hidden sizes ranging from micro to regular, with most I think larger than small, so I have nothing against any of the types

We all have different reasons for being in the hobby. While I don't filter any cache by size, type, terrain or difficulty, I do prefer the more challenging caches when I run across them. The majority of the regular and larger just do not offer any challenge and are more along a LPC in the woods with a longer walk. There are exceptions, however they are far and in between and often the challenge is related to the cache being a puzzle, multi or difficult terrain.

OK guys, in the words of Johnny Storm, FLAME ON.

You make it sound like having a differing opinion requires that we "flame" you and your post. Rather difficult to have a conversation that way.

I agree that a hide should be appropriate for the location. Lets leave the size issue on the side for a moment. A needle-in-the-haystack hide in the woods almost invariably results in unnecessary damage to the area. Now, lets bring back the size issue. Most of those type of hides are micro caches.

One of the major differences between an LPC and a larger cache in the woods is the woods. I prefer to judge my enjoyment of a cache on the whole experience from reading the page to logging the find and everything in between. That means that even when the hide is just as simple and unimaginative as an LPC the walk in a wooded area will be, for me, much more enjoyable.

I often filter caches by size. It maximizes my chances of avoiding parking lot hides, few of which have any interesting feature.

5.3k · October 22, 2009

The best thing about life is that we get to choose what we want to do and what we don't want to do.

Filtering out micros is easy and swift. And then on to the next thing. Easy, peasy! :laughing:

10.2k · October 22, 2009

We all have different reasons for being in the hobby. While I don't filter any cache by size, type, terrain or difficulty, I do prefer the more challenging caches when I run across them. The majority of the regular and larger just do not offer any challenge and are more along a LPC in the woods with a longer walk. There are exceptions, however they are far and in between and often the challenge is related to the cache being a puzzle, multi or difficult terrain.

OK guys, in the words of Johnny Storm, FLAME ON.

Well, I'd never flame! However, I strongly disagree with those few people who will diss ammo boxes in the woods with the overly simplistic (and almost never true in my own case), remarks about walking right up to a huge pile of sticks. And eegads, even compare them to an LPC in the woods with a longer walk? Must....not....flame.... Just kidding. :laughing:

Two words: Tree Cover. When I get to a cache site in the woods, the ammo box could be just about anywhere in a 100 foot radius. There's usually a couple hundred places to hide in ammo box in that radius. And don't even get me started about ammo boxes in rocks! I'll bet maybe 1% of the hundreds of ammo boxes I've found have been under huge piles of sticks that I walked up to.

15.3k · October 22, 2009

FWIW, there are parks that require geocaches to be located very near official trails to discourage bushwacking. I would expect geocaches in such parks to be smaller, just because it's harder to hide larger caches that close to the trails. Many caches in such parks are going to be micros attached to benches, trail signs, etc.

I don't know that this is the case in the park the OP is discussing, but it's the case in some of the parks around here.

20.7k · October 22, 2009

Why so many micro's in a series set in the woods? There aren't any hints given, either.

Because that is what and where the cache owner wanted to hide. When you hide your caches, you get to decide how big they are and where they will be.

8.6k · October 22, 2009

Some people like 'em, some people don't.

Sometimes you feel like a nut, sometimes you don't.

20.7k · October 22, 2009

You pays your money and you takes your chances.

October 23, 2009

Is a 2 liter preform micro or small? I believe they are micro, but they are not tiny. The problem presented in this thread is the assumption that all micros are nanos.

8.6k · October 23, 2009

Is a 2 liter preform micro or small? I believe they are micro, but they are not tiny. The problem presented in this thread is the assumption that all micros are nanos.

That's weird, because nobody mentions nano until you, in your post. Now who is assuming?

9.3k · October 23, 2009

"Largest an area will support" is unimaginative

I would think the opposite is true?

Any schmoo can hide a blinkie on a palm tree.

Succesfully hiding a great big ammo can in the same spot takes a lot of creativity.

No flames, just the rambling thoughts of an ole fat guy in a smelly hat.

October 23, 2009

If the micros were hidden by alot of different individuals I wouldnt have a problem. What I hate to see is a prime area capet bombed by micros from the same person. Very lame, and the reason why I think there should be some minimum distance per hide per individual.

3.4k · October 23, 2009

Why so many micro's in a series set in the woods? There aren't any hints given, either.
Because that is what and where the cache owner wanted to hide. When you hide your caches, you get to decide how big they are and where they will be.

This is my initial thought. Because maybe, just maybe they are CAMO

19k · October 23, 2009

Well, I've always subscribed to the "largest cache the area can support" theorem, and I'd like to think I'm universally agreed with, but I'm not.

Personally, I prefer the best cache the area can support. That is not neccessarily related to size, in my experience. Apples & oranges, cats & dogs, bits, & bytes.

October 23, 2009

Around here, ammo boxes in the woods can be easy to find or hard. Same for micros. It just depends upon the hide. I found an ammo box with lots of DNFs and not found in three years. I did part of a trail the other day that was mostly micros in the woods. Some easy, some hard and I had a few DNFs. I like ammo boxes but I like the woods too so I go for all of them. For me, it's about the hike with the hunts along the way a bonus.

10.2k · October 23, 2009

Around here, ammo boxes in the woods can be easy to find or hard. Same for micros. It just depends upon the hide. I found an ammo box with lots of DNFs and not found in three years. I did part of a trail the other day that was mostly micros in the woods. Some easy, some hard and I had a few DNFs. I like ammo boxes but I like the woods too so I go for all of them. For me, it's about the hike with the hunts along the way a bonus.

Well, I blame the Northeast, and all those big old forests we have around here. Tomorrow, I'll be looking for several regular sized caches along a 600 mile long trail in Southern Ontario that involve heavy tree cover, and caches usually hidden in rocks. LPC's in the woods my arse.

20.7k · October 23, 2009

Is a 2 liter preform micro or small? I believe they are micro, but they are not tiny. The problem presented in this thread is the assumption that all micros are nanos.

What is the volume of the preform? If it is less than 3 ounces, it's a micro.

Any schmoo can hide a blinkie on a palm tree.

If the micros were hidden by alot of different individuals I wouldnt have a problem. What I hate to see is a prime area capet bombed by micros from the same person. Very lame, and the reason why I think there should be some minimum distance per hide per individual.

Whether they were hidden by one person or a dozen, they were first. If someone had taken the initiative to hide larger caches there, he could have. You snooze, you lose. Edited October 23, 2009 by sbell111

2.1k · October 23, 2009

My biggest concern with proliferation of micros where larger containers would be suitable is in moving travel bugs. I enjoy moving travel bugs as much as I can, but it's obviously dependent upon containers that can accommodate.

I was hoping to move a number of TBs a couple weeks ago while I was a few hundred miles from home, but of the 5 caches I found, only two were large enough to hold bugs.

3.5k · October 23, 2009

--snip --

The majority of the regular and larger just do not offer any challenge and are more along a LPC in the woods with a longer walk. There are exceptions, however they are far and in between and often the challenge is related to the cache being a puzzle, multi or difficult terrain.

OK guys, in the words of Johnny Storm, FLAME ON.

No flame needed there. I tend to agree with you. Most cachers do not bother to even paint their ammo cans much less find a nice hidey hole for them.

October 23, 2009

Thanks for all your opinions, I'm gonna go for them and am hoping they are more than just hanging from trees. It would be so nice to find a fake bird or something of that nature. I haven't found anything like that yet.

In case your curious, here is one of the hides GC1XHMV at the Mosquito Creek State Park. I am no way complaining as I haven't seen one of his hides yet, although I read about one of them, something like Fool Proof, has been really hard to find. So hard that many people have begun pulling the bark off the trees in search of it. :anicute:

If I don't find them, I don't find them. I'll be disappointed, but I'll be back on those trails again.

14k · October 23, 2009

"Largest an area will support" is unimaginative

I would think the opposite is true?

Any schmoo can hide a blinkie on a palm tree.

I disagree. This schmoo wouldn't be able to hide a blinkie on a palm tree and have it published due to the "no vacation caches" guideline.

20.7k · October 23, 2009

My biggest concern with proliferation of micros where larger containers would be suitable is in moving travel bugs. I enjoy moving travel bugs as much as I can, but it's obviously dependent upon containers that can accommodate.

I was hoping to move a number of TBs a couple weeks ago while I was a few hundred miles from home, but of the 5 caches I found, only two were large enough to hold bugs.

When I am looking to move a TB, I only consider larger caches. Therefore, the mere fact that plenty of micro caches exist does not affect me.

2.1k · October 23, 2009

My biggest concern with proliferation of micros where larger containers would be suitable is in moving travel bugs. I enjoy moving travel bugs as much as I can, but it's obviously dependent upon containers that can accommodate.

I was hoping to move a number of TBs a couple weeks ago while I was a few hundred miles from home, but of the 5 caches I found, only two were large enough to hold bugs.

When I am looking to move a TB, I only consider larger caches. Therefore, the mere fact that plenty of micro caches exist does not affect me.

The issue is that there are a lot of micros taking up locations that would be served just as well by a larger cache.

I have no issue with micros, when placed in appropriate locations (a very large percentage of my finds are micros). If I'm on a road trip, I'll take caches of any kind. I just wish people would put out larger containers instead of compulsively hiding micros everywhere.

7.5k · October 23, 2009

My biggest concern with proliferation of micros where larger containers would be suitable is in moving travel bugs. I enjoy moving travel bugs as much as I can, but it's obviously dependent upon containers that can accommodate.

I was hoping to move a number of TBs a couple weeks ago while I was a few hundred miles from home, but of the 5 caches I found, only two were large enough to hold bugs.

When I am looking to move a TB, I only consider larger caches. Therefore, the mere fact that plenty of micro caches exist does not affect me.

I have no issue with micros, when placed in appropriate locations (a very large percentage of my finds are micros). If I'm on a road trip, I'll take caches of any kind. I just wish people would put out larger containers instead of compulsively hiding micros everywhere.

I don't mind micros when, as you say, they are placed in appropriate locations (in a nice spot that can't support a small or larger cache), well maintained, and have some imagination/creativity/investment. I'm bothered by micros that are placed because the CO does not want to invest a dime in the game. A free film canister ($0) with a scrap piece of paper ($0) and no pencil ($0). Often these types of hides are also placed by a CO who doesn't want to do maintenance, i.e. grumping about people who use more then one line in the logsheet, archiving it when the reports come in that it's missing or soggy or the logsheet is full.

20.7k · October 23, 2009

My biggest concern with proliferation of micros where larger containers would be suitable is in moving travel bugs. I enjoy moving travel bugs as much as I can, but it's obviously dependent upon containers that can accommodate.

I was hoping to move a number of TBs a couple weeks ago while I was a few hundred miles from home, but of the 5 caches I found, only two were large enough to hold bugs.

When I am looking to move a TB, I only consider larger caches. Therefore, the mere fact that plenty of micro caches exist does not affect me.

The issue is that there are a lot of micros taking up locations that would be served just as well by a larger cache.

I have no issue with micros, when placed in appropriate locations (a very large percentage of my finds are micros). If I'm on a road trip, I'll take caches of any kind. I just wish people would put out larger containers instead of compulsively hiding micros everywhere.

Be the change you wish to see.

If you want to see more larger caches, hide more larger caches. But don't begrudge someone who took the initiative and hid that kind of caches that he/she likes.

Edited October 23, 2009 by sbell111

3.2k · October 23, 2009

I don't mind micros when, as you say, they are placed in appropriate locations (in a nice spot that can't support a small or larger cache), well maintained, and have some imagination/creativity/investment. I'm bothered by micros that are placed because the CO does not want to invest a dime in the game. A free film canister ($0) with a scrap piece of paper ($0) and no pencil ($0). Often these types of hides are also placed by a CO who doesn't want to do maintenance, i.e. grumping about people who use more then one line in the logsheet, archiving it when the reports come in that it's missing or soggy or the logsheet is full.

How many lines does it take for date and name?

Before you go ragging them for spending so little, might want to jump on your other area cachers first. They couldn't even be bothered to take the time to place a cache in the first place. Since it was able to support the larger cache, the micro would definitely be appropriate.

While what is stated above happens with small to larger cache as well, fortunately these type of caches (Micro or otherwise) and the subsequent cachers are in the minority and in any case the size has nothing to do with the maintenance issue.

Luckily, when it does happens and they archive it due to needs maintenance, it gives you and others the opportunity to hide the larger cache you want there and get one under your belt. Issue resolved.

Problems (perceived or otherwise) have a way of working themselves out.

4.8k · October 24, 2009

This is a great example of how and why GS could make a .5/.5 saturation rule. If you place a cache, you cannot place another within a half mile for the next half year.

Could make it a .25/.25 rule as an alternative.

Just a thought.

7.5k · October 24, 2009

If you want to see more larger caches, hide more larger caches. But don't begrudge someone who took the initiative and hid that kind of caches that he/she likes.

In an earlier post I asked hiders, that placed micros for the first time why they hid a micro. No one said it was because micros are their favorite caches. They mostly planted them because they were easy to hide and didn't cost anything.

October 24, 2009

micros are good for places where a real cache can not be hidden (ie city street, roadside, mall parking lot) but i hate to see them in parks and wooded areas. i think its a waste and filter most of them out. I like real caches.

1.4k · October 24, 2009

I don't mind micros when, as you say, they are placed in appropriate locations (in a nice spot that can't support a small or larger cache), well maintained, and have some imagination/creativity/investment. I'm bothered by micros that are placed because the CO does not want to invest a dime in the game. A free film canister ($0) with a scrap piece of paper ($0) and no pencil ($0). Often these types of hides are also placed by a CO who doesn't want to do maintenance, i.e. grumping about people who use more then one line in the logsheet, archiving it when the reports come in that it's missing or soggy or the logsheet is full.

Yeah that was my thought as well.

(A lot of) Micros are the equivalent of a Bic lighter (to some cachers). Disposable once they don't work anymore. But the disposal is in the form of an archive button. Why go out and investigate or check on a cache that you have no investment in?

20.7k · October 26, 2009

This is a great example of how and why GS could make a .5/.5 saturation rule. If you place a cache, you cannot place another within a half mile for the next half year.

Could make it a .25/.25 rule as an alternative.

Just a thought.

That's a really good solution searching desperately for a problem.

If you want to see more larger caches, hide more larger caches. But don't begrudge someone who took the initiative and hid that kind of caches that he/she likes.

In an earlier post I asked hiders, that placed micros for the first time why they hid a micro. No one said it was because micros are their favorite caches. They mostly planted them because they were easy to hide and didn't cost anything.

Who cares why any individual cacher hid any specific cache? It's enough that they hid the cache that they wanted to.

Why did you hide your caches? Oops. Never mind.

October 26, 2009

State park caches are one of our favorites. They allow you to get some numbers and get some walking/hiking in, usually seeing so interesting things along the way. All while not having to do a lot of driving once in the park. We like them so much we created our own series in Sky Meadows State Park right here in Virginia! <_<

Edited October 26, 2009 by KJcachers

7.5k · October 26, 2009

If you want to see more larger caches, hide more larger caches. But don't begrudge someone who took the initiative and hid that kind of caches that he/she likes.

In an earlier post I asked hiders, that placed micros for the first time why they hid a micro. No one said it was because micros are their favorite caches. They mostly planted them because they were easy to hide and didn't cost anything.

Who cares why any individual cacher hid any specific cache?

You seemed to care, because you put forth the theory that it was because micro COs like micros. Just pointing out that is not accurate, most aren't hiding micros because they like finding micros.

It's enough that they hid the cache that they wanted to.

Sure if smileys are what matter most to you.

Why did you hide your caches? Oops. Never mind.

We have 18 active cache hides on our team account. We always try to hide them in an interesting location - places we've hidden them: covered bridge, waterfalls, hikes by rivers, architecturally significant cathedral, scenic overlooks, arboretum, forest tracts, in an arts & crafts town. No micro hides. All our caches have tradables i.e. they are not log-only caches.

Edited October 26, 2009 by Lone R

20.7k · October 26, 2009

If you want to see more larger caches, hide more larger caches. But don't begrudge someone who took the initiative and hid that kind of caches that he/she likes.
In an earlier post I asked hiders, that placed micros for the first time why they hid a micro. No one said it was because micros are their favorite caches. They mostly planted them because they were easy to hide and didn't cost anything.
Who cares why any individual cacher hid any specific cache?
You seemed to care, because you put forth the theory that it was because micro COs like micros. Just pointing out that is not accurate, most aren't hiding micros because they like finding micros.

I don't believe that you are correct. I believe that it is much more likely that the average cache owner is hiding caches that they would enjoy finding. You theory that cache owners are hiding caches that they wouldn't enjoy is very unlikely, in my opinion.

It's enough that they hid the cache that they wanted to.
Sure if smileys are what matter most to you.

Huh? Hiding a cache doesn't give you a smiley.

Why did you hide your caches? Oops. Never mind.
We have 18 active cache hides on our team account. We always try to hide them in an interesting location - places we've hidden them: covered bridge, waterfalls, hikes by rivers, architecturally significant cathedral, scenic overlooks, arboretum, forest tracts, in an arts & crafts town. No micro hides. All our caches have tradables i.e. they are not log-only caches.

Are they caches that you would enjoy finding? If so, then you are supporting my position.

9.3k · October 26, 2009

This schmoo wouldn't be able to hide a blinkie on a palm tree and have it published due to the "no vacation caches" guideline.

Nice catch! :mad:

Incidentally, if you do ever wish to hide a blinkie on a palm tree, and it were near my caching area, I'd be happy to act as your Aunt Edna, taking care of any necessary maintenance issues.

2.6k · October 27, 2009

Over the years we have found hundreds of woodland micro's and feel they are fun and challanging. It is nice to have a hint after you've spent a lot of effort getting to GZ but thats what the Diff rating is for.

If its a LOT of micro's I might crave a change at some point but we felt that way after finding a couple dozen ammo cans along a similar trail. I think diversity makes for fun caching ( for us anyway)

3.6k · October 27, 2009

I believe that it is much more likely that the average cache owner is hiding caches that they would enjoy finding. You theory that cache owners are hiding caches that they wouldn't enjoy is very unlikely, in my opinion.

Man, sbell, your posts are hard to quote because you get rid of all the extra returns in them. :sad:

I agree with this. There's a local cacher who has posted several series of caches along trails and the majority of them are micros, some easy, some harder and some really hard. Over a 12 mile hike, finders can pick up 20 or 30 caches.

When he hid them, he said he loves finding micros in the woods because they're much less obvious and more challenging than an ammo can hidden under a pile of sticks that you can spot from 100 feet away. I guess others feel the same way because his caches are some of the most popular in the state.

It is nice to have a hint after you've spent a lot of effort getting to GZ but thats what the Diff rating is for.

I don't mind micros in the woods, but a hint is appreciated if it's a difficult hide and there are tons of hiding spots.

One thing I find strange is that people will sometimes complain about micros in the woods as a single, traditional cache, but they rave about high difficulty multis where 7 of the 8 stages are deviously hidden micros. :signalviolin:

Edited October 27, 2009 by Skippermark

A series of 16 in a state park and most are micro's!

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

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