Pointless caches

[+Folenator]

I am very much a tadpole (only 8 so far!) but I am already getting a little jaded. What is the point of a geocache in a parking lot? It sort of goes against the spirit of geocaching. Yeah, sure I want to find a lot of them, but worthwhile caches. I don't want a find a cache just to say I found one; an intergral part is the journey and the GZ locale. Poking around in a parking lot just doesn't seem right.

[+Team Cotati]

I am very much a tadpole (only 8 so far!) but I am already getting a little jaded. What is the point of a geocache in a parking lot? It sort of goes against the spirit of geocaching. Yeah, sure I want to find a lot of them, but worthwhile caches. I don't want a find a cache just to say I found one; an intergral part is the journey and the GZ locale. Poking around in a parking lot just doesn't seem right.

 

I'm with you on that one. So are a bunch of our geocaching buddies in here. Let's see what they have to say, ok?

[jholly]

I am very much a tadpole (only 8 so far!) but I am already getting a little jaded. What is the point of a geocache in a parking lot? It sort of goes against the spirit of geocaching. Yeah, sure I want to find a lot of them, but worthwhile caches. I don't want a find a cache just to say I found one; an intergral part is the journey and the GZ locale. Poking around in a parking lot just doesn't seem right.

 

well no one said you had to do that one. pass it by and do ones you like, then you will be happy and the world will be good.

[+Folenator]

well no one said you had to do that one. pass it by and do ones you like, then you will be happy and the world will be good.

 

Hmmm...I think I will change my handle to GeoSnob and cache only the worthwhile ones. Thanks for the idea!

[+Kabuthunk]

Simple answer: #

 

For people who are in it for number of finds.

[+BrrrMo]

well no one said you had to do that one. pass it by and do ones you like, then you will be happy and the world will be good.

 

Hmmm...I think I will change my handle to GeoSnob and cache only the worthwhile ones. Thanks for the idea!

 

Good idea! GeoSnob! You haven't been around long enough to be anything but a Newbie!

[+Cardinal Red]

I am very much a tadpole (only 8 so far!) but I am already getting a little jaded. What is the point of a geocache in a parking lot? It sort of goes against the spirit of geocaching. Yeah, sure I want to find a lot of them, but worthwhile caches. I don't want a find a cache just to say I found one; an intergral part is the journey and the GZ locale. Poking around in a parking lot just doesn't seem right.

When I started out I avoided ALL Micro caches and by extension all parking lot caches. I only planned out very specific cache hunts that involved some kind of hike. I was very happy. But soon I met and became friends with other cachers and realized I wanted to know my home caching environment better to be able to share it with my friends. I started including Micro's in my cache searches. Surprise, surprise - I was still happy. Then I also became aware it wasn't all about me, and heard about physically challenged cachers who can't do the caches you have described as in "the spirit of geocaching". I felt very embarrassed that I had completely overlooked the value of a parking lot cache to that group of fellow cachers.

 

Search for what you like. Get jaded if it helps. Accept that many able bodied cachers will find parking lot caches, but you don't have to. I still won't log Virtuals, Webcams, Earthcaches, Events. And I won't hide Micro's either. But my friends do all of that, and they are quite happy to do so. Oh well. I'll check back on your profile in a year and see if you held out longer than I did against "evil" Micro's.

[+Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking]

Simple answer: #

 

For people who are in it for number of finds.

 

Not always. We dont cache for numbers, but sometimes a nice easy parking lot find is fun.

[+Folenator]

Search for what you like. Get jaded if it helps. Accept that many able bodied cachers will find parking lot caches, but you don't have to. I still won't log Virtuals, Webcams, Earthcaches, Events. And I won't hide Micro's either. But my friends do all of that, and they are quite happy to do so. Oh well. I'll check back on your profile in a year and see if you held out longer than I did against "evil" Micro's.

 

Interesting points...micros don't bother me so much. Found one today on top of Stone Mountain. It was a beautiful day and great view so the fact that no trinkets were involved was no big deal.

[+WRASTRO]

well no one said you had to do that one. pass it by and do ones you like, then you will be happy and the world will be good.

 

Hmmm...I think I will change my handle to GeoSnob and cache only the worthwhile ones. Thanks for the idea!

Give yourself a year or two before deciding to start applying labels to yourself or others. Then hunt what you enjoy and try to be thankful for those who place caches, regardless of your level of enjoyment for each one. Not every cache is a gem but every cache was placed by a cacher who was trying to give something back to the game.

[+bittsen]

I am very much a tadpole (only 8 so far!) but I am already getting a little jaded. What is the point of a geocache in a parking lot? It sort of goes against the spirit of geocaching. Yeah, sure I want to find a lot of them, but worthwhile caches. I don't want a find a cache just to say I found one; an intergral part is the journey and the GZ locale. Poking around in a parking lot just doesn't seem right.

Urban micros are, by far, the most popular caches based on the number of finds vs number of finds on larger rural caches.

 

Don't like em, go for a 20 mile hike somewhere to find something else. And when you DNF the 20 mile hike cache, tell us how much you hate park and grabs cuz I bet most people hate to end a cache day with a DNF.

[Clan Riffster]

Hi Folenator, welcome to the addiction! Unfortunately, there is no 12 step program... yet. I love Stone Mountain. Someday I hope to cache there. I keep crossing my fingers in the hopes that a Geowoodstock will end up there, but as yet, it hasn't happened.

 

I have developed a highly biased preference regarding what types of caches I like, and what types I feel are stinkers. For the most part, those that bring me to a 500 acre sweltering, exhaust laden blacktop parking lot bristling with soccer mom driven SUVs perfectly describes the stinker end of the scale. Since I don't enjoy these types of hides, I've come up with a means of avoiding most of them: Eliminate micros from your pocket query. I won't tell you that this is a perfect solution, because there is the occasional gem amongst the lumps of coal, but there are so many non micros out there, that you may be too busy hunting ones you enjoy to bemoan missing out on the rare inspired micros.

 

Another trick is to tweak the D/T ratings in your PQs. Forgo anything with a D/T of 1.5/1.5 or less. If that still leaves you with stinkers, raise one or both numbers till you end up with just those caches that don't qualify as lame in your book. Then set yourself up for instant notification, and give a looksee to all the newly published caches. If you see one that catches your eye, that would not survive your PQ, (such as a 1.5/1.5 micro that looks to be at a way kewl spot), you can always upload it directly to your GPSr.

 

Good luck!

[4wheelin_fool]

Stone mountain is an most excellent place, just a huge chunk of rock with carvings in it from the late 1800s on up. The top is barren of plantlife and has craters like the moon.

 

On one hand parking lot caches are great after a few nasty DNFs. Sometimes you just need to make a find. On the other hand, they are a pain if you just download a bunch of coords for caches in a certain area and then later find out they are all very similar and very much the same thing over and over..

Edited December 28, 2009 by 4wheelin_fool

[+AbMagFab]

What's so wonderful about this sport/hobby is that there are almost 1,000,000 caches worldwide. And there are thousands of caches nearby everyone, of almost any type.

 

So hunt for what you like, and if that changes over time, enjoy an even broader set of caches.

 

And be grateful that so many people are willing to keep this cool thing going! (And consider hiding and maintaining your own caches of whatever type you prefer.)

Edited December 28, 2009 by AbMagFab

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

Well, Many people will agree with you, and many people will argue with you. The truth is that since there are so many different kinds of people who play, there are many different ways to play. Some like those because they play for the numbers, and others like them because they can be found during errands, and some like them for other reasons. They are not my favorite, but I have found ways to enjoy them too.

 

There are also a variety of reasons that people do not like them.

 

The best thing to do is figure out which kinds of Caches you like to seek, and then learn some of the tools used to filter out the ones that don't interest you. I hope that was what some of the previous posters were trying to say, but they just didn't take the time to expand on the thought?

[+bittsen]

What's so wonderful about this sport/hobby is that there are almost 1,000,000 caches worldwide. And there are thousands of caches nearby everyone, of almost any type.

 

So hunt for what you like, and if that changes over time, enjoy an even broader set of caches.

 

And be grateful that so many people are willing to keep this cool thing going! (And consider hiding and maintaining your own caches of whatever type you prefer.)

 

Wouldn't it be great if we could hide our caches from those who profess to dislike them?

 

(random thought that this thread inspired)

[Mr.Yuck]

well no one said you had to do that one. pass it by and do ones you like, then you will be happy and the world will be good.

 

Hmmm...I think I will change my handle to GeoSnob and cache only the worthwhile ones. Thanks for the idea!

 

It always warms my heart to see newer cachers who think caching in parking lots is "pointless". But I have to agree, pass it by, and only do the ones you like. I've been doing it since the ignore list feature came out in February 2005, and even a select few before then, although there were very few stinkers in my area then.

 

I've come to study caches on a one-by-one basis as they are published, to see if I'm interested. I'm no cache snob, my last find (today) was a nano! In a nice park overlooking the Niagara River about 4 miles upstream from the falls. And let me tell you, that is one cold place in December.

[+joespaz]

I am very much a tadpole (only 8 so far!) but I am already getting a little jaded. What is the point of a geocache in a parking lot? It sort of goes against the spirit of geocaching. Yeah, sure I want to find a lot of them, but worthwhile caches. I don't want a find a cache just to say I found one; an intergral part is the journey and the GZ locale. Poking around in a parking lot just doesn't seem right.

 

I enjoy parking lot caches. To me it is cool to see the ways that people are able to hide caches in plain sight. I enjoy the idea of knowing that I can be sneaky and find a cache right under the noses of the muggles. I am not in it for the numbers, more for the activity.

 

Groundspeak has come up with many ways on how to filter out types of caches that you don't like. If you would like help doing that I am sure there is advice or people willing to help you in the forums. Otherwise, maybe we'll see you at one of the local cache events where you can get suggestions of good caches from fellow Geocachers.

[+tozainamboku]

I am very much a tadpole (only 8 so far!) but I am already getting a little jaded. What is the point of a soft serve ice cream? It sort of goes against the spirit of ice cream. Yeah, sure I want to eat a lot of ice cream, but worthwhile ice cream. I don't want a eat ice cream just to say I ate one; an intergral (sic.) part is the texture and the flavor of real ice cream. Eating soft serve just doesn't seem right.

 

We have the little icon of Signal eating ice cream in part because some people enjoy cache that take you to some interesting place or challenge you mentally or physically to get the cache. They believe that the journey to the cache and the chance to see nature around GZ are somehow integral to geocaching.

 

Geocaching is very simple. Someone hides a geocacache and other people find it. There is no rule saying you have to go on a five mile hike to find geocache. There is no rule that a geocache be hidden in the forest or only at locations that are "novel, of interest to other players, and have a special historic, community or geocaching quality that sets it apart from everyday subjects" (The quoted part is from the guideline we had for virtual geocaches before this type was grandfathered.)

 

If you think a geocache should be hidden someplace other than a parking lot, consider yourself lucky. Many people feel the same way you do, so there are plenty of geocaches hidden that are not in parking lots. The problem tends to be that you can't always tell whether or not a geocache is hidden in what you consider a suitable place. Parking lots are usually pretty easy to tell for traditional caches. You can look online at Google Maps and tell from the satellite photo. So these are fairly easy to avoid. You can also tell when you are driving to the cache and the arrow on your GPS points to the parking lot. Some people have developed the habit of just driving on by and skipping these caches. Granted there are other places that are not as easy to avoid.

 

One suggestion that has been made is to have a set of attributes for several kinds of places that someone may find interesting. There is a scenic view attribute already, but some other options could be added. You might even have a PnG attribute for people who find this combination a "interesting" location. Then premium members at least could filter out cache that have interesting attributes that they find interesting.

[+Chrysalides]

I am very much a tadpole (only 8 so far!) but I am already getting a little jaded. What is the point of a geocache in a parking lot? It sort of goes against the spirit of geocaching.

Complaining about hides is against the spirit of geocaching. I think that was established a few months ago.

 

Edit to add : I totally understand you not liking certain types of caches. I have my personal preference too. That you feel the need to vent about it here, well, there's still freedom of speech the last time I checked. For you to declare it is against the spirit of geocaching, though, that's stretching it a bit.

 

By the way, I've nominated vodka to be the spirit of geocaching, but the response has been somewhat less than unanimous around here. I think it's the whiskey lobby. Or maybe AA.

Edited December 28, 2009 by Chrysalides

[+bunkerdave]

I got into geocaching because it was a fun way to use my GPS. While I often curse this CO or that one, I still enjoy getting a new GPS and taking it out to see the advantages it has over the last one...I enjoy getting out in the fresh air, day or night, and just being outdoors. If I had my druthers, I'd be in the mountains or deserts every day of the year, but where I live, we spend a good portion of the year with snow on the ground. The urban micros have been around for some time (although when I started, they were few and far between) and I have voiced my feelings about the abundance, but every winter I go out and start finding a bunch of them because the better caches are impossible to get to without an epic journey.

 

Get GSAK, and subscribe to GC.com. Then you can make caching exactly what you want it to be....more or less. Let me know if you find a solution to unmaintained caches.

[+keehotee]

I am very much a tadpole (only 8 so far!) but I am already getting a little jaded. What is the point of a geocache in a parking lot? It sort of goes against the spirit of geocaching. Yeah, sure I want to find a lot of them, but worthwhile caches. I don't want a find a cache just to say I found one; an intergral part is the journey and the GZ locale. Poking around in a parking lot just doesn't seem right.

 

I'm with you on this.

 

BUT - it won't stop me finding them, moaning about them - and giving them the log they deserve (IMO)

[Mr.Yuck]

I am very much a tadpole (only 8 so far!) but I am already getting a little jaded. What is the point of a geocache in a parking lot? It sort of goes against the spirit of geocaching. Yeah, sure I want to find a lot of them, but worthwhile caches. I don't want a find a cache just to say I found one; an intergral part is the journey and the GZ locale. Poking around in a parking lot just doesn't seem right.

When I started out I avoided ALL Micro caches and by extension all parking lot caches. I only planned out very specific cache hunts that involved some kind of hike. I was very happy. But soon I met and became friends with other cachers and realized I wanted to know my home caching environment better to be able to share it with my friends. I started including Micro's in my cache searches. Surprise, surprise - I was still happy. Then I also became aware it wasn't all about me, and heard about physically challenged cachers who can't do the caches you have described as in "the spirit of geocaching". I felt very embarrassed that I had completely overlooked the value of a parking lot cache to that group of fellow cachers.

 

Red, you're killing me here. The day I buy into that argument is that day that the number of pointless parking lot caches is proportional to the shear number of "physically challenged cachers" who can't walk 1/4 mile down a bike trail to find a tupperware container 10 feet into the bushes. How many of these physically challenged cachers, whom apparently need to cache in the Wal-Mart parking lot, do you know? Enough of them that they need 50% or more of all caches in many urban/suburban areas placed on their alleged behalf?

[+brslk]

I am very much a tadpole (only 8 so far!) but I am already getting a little jaded. What is the point of a geocache in a parking lot? It sort of goes against the spirit of geocaching.

Complaining about hides is against the spirit of geocaching. I think that was established a few months ago.

 

Edit to add : I totally understand you not liking certain types of caches. I have my personal preference too. That you feel the need to vent about it here, well, there's still freedom of speech the last time I checked. For you to declare it is against the spirit of geocaching, though, that's stretching it a bit.

 

By the way, I've nominated vodka to be the spirit of geocaching, but the response has been somewhat less than unanimous around here. I think it's the whiskey lobby. Or maybe AA.

 

There are enough geocaches out there for every preference. I myself do not like micros or nannos hidden under a lamp post skirt but, i have found them.

 

I second the nomination for vodka as the spirit of geocaching but if the whiskey lobby wins, lets at least make it a good whiskey... like Beam black... or Makers mark... no JD crap.

 

Bruce.

[+Xaa]

I am very much a tadpole (only 8 so far!) but I am already getting a little jaded. What is the point of a geocache in a parking lot? It sort of goes against the spirit of geocaching. Yeah, sure I want to find a lot of them, but worthwhile caches. I don't want a find a cache just to say I found one; an intergral part is the journey and the GZ locale. Poking around in a parking lot just doesn't seem right.

Urban micros are, by far, the most popular caches based on the number of finds vs number of finds on larger rural caches.

 

Don't like em, go for a 20 mile hike somewhere to find something else. And when you DNF the 20 mile hike cache, tell us how much you hate park and grabs cuz I bet most people hate to end a cache day with a DNF.

 

Been there, done that. Even done 2 days in a row of walking 6km uphill (10% on average) and back per day, just to find (in total) 1 waypoint that was unusable. Did have a lot of fun :-)

 

See caches as the push needed to get to new places, and you'll suffer less from the DNF.

[+briansnat]

What is the point of a geocache in a parking lot? It sort of goes against the spirit of geocaching.

 

The home page of this website used to say something like "All you need is a GPS and a sense of adventure",

and it now says we are "...adventure seekers equipped with GPS devices", so in that light you probably are correct. There isn't a heck of a lot of adventure in visiting strip malls. At least for those of you who don't live in New Jersey.

[+Dtzz]

Well, i usually do caches during my trips, walking, hiking...

 

but sometimes, especially when its raining, m going out just to find one cache whereever it is based but cant be far.

[+keehotee]

I second the nomination for vodka as the spirit of geocaching but if the whiskey lobby wins, lets at least make it a good whiskey... like Beam black... or Makers mark... no JD crap.

 

Heathens!!! Proper whisky doesn't have an E before the Y !!!!

 

[+Semper Questio]

I am very much a tadpole (only 8 so far!) but I am already getting a little jaded. What is the point of a geocache in a parking lot? It sort of goes against the spirit of geocaching. Yeah, sure I want to find a lot of them, but worthwhile caches. I don't want a find a cache just to say I found one; an intergral part is the journey and the GZ locale. Poking around in a parking lot just doesn't seem right.

 

I used to feel the same way. Parking lot caches had no value except to run up your numbers. Then I had my accident. After being an invalid for about 4 months, I finally was able to get out and about in a wheelchair with help. I quickly found that these "worthless" caches were the only ones I could do and it was that way for quite a while. In fact, there are still days that this type are all I am up to.

 

Are they my preferred type? No way. But I am now incapable of going after my preferred type and probably always will be, so if I want to play the game I have to change my attitude and, oftentimes, lower my standards.

 

If you don't want to hunt 1/1's in parking lots and other urban areas, then don't. But, and you can take this to the bank, they DO serve at least 1 purpose I know of!

 

SQ

[+Kit Fox]

well no one said you had to do that one. pass it by and do ones you like, then you will be happy and the world will be good.

 

Hmmm...I think I will change my handle to GeoSnob and cache only the worthwhile ones. Thanks for the idea!

 

May I suggest a valuable thread to read? Recipe for fun Share your techniques for avoiding caches you dislike.

Edited December 28, 2009 by Kit Fox

[+buttaskotch]

That is an opinion many have (not) had as you well see. That said, then find some caches in your local parks. Its not that difficult to go about finding them on geocaching.com, and with some effort you can filter out the park and grabs.

Fair enough?

[+briansnat]

I used to feel the same way. Parking lot caches had no value except to run up your numbers. Then I had my accident. After being an invalid for about 4 months, I finally was able to get out and about in a wheelchair with help. I quickly found that these "worthless" caches were the only ones I could do and it was that way for quite a while. In fact, there are still days that this type are all I am up to.

 

Thanks to two injuries I've spent about 8 of the last 24 months years on crutches. It didn't cause me to to develop a sudden affinity for visiting strip malls and Home Depots. Thankfully in my area many of the cache hiders know that low terrain doesn't have to mean mundane.

[+sbell111]

I am very much a tadpole (only 8 so far!) but I am already getting a little jaded. What is the point of a geocache in a parking lot? It sort of goes against the spirit of geocaching. Yeah, sure I want to find a lot of them, but worthwhile caches. I don't want a find a cache just to say I found one; an intergral part is the journey and the GZ locale. Poking around in a parking lot just doesn't seem right.

Then stop doing it.

 

As others have mentioned, there are tons of caches out there. You don't have to find them all.

 

Here's an oft discussed method to reduce the odds of your looking for caches that you don't care for.

The 'Easy Peasy' method of maximizing geocache satisfaction:

1. Run initial PQs that filter out the bulk of the caches that you don't like. In the case of the OP, it would be micros with a low difficulty/terrain rating. It's fine that this also filters out some good caches because 1) there's plenty more awesome ones to find and 2) you can get them back in later.
   
2. During caching days, take a quick read of the cache page for the 'next' cache. If it looks like a stinker, skip it and toss it on the ignore list.
   
3. If someone tells you of a good cache that you've filtered out, place it on a watch list. Run a PQ on this list and merge it with your other PQs in GSAK.
   
4. As caches are listed, take a look at the cache pages for those that would be filtered by your PQs. Those that look tasty go on the watch list. Obvious stinkers get ignored.
   
5. Run a PQ on the non-ignored, filtered caches. If you dump these into a mapping program, you likely will be able to identify bunches of caches that are either in areas that you don't want to cache in, or areas that you do. Ignore those in bad areas, watch those that look like winners.
   
6. As time permits, take a look at the non-ignored, filtered caches. Those that seem good go on the watch list. Those that stink up the place get ignored. NOTE: There is no hurry to do this step as long as there are other caches to look for.
   

NOTE: The only hardcore 'research' that my method entails is in the final step. It should be noted that for nearly all of us that step will never be more than optional. Steps 2 and 4 do require the review of cache pages, but not more than one or two at a time (unless your area has tons of 'filtered' caches being listed all the time. In which case, aren't you glad you are filtering?)

 

It should also be noted that this method works from step one. Additional steps add to the winners, they don't further remove losers. Of course, if you here of a loser that made it past step one, toss it on your ignore list. If you find that you are still finding a ton of losers, you may want to tweak your step one filter.

[+sbell111]

I am very much a tadpole (only 8 so far!) but I am already getting a little jaded. What is the point of a geocache in a parking lot? It sort of goes against the spirit of geocaching. Yeah, sure I want to find a lot of them, but worthwhile caches. I don't want a find a cache just to say I found one; an intergral part is the journey and the GZ locale. Poking around in a parking lot just doesn't seem right.

I used to feel the same way. Parking lot caches had no value except to run up your numbers. Then I had my accident. After being an invalid for about 4 months, I finally was able to get out and about in a wheelchair with help. I quickly found that these "worthless" caches were the only ones I could do and it was that way for quite a while. In fact, there are still days that this type are all I am up to.

 

Are they my preferred type? No way. But I am now incapable of going after my preferred type and probably always will be, so if I want to play the game I have to change my attitude and, oftentimes, lower my standards.

 

If you don't want to hunt 1/1's in parking lots and other urban areas, then don't. But, and you can take this to the bank, they DO serve at least 1 purpose I know of!

 

SQ

Thanks to two injuries I've spent about 8 of the last 24 months years on crutches. It didn't cause me to to develop a sudden affinity for visiting strip malls and Home Depots. Thankfully in my area many of the cache hiders know that low terrain doesn't have to mean mundane.

I'm with Semper Questio on this. I have definitely changed the way I look at these so-called mundane caches since my accident. Of course, for most of us, serious accidents tend to make us more thankful, in general.

[+Too Tall John]

I am very much a tadpole (only 8 so far!) but I am already getting a little jaded. What is the point of a geocache in a parking lot? It sort of goes against the spirit of geocaching. Yeah, sure I want to find a lot of them, but worthwhile caches. I don't want a find a cache just to say I found one; an intergral part is the journey and the GZ locale. Poking around in a parking lot just doesn't seem right.

Urban micros are, by far, the most popular caches based on the number of finds vs number of finds on larger rural caches.

 

Don't like em, go for a 20 mile hike somewhere to find something else. And when you DNF the 20 mile hike cache, tell us how much you hate park and grabs cuz I bet most people hate to end a cache day with a DNF.

Huh...

 

That's kind of like saying that McDonald's is preferred over any other restaurant. Turns out, people go there because it's cheap and convenient, definitely because the food is better or better for you.

[+tozainamboku]

Urban micros are, by far, the most popular caches based on the number of finds vs number of finds on larger rural caches.

 

Don't like em, go for a 20 mile hike somewhere to find something else. And when you DNF the 20 mile hike cache, tell us how much you hate park and grabs cuz I bet most people hate to end a cache day with a DNF.

Huh...

 

That's kind of like saying that McDonald's is preferred over any other restaurant. Turns out, people go there because it's cheap and convenient, definitely because the food is better or better for you.

The simple fact that something is cheap and convenient is as valid a reason for something to be popular as is good taste or being healthier. This is the reason that I don't like the idea of a cache rating system. Some people will rate caches high if their is a long hike involved or some kind of unique camouflage and other will rate caches high if they are nearby and easy to find. Based on bittsen's observations, I'm not sure which caches would be higher rated overall.

[+Markwell]

Urban micros are, by far, the most popular caches based on the number of finds vs number of finds on larger rural caches.

 

I believe that "micros are the most popular caches based on the number of finds vs number of finds on larger rural caches" only because micros are easier/cheaper to place and because it takes much less effort to hide/find these. Therefore people find more of them over a given period of time.

 

================================

Let's say (for simplicity sake) that the world of cachers only contains 1,000 people and they are euqally divided into two groups

Group A are 500 of the world's caches - and they cache just to increase their find count regardless of experience, and

Group B are the other 500 of the world's cachers who want the experience to be a rugged long hike.

 

In this ficticious world the geocaching community plans for a world-wide caching day where they all take 12 hours to find caches as they like.

 

Group A will plan their day so as to maximize the number of caches in 12 hours. They'll find a 30 caches by going to Walmart parking lots, Cracker Barrel restaurants and other quick urban caches that are little more than 600 feet apart. They might go on a bike trail if there are caches every 600 feet (what used to be called a "powertrail".

Group B will plan their day to spend that same 12 hours finding only three rural long hike caches, since each cache takes four hours to hike from the parking lot. They'll spend their time on the trail instead of moving on to the next cache.

 

In this oversimplified example above, long hikes and urban caches have the exact same number of fans (500 people like urban quickies, 500 people like rural hikes). The urban quickies in the example above would have 15,000 finds (500x30) in that one day. The rural hikes would be 1,500 finds (500x3) in that one day. The rural hikes only have 10% of number of finds for the urban quickies.

 

I know that the world isn't made of only two types of cachers or caches. However this oversimplification does shows the problem in stating that because a certain type of cache has more finds that it's more popular. THE ONLY THING it means is that a cache has more finds.

Edited December 28, 2009 by Markwell

[+sbell111]

Urban micros are, by far, the most popular caches based on the number of finds vs number of finds on larger rural caches.

 

I believe that "micros are the most popular caches based on the number of finds vs number of finds on larger rural caches" only because micros are easier/cheaper to place and because it takes much less effort to hide/find these. Therefore people find more of them over a given period of time.

 

================================

Let's say (for simplicity sake) that the world of cachers only contains 1,000 people and they are euqally divided into two groups

Group A are 500 of the world's caches - and they cache just to increase their find count regardless of experience, and

Group B are the other 500 of the world's cachers who want the experience to be a rugged long hike.

 

In this ficticious world the geocaching community plans for a world-wide caching day where they all take 12 hours to find caches as they like.

 

Group A will plan their day so as to maximize the number of caches in 12 hours. They'll find a 30 caches by going to Walmart parking lots, Cracker Barrel restaurants and other quick urban caches that are little more than 600 feet apart. They might go on a bike trail if there are caches every 600 feet (what used to be called a "powertrail".

Group B will plan their day to spend that same 12 hours finding only three rural long hike caches, since each cache takes four hours to hike from the parking lot. They'll spend their time on the trail instead of moving on to the next cache.

 

In this oversimplified example above, long hikes and urban caches have the exact same number of fans (500 people like urban quickies, 500 people like rural hikes). The urban quickies in the example above would have 15,000 finds (500x30) in that one day. The rural hikes would be 1,500 finds (500x3) in that one day. The rural hikes only have 10% of number of finds for the urban quickies.

 

I know that the world isn't made of only two types of cachers or caches. However this oversimplification does shows the problem in stating that because a certain type of cache has more finds that it's more popular. THE ONLY THING it means is that a cache has more finds.

In your example, it would appear that the caches that group A are finding are quite popular.

[Mushtang]

What is the point of a geocache in a parking lot?

You probably shouldn't expect an answer other than, "to be found", just like every other cache.

 

There are lots of caches that are placed to bring you additional enjoyment such as a nice view, a fun hike, a neat history lesson on a marker, a neat waterfall tucked away somewhere you wouldn't have otherwise gone into, etc. But those are all additional features to these caches on top of, "to be found".

 

Many cachers, like yourself, have decided that caches that don't offer anything other than, "to be found" aren't worth their time. And this is great! Everyone takes different things out of the game and there's no reason that you should be expected to enjoy the game in the same way that I or anyone else does.

 

As Sbell pointed out above, there's an easy way to greatly reduce the caches you don't like and therefore vastly increasing the ratio of caches you'd enjoy in your searches.

 

Welcome to the game, and I look forward to maybe finding some caches that you hide. I was caching in Stone Mountain park recently so I'm in your area. I'll assume that you're probably going to hide the kind of caches that you like to find. And if you're in the Buford area, come see the types of caches that I like to hide!

[+Markwell]

In your example, it would appear that the caches that group A are finding are quite popular.

No. You missed my point.

 

In my example, it would appear that the caches that Group A are finding are being found more frequently. The caches that Group B are finding are quite popular with Group B cachers, but (in my example) Group B does NOT find group A's preferences remotely appealing. And Group A doesn't like the kinds of caches that Group B finds.

 

My point is that frequency of finds is not a valid judge of a cache's popularity. Given the same number of caches in each group, and the same number of seekers, and given the same amount of time, easily found caches will always have more finders JUST BECAUSE THEY TAKE LESS TIME TO FIND. That - in and of itself - does NOT equate to popularity. It's only showing frequency.

[+sbell111]

In your example, it would appear that the caches that group A are finding are quite popular.

No. You missed my point.

 

In my example, it would appear that the caches that Group A are finding are being found more frequently. The caches that Group B are finding are quite popular with Group B cachers, but (in my example) Group B does NOT find group A's preferences remotely appealing. And Group A doesn't like the kinds of caches that Group B finds.

 

My point is that frequency of finds is not a valid judge of a cache's popularity. Given the same number of caches in each group, and the same number of seekers, and given the same amount of time, easily found caches will always have more finders JUST BECAUSE THEY TAKE LESS TIME TO FIND. That - in and of itself - does NOT equate to popularity. It's only showing frequency.

You are not entirely correct.

 

Frequency of finds is a perfectly fine way to determine whether or not a cache is popular. Where it fails is determining whether the cache is 'better' than any other specific cache. That is always going to be an individual decision.

Edited December 28, 2009 by sbell111

[+wimseyguy]

Some people will say that caches are like ice cream and it's great to have lots of flavors. I prefer to view them as baked desserts.

 

Sometimes all you want or have time for are some cheap grocery store discount brand cookies, but they will satisfy your craving for now. Other times you just have to have that amazing specialty bakery triple chocolate mousse torte, or a freshly baked fruit pie when the berries are in peak season.

 

Some cachers are omnivorous and are happy mixing in those cookies with the pie and cakes. Other cachers are more selective, and happily drive right past the cookies unless they appear to be freshly baked chocolate chip ones. All they want are the special pies and cakes.

 

Ain't life grand when we have all of these choices in front of us?

[+Markwell]

My point is that frequency of finds is not a valid judge of a cache's popularity. Given the same number of caches in each group, and the same number of seekers, and given the same amount of time, easily found caches will always have more finders JUST BECAUSE THEY TAKE LESS TIME TO FIND. That - in and of itself - does NOT equate to popularity. It's only showing frequency.

 

But more to the point of THIS thread...

 

I agree that the easiest solution is not to try and find EVERY cache. Be selective in the caches that you search out using tools on this site as well as other tools like GSAK.

 

My standard filter that I load on a regular basis is...

• Not found by me
  
• Difficulty less than or equal to 4.0 (not impossible to find)
  
• Terrain between 1.5 and 3.5 excludes extremely easy and long hikes - just "middle of the road"
  
• Not temporarily disabled
  
• Traditional Cache (because I usually cache "on the fly" and like the cache to be at the coordinates I have
  
• Container Size is either Regular or Large (I can move travel bugs in my posession)
  
• The last four logs on the cache are all "Found It" logs (reasonably sure the cache is there)
  

This limits the caches to about 13% of the caches in the GONIL counties. But I also throw a polygon into the mix where the caches must be in the polygon of my normal travels. This makes the list of my typical load caches only about 130 caches, less than 2% of the possible caches in the GONIL counties. I reload my cache list once or twice a week from fresh pocket queries. Occassionally, I'll drop the "Last four logs" criteria, and it will boost the number of caches to above 500, which is MORE than enough caches for me to find at the drop of a hat.

 

The result is that when I am able to get out and cache, which is rare these days, while I may miss some of the outstanding caches that don't fit the particular criteria I normally choose, the caches that ARE in my GPS are ones that I am reasonably sure will be the type that I like to find.

[+Markwell]

Frequency of finds is a perfectly fine way to determine whether or not a cache is popular. Where it fails is determining whether the cache is 'better' than any other specific cache. That is always going to be an individual decision.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/popular

1. regarded with favor, approval, or affection by people in general: a popular preacher.

2. regarded with favor, approval, or affection by an acquaintance or acquaintances: He's not very popular with me just now.

3. of, pertaining to, or representing the people, esp. the common people: popular discontent.

4. of the people as a whole, esp. of all citizens of a nation or state qualified to participate in an election: popular suffrage; the popular vote; popular representation.

5. prevailing among the people generally: a popular superstition.

6. suited to or intended for the general masses of people: popular music.

7. adapted to the ordinary intelligence or taste: popular lectures on science.

8. suited to the means of ordinary people; not expensive: popular prices on all tickets.

I think the fifth definition of "popular" is what you are referring to: "prevailing among the people generally" which talks to frequency.

I was referring to either of the first two definitions "favor, approval, or affection", which indeed speaks to whether a cache is "better", which of course is a matter of opinion.

 

So I'll state it in a way that we can agree upon.

 

The frequency of finds on a cache does not make it a "better" cache.

 

Do we agree?

[+Heresomewhere]

I second the nomination for vodka as the spirit of geocaching but if the whiskey lobby wins, lets at least make it a good whiskey... like Beam black... or Makers mark... no JD crap.

 

Heathens!!! Proper whisky doesn't have an E before the Y !!!!

 

 

Absolutly correct, old boy! And, while I'm buying my whisky, I can grab that nano in the car park.

 

I am considering hiding a series of nanos in pub cark parks

[+Heresomewhere]

Frequency of finds is a perfectly fine way to determine whether or not a cache is popular. Where it fails is determining whether the cache is 'better' than any other specific cache. That is always going to be an individual decision.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/popular

1. regarded with favor, approval, or affection by people in general: a popular preacher.

2. regarded with favor, approval, or affection by an acquaintance or acquaintances: He's not very popular with me just now.

3. of, pertaining to, or representing the people, esp. the common people: popular discontent.

4. of the people as a whole, esp. of all citizens of a nation or state qualified to participate in an election: popular suffrage; the popular vote; popular representation.

5. prevailing among the people generally: a popular superstition.

6. suited to or intended for the general masses of people: popular music.

7. adapted to the ordinary intelligence or taste: popular lectures on science.

8. suited to the means of ordinary people; not expensive: popular prices on all tickets.

I think the fifth definition of "popular" is what you are referring to: "prevailing among the people generally" which talks to frequency.

I was referring to either of the first two definitions "favor, approval, or affection", which indeed speaks to whether a cache is "better", which of course is a matter of opinion.

 

So I'll state it in a way that we can agree upon.

 

The frequency of finds on a cache does not make it a "better" cache.

 

Do we agree?

 

Yes

[+sbell111]

Frequency of finds is a perfectly fine way to determine whether or not a cache is popular. Where it fails is determining whether the cache is 'better' than any other specific cache. That is always going to be an individual decision.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/popular

1. regarded with favor, approval, or affection by people in general: a popular preacher.

2. regarded with favor, approval, or affection by an acquaintance or acquaintances: He's not very popular with me just now.

3. of, pertaining to, or representing the people, esp. the common people: popular discontent.

4. of the people as a whole, esp. of all citizens of a nation or state qualified to participate in an election: popular suffrage; the popular vote; popular representation.

5. prevailing among the people generally: a popular superstition.

6. suited to or intended for the general masses of people: popular music.

7. adapted to the ordinary intelligence or taste: popular lectures on science.

8. suited to the means of ordinary people; not expensive: popular prices on all tickets.

I think the fifth definition of "popular" is what you are referring to: "prevailing among the people generally" which talks to frequency.

I was referring to either of the first two definitions "favor, approval, or affection", which indeed speaks to whether a cache is "better", which of course is a matter of opinion.

 

So I'll state it in a way that we can agree upon.

 

The frequency of finds on a cache does not make it a "better" cache.

 

Do we agree?

Sure, but what you are missing is that in your example, Group A cachers clearly feel that those caches are 'better'.

 

Of course, none of this changes the fact that the very fact that this type of cache is hidden and found with great frequency does, indeed, prove that it is 'popular'. (Remember, the issue to which you responded was whether these caches are 'popular', not whether they are 'better', which is a completely personal decision.)

Edited December 28, 2009 by sbell111

[+L0ne.R]

This is the reason that I don't like the idea of a cache rating system.

 

If one is ever implemented, feel free not to use it.

[+Renegade Knight]

I am very much a tadpole (only 8 so far!) but I am already getting a little jaded. What is the point of a geocache in a parking lot? It sort of goes against the spirit of geocaching. Yeah, sure I want to find a lot of them, but worthwhile caches. I don't want a find a cache just to say I found one; an intergral part is the journey and the GZ locale. Poking around in a parking lot just doesn't seem right.

 

Heading out, I avoid them like the plague. After a long day of caching with a high number of DNF's when I'm hot, thirsty, and tired I rather like finishing up on a wally world parking lot micro to end the day on a find. Then I'll walk in and buy something cold to drink. (or hot in the winter).

 

You get out what you bring in. If you spend your time finding dissapointing parking lot caches....that's exacly what you will get out of this activity.

 

You can focus on the kind you like. It takes a little leg work but that part really hasn't changed. I used to have to do the legwork to even find a route to find 5 caches. Now it's to find a route to focus on the few I'd like to find.

[+Renegade Knight]

Urban micros are, by far, the most popular caches based on the number of finds vs number of finds on larger rural caches.

 

I believe that "micros are the most popular caches based on the number of finds vs number of finds on larger rural caches" only because micros are easier/cheaper to place and because it takes much less effort to hide/find these. Therefore people find more of them over a given period of time....

 

If all they hid were urban ammo cans those would be found quite often as well. Urban leads to more finds regardless of container type. However that's not the point you are making. Looking at sbell's point I 'm not sure you two are actually disagreeing either.

 

Now back to the regularly scheduled topic.