Newbies and Hides

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

While I still do not believe there should be a "minimum finds" requirement, we really should come up with something to help (not just n00bs) with cache placement.

 

I cringe at the thought of a requiring anyone to take a "test" before being allowed to place a cache, maybe StarBrand's idea isn't so bad.

 

I do not particularly like hides placed with smart phones, I think it is still more a user problem, as opposed to a use problem. Heck, some users of smart phones cannot even figure out how to post a log with it, just leave a blank log. Yet they still rush to place hides with them!

[+BulldogBlitz]

think of it as survival of the fittest...

 

the really crappy caches don't survive long.

[+JL_HSTRE]

My experience with "newbie" caches: a local cache was placed at the beginning of this month (April). The CO has 3 finds, all of nearby caches. The cache is a pill bottle (based on the hint), micro-sized, placed in a sea grap hedge. It has a 1/2 2 star difficulty. Based on a similiarly described nearby cache by other cacher (one of the 3 found by the CO - presumably their inspiration), it should be at least a 3. So far this month there have been 3 logged DNFs: myself (doesn't mean much) and cachers with 1200 and 3000+ finds. And goodness knows how many failed searchs have not been logged. It's near the end of the month and still hasn't been found.

 

I've been caching since the beginning of the year. I hit 100 caches in 4 months and have not yet placed a cache of my own (though I am formulating some ideas). My friend I frequently cache with has 60+ finds and will be placing his first cache this month.

 

I think some kind of threshold before you can place a cache is a good idea. 100 finds seems fine to me, but I think 50 would be easier. I would also put a minimum time requirement for the account: a couple months with your account in addition to # of finds. Just to make the person think about what they are doing rather than find a couple caches and overzealously placing something, especially if their interest later wanes or they realize they don't have the time for proper cache maintenance. You need to know what you're doing.

 

If there is a hard limit, I could also see giving reviewers the right to waive the limt if the cache was seconded by an experienced cacher (ex: child who has cached with their parents getting an account and hiding a cache, newbie who has been introduced by an experienced cacher thus has some to tell them if the cache is a bad idea).

 

Even if there's not a hard limit, perhaps the questionaire when submitting a cache should be more detailed so the reviewers can more easily spot issues or the reviewers just prod COs for more details on vaguely described caches to avoid issues?

 

I hear mention that 100 finds can be accomplished quickly.

Yup that's true (in some places) and it is why limiting to 100 is a bad idea. Joe Noob makes 10 finds Friday, 51 on Saturday, and 43 on Sunday and what have they learned? Not much! They may have learned about park and grabs, they my have learned about numbers PTs, but they have learned nothing about hiding because they where spending their time going off to the next cache.

 

What newbie finds 100 caches in one weekend?

 

I'm not opposed to some kind of a test, perhaps 10 random questions from the guidelines. Until the cacher passes the test, the option to hide a cache won't be available. I know all cachers are supposed to familiarize themselves with the guidelines, but not everyone does.

 

That sounds like an excellent idea! Passing a cache hiding rules quiz before hiding your first cache would probably be a better idea than a Finds requirement.

[+Chokecherry]

I don't mind the basic rules quiz or a time frame where accounts can't be used to hide caches.

 

I'm still fundamentally opposed to a cache found quota which will then rely on the website which we know not everyone uses as a way to determine ability to hide a cache. I was looking through area caches many of which are difficult to access if you have any sort of mobility problems. So like I said before. Basically that's saying the only people then allowed to hide a cache are those who are in good health around here than can access the other more difficult to find caches.

 

Also caches are widely dispersed here. Which means anyone who can't afford time or money to travel between these caches and back home again is not allowed to hide any. Which is shooting the hobby in the foot basically. We would essentially be stopping people from placing more local caches until they can travel.

 

And apparently in other areas there is a much wider variety of cache situations than there is here that must be learned in 100 caches. 20 caches would be pushing it in the variety department her. Other wise it's the same generic containers, in the same basic hiding spots just different terrain but other than that it's all relatively the same.

 

Online mentorship would be a great thing. I met a quasi-local cacher the day I started online who wanted to make sure we were doing ok after finding one of their caches. Meant the world to me and I didn't have to meet them or have them sign a permission slip that I'm able to do this. I can do this as a self-directed activity and not as a group and without babysitting but knowing there is a person there to answer questions. The forums here would be great for that but aren't used for that well.

 

I agree with other posters who have said if the cache owner's caches are not to your liking ignore their caches. Anyone who wants to can read the logs of the caches before going out. If it looks shaky don't go... But for goodness sake quit trying to drive people away by making difficult obtain objectives and so many rules and hoops to jump through that's not fun anymore.

[+roziecakes]

One thing I like to do for my friends who are new cachers is refer them to HeadHardHats Geosnippits on YouTube because I think they are excellently done videos and he covers a wide range of topics from hiding to finding.

 

Also, I offer to bring new cachers in our area with us when we cache. We have one local cacher friend who we took on his first night cache, and to an event with us, etc; and he really got a kick out of it.

 

I encourage events to new cachers too. We really learned most of our knowledge about caching, trackables, etc from going to events and talking to seasoned cachers.

 

Those are just a few of my suggestions for how to help.

 

I've tossed around the idea of doing a "geocaching 101" or "geocaching bootcamp" type event where people can come to learn the basics, do folks put those on? Do others think that would be a good idea?

[+humboldt flier]

I've found great caches placed by people with a handful of (and even no) finds and lousy caches placed by people with hundreds or thousands of finds. I'd be dead set against any number of finds before hides requirement.

 

I think the bad coordinates come from the fact that more and more novices are using smart phones to place their caches.

 

Agreed, also some folks are placing caches with co-ords. from various mapping programs / progammes. There is no substitution for boots on the ground, a GRS'r in hand directly over the cache. And multiple readings - and perhaps multiple day visitation with averaging.

 

Additionally, fuzzy co-ords. / or caches offset from the actual co-ords. are the pits. ( unless of course it is a puzzle / mystery cache and so stated on the cache page ).

Edited April 28, 2010 by humboldt flier

[+Vater_Araignee]

I hear mention that 100 finds can be accomplished quickly.

Yup that's true (in some places) and it is why limiting to 100 is a bad idea. Joe Noob makes 10 finds Friday, 51 on Saturday, and 43 on Sunday and what have they learned? Not much! They may have learned about park and grabs, they my have learned about numbers PTs, but they have learned nothing about hiding because they where spending their time going off to the next cache.

 

What newbie finds 100 caches in one weekend?

Urban caching.

OR...

Experienced cacher takes noob to TOtG and set him free on foot the noob wouldn't have bothered with the GPSR after about 5 finds and probably done a minimum of 100 depending on determination. *cringe*

Then you have..

My father! He has five finds and has 200 caches waiting on his first GPSr. I had a look at them and as it turns out he picked urban smalls and micros, and I told him he was going to be spending all his time looking in bushes and under skirts. His reply? "Yeah but I'll have more finds than you in a few days." Oh great, I created another number whore.

Then again he isnt considered a noob by me, just new to the technology, he has been letterboxing before I was a twinkle in his eye. He also became a waystasher 2 or 3 weeks after I got back from Lost Lake Scout Reservation.

 

Point is, it can be done, has been done and will be done again.

Especially if one is considered a noob for having less than 100 geocache finds, heck 50.

[+chasclifton]

I have been following this discussion with interest.

 

I started geocaching last November, and after finding forty-plus caches (mostly small-town and rural sites), I thought, "I could do this. And I know some good places."

 

So I placed three--one magnetic keyholder, one "small" cache, and one ammo box. All are within 20 minutes' drive of my home.

 

The reviewer approved them all promptly. All have been found a few times--I expect that they will be found more as weather warms up and people start traveling into our area.

 

While none are terribly original, all have a "message"--something about local history or natural history.

 

As the snow melts and the backwoods roads dry out, I plan to place a couple more that will be more challenging in terms of location and containers. Workshop experiments continue.

 

The idea of a minimum number or a test would be psychologically off-putting, like saying I am not smart enough to figure out geocaching on my own (and by lurking on these forums).

Edited April 28, 2010 by chasclifton

[+roziecakes]

Sorry... slight OT, but are you Chas Clifton the author? If so, I love your work. Back to topic...

[+roziecakes]

The idea of a minimum number or a test would be have psychologically off-putting, like saying I am not smart enough to figure out geocaching on my own (and by lurking on these forums).

 

I agree with this. My philosophy is that it's more important to encourage participation, whether it be hides or finds, and placing a minimum hides requirement is not very encouraging in my opinion.

[+chasclifton]

Sorry... slight OT, but are you Chas Clifton the author? If so, I love your work. Back to topic...

 

There are two people with my name who write, so maybe you like the work of one of us. Thanks!

[+jellis]

 

What newbie finds 100 caches in one weekend?

 

 

I have done many cache runs with 100. I know many who have also done more. The record right now stands over 600 it think.

My personal best is 183. But I also don't to that all the time. Just when I cache with #1 geocacher in the world.

[+NeecesandNephews]

 

What newbie finds 100 caches in one weekend?

 

 

This one right here!! We are still what I consider "new" to the hobby. A week ago we had 71 finds. Over the last week (mostly on Sat.Sun. and Mon) our find count went to 201! We found 106 in a day including a 78 cache power trail! So as I said earlier, the numbers are not a reflection of experience. Unless we had found a wide variety of different types, ratings, and sizes... then I might consider it .

Edited April 28, 2010 by NeecesandNephews

[+L0ne.R]

The idea of a minimum number or a test would be have psychologically off-putting, like saying I am not smart enough to figure out geocaching on my own (and by lurking on these forums).

 

I agree with this. My philosophy is that it's more important to encourage participation, whether it be hides or finds, and placing a minimum hides requirement is not very encouraging in my opinion.

 

We already have a lot of participation. I did a search of zip code 97402 (Eugene, Oregon) and got 3611 caches within 50 miles of GZ. We're at a point in this game where, instead of encouraging hides just for the sake of hiding, we need to encourage commitment and better cache placement, including the expectation that any errors will be addressed quickly after a cache is posted.

[+jellis]

The idea of a minimum number or a test would be have psychologically off-putting, like saying I am not smart enough to figure out geocaching on my own (and by lurking on these forums).

 

I agree with this. My philosophy is that it's more important to encourage participation, whether it be hides or finds, and placing a minimum hides requirement is not very encouraging in my opinion.

 

We already have a lot of participation. I did a search of zip code 97402 (Eugene, Oregon) and got 3611 caches within 50 miles of GZ. We're at a point in this game where, instead of encouraging hides just for the sake of hiding, we need to encourage commitment and better cache placement, including the expectation that any errors will be addressed quickly after a cache is posted.

 

Especially when GeoWoodstock is coming up. Though it is in Washington, there will be a lot of cachers doing a pilgrimage to the Original Stash cache(Or) to the Ape cache (WA) as well as the gorgeous Earthcaches along the Columbia River Gorge.

[+brokenoaks]

admittedly I quickly skipped through this thread catching just the highlights but this has all been hashed over many times in this forum. it really comes down to just two basic problems with newbies hiding caches. 1. poorly thought out placement 2. failure to maintain the cache. These two problems occur and get debated over and over in this forum. If you go back and look at the old threads this comes up as often with well seasoned cachers as newbies. It makes no difference if somone has one or thousands of finds, , if they are going to be lazy and ill responsible they simply will be that way regardless of the numbers. Who puts themselves up so high that they think they can decide for us all what is a poor cache and what is not? take me for instance, I hate MICROS! I filter them out of my search criteria and don't look for them but to some of you micros are as suitable of cache as any. Sure there are the obvious caches that should never be placed but we have reviewers to determine if they violate the guidelines. If some slip through or a cache is not being maintained, Groundspeak has procedures in place for the general caching community to take care of it. more rules will not fix these minor problems.

[+roziecakes]

I never said to hide just for the sake of hiding... I said to encourage participation. I think it's very important to teach quality over quantity. Please don't misunderstand me.

[Amo_Angelus]

Finding 100 caches could be a problem in some areas. Rural chachers especially. Where I live there are about 4 caches, I have to travel over an hour to get into a more cached area. Putting a min find of 100 would make it almost impossible for some people to ever have the opportunity to hide some. It could take some people YEARS to get up to the hundred marker. That's just elitist and a sure fire way to turn people off.

 

I love finds out in the countryside or otherwise scenic walks, always have. Before I did geocaching, I was into hiking and walking. As such, I know plenty of beautiful hides, but am waiting until I've found several more caches. Everyone is different and yes, people should wait until they know the game. But not everyone learns at the same rate as each other. For example, I'm insanely fast at learning and can pick things up 99% faster than say my sister.

 

If you do force a 100find limit then you're being incredibly elitist (which is never a good thing), you're turning away potentially great finds and you're not guranteed that they'll be any good at hiding after 100 finds anyway. Just because you can find something doesn't mean you're any good at hiding something. You should all know that from playing hide and seek as children. The best hiders and the best seekers were never the same people.

[+BulldogBlitz]

Finding 100 caches could be a problem in some areas. Rural chachers especially. Where I live there are about 4 caches, I have to travel over an hour to get into a more cached area. Putting a min find of 100 would make it almost impossible for some people to ever have the opportunity to hide some. It could take some people YEARS to get up to the hundred marker. That's just elitist and a sure fire way to turn people off.

 

I love finds out in the countryside or otherwise scenic walks, always have. Before I did geocaching, I was into hiking and walking. As such, I know plenty of beautiful hides, but am waiting until I've found several more caches. Everyone is different and yes, people should wait until they know the game. But not everyone learns at the same rate as each other. For example, I'm insanely fast at learning and can pick things up 99% faster than say my sister.

 

If you do force a 100find limit then you're being incredibly elitist (which is never a good thing), you're turning away potentially great finds and you're not guranteed that they'll be any good at hiding after 100 finds anyway. Just because you can find something doesn't mean you're any good at hiding something. You should all know that from playing hide and seek as children. The best hiders and the best seekers were never the same people.

...but in some areas, that is precisely what it takes to place a geocache... only sacred cows may place a cache, if you don't fit - you must quit.

[+Zor]

I'm going to throw my opinion into the mix as well. I started caching over 2 years ago and I actually forced myself to not hide a single cache til I had found 100 caches. I found all kinds of containers in all kinds of places and had a somewhat decent idea of what was good and what was bad. I think it made me a better cacher.

 

I wrote an article for new cachers about their first hide for Cache Up NB here in Canada, and in the article, I included this tidbit which basically sums up my opinion:

 

Although there is no rule about when you should hide your first cache, many seasoned geocachers agree that you should not hide a cache until you have found a certain amount of caches. For myself, I believe that no new geocacher should hide a cache until they have found 100 caches. There are really two very distinct reasons why I believe this is a good rule to follow:

 

1. Many people learn about geocaching and get excited about the sport and start caching but don’t stay with the sport for very long. They might get really excited about it at first but as time passes, they become less and less interested and move on to something else. In those cases, if the cacher hid a cache shortly after starting geocaching and then became bored of it quickly, the cache they hid might remain and not be maintained properly. Although it might seem trivial, all geocaches require maintenance from time to time and if you are not willing to maintain a cache, then you shouldn’t be hiding. Those who quit the sport quickly after hiding a few typically don’t maintain their caches and they become trash, not cache. Someone who finds 100 caches is likely a bit more committed to the sport than someone who just wants to know what it’s like.

 

2. Once you have found 100 caches, the odds are in favor that you have seen a good variety of containers, and hiding places. You will have likely seen both good and bad places to hide caches and have a bit of experience in knowing what containers are more suited to hides, and what makes a lousy container. Many “newbies” get so excited that they go out and hide a cache right away but because they don’t have much experience, they make very poor choices about the container or the location. Things like hiding containers in dumpsters, using glass containers that will break easy, placing the cache on private property without permission, placing the cache in plain view without any camo (making it easy to be picked up by non-cachers), hiding caches in places that would put the cacher in un-needed danger, and many other “newbie” mistakes are very common. In some cases, a friendly email to the cacher letting them know about what they have done will help the situation but not everyone takes criticism well.

 

Taken from "Your Very First Hide" on Cache Up NB http://www.cacheupnb.com/?page_id=455

 

I also tend to agree that the 100 finds is subjective depending on area because yes someone could get them all in a single day depending on where they are and how saturated the area is. Hence why I think this is a good "guideline" not a rule.

 

If GSP were to mandate a find count requirement for hiding, I would say that perhaps part of that requirement should be that you have to find X amount of micros, X amount of smalls, X amount of regulars, etc. That would help in knowing that the cacher had seen different sizes/types.

 

All of that however is subjective depending on area which is why I think it's not a rule or guideline we're going to see anytime soon.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

...but in some areas, that is precisely what it takes to place a geocache... only sacred cows may place a cache, if you don't fit - you must quit.

Really? Can you name one area where there is a minimum find count (or any other requirement) before you can hide a cache?

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

...All of that however is subjective depending on area which is why I think it's not a rule or guideline we're going to see anytime soon.

Thank goodness! What you describe would have terrible effects on the game.

[+sbell111]

If some sort of find requirement were inacted years ago, none of you would have any caches to find. Luckily, no such requirement was put in place and the game was able to grow to allow for today's noobs to be able to find lots of caches in a short amount of time. I doubt that the ability to find these caches is necessary to today's noobs being able to hide a good cache, however. Anyone that believes that such a requirement is necessary must also believe that today's noobs are stupider than those of yesteryear.

[+OldLog]

Let me just say this for newbies as it should be for all of us this is a hobby and something to be enjoyed. Mistakes are made even by the people doing this the longest. Don't get me started on Cache maint. Far too many cache owners ignore their Caches. The thing is just have fun with this that is all it is meant to be.

[+sbell111]

If GSP were to mandate a find count requirement for hiding, I would say that perhaps part of that requirement should be that you have to find X amount of micros, X amount of smalls, X amount of regulars, etc. That would help in knowing that the cacher had seen different sizes/types.

I don't understand why this would be necessary.

 

If someone finds and likes a small cache, the fact that they have never found a micro should have no bearing on their hiding a small. Similarly, the fact that they found a large cache doesn't mean that they couldn't hide a small cache perfectly well.

 

A person who found an easy cache doesn't need to find a difficult cache to be able to hide an easy or a difficult cache. Finding a difficult cache wouldn't prepare them for hiding a difficual cache any more than finding an easy cache. They will still ne to wade through the guidelines and the rating scheme.

 

Anyone that understands the concept of geocaching has the minimum qualifications necessary to hide a cache. Some people will understand this concept after finding a dozen caches. Some will understand it without ever finding one. Some will never 'get' it.

[+BulldogBlitz]

...but in some areas, that is precisely what it takes to place a geocache... only sacred cows may place a cache, if you don't fit - you must quit.

Really? Can you name one area where there is a minimum find count (or any other requirement) before you can hide a cache?

 

 

well... i think this is part of the discussion, there is no written rule anywhere that dictates that. the individual caching communities tend to self-police.

[+L0ne.R]

If some sort of find requirement were inacted years ago, none of you would have any caches to find. Luckily, no such requirement was put in place and the game was able to grow to allow for today's noobs to be able to find lots of caches in a short amount of time. I doubt that the ability to find these caches is necessary to today's noobs being able to hide a good cache, however. Anyone that believes that such a requirement is necessary must also believe that today's noobs are stupider than those of yesteryear.

 

One thing that today's noobs have that wasn't available a few years ago, was a way to get coordinates from other sources besides a GPS unit - google earth, google maps, cell phone. I think that fuzzy coordinates are one of the big problems with noob placements. Back in 2002 you had to invest in the game, many bought $500 equipment just to play. Now anyone with a cell phone can play. Makes for poor coordinates and more fly-by-nighters. Things change, technology changes, that's OK, but so should the need to regulate so that the game remains viable and fun.

[Storm Buster]

...Things change, technology changes, that's OK, but so should the need to regulate so that the game remains viable and fun.

 

Yea, more regulation. That's what we need. Riiiiight.

[+sbell111]

If some sort of find requirement were inacted years ago, none of you would have any caches to find. Luckily, no such requirement was put in place and the game was able to grow to allow for today's noobs to be able to find lots of caches in a short amount of time. I doubt that the ability to find these caches is necessary to today's noobs being able to hide a good cache, however. Anyone that believes that such a requirement is necessary must also believe that today's noobs are stupider than those of yesteryear.

 

One thing that today's noobs have that wasn't available a few years ago, was a way to get coordinates from other sources besides a GPS unit - google earth, google maps, cell phone. I think that fuzzy coordinates are one of the big problems with noob placements. Back in 2002 you had to invest in the game, many bought $500 equipment just to play. Now anyone with a cell phone can play. Makes for poor coordinates and more fly-by-nighters. Things change, technology changes, that's OK, but so should the need to regulate so that the game remains viable and fun.

Of course, you have to consider that the quality of our GPSs have improved vastly over the last ten years. I would not be surprised if the quality of today's smart phone GPSs are better than that of our old units (Garmin's GPS 12 and Magellan's Pioneer both bragged about being accurate to within 49 feet).

[+roziecakes]

I just recently gave away my old Magellan 3000XL. I would definitely say that a smartphone gets better coords than that ol' dinosaur.

 

However, I will also say that a caching friend of ours says that she does not get as accurate of a reading from her iphone as she does her handheld GPS (I believe she has a Garmin 60CSX, but I'm not positive).

[+GeoGeeBee]

However, I will also say that a caching friend of ours says that she does not get as accurate of a reading from her iphone as she does her handheld GPS (I believe she has a Garmin 60CSX, but I'm not positive).

 

I can add a data point: My BlackBerry is about as accurate as my Garmin eTrex Vista HC. It is bothered a bit more by tree cover than the Garmin. And it jumps around a bit when I'm standing still. But overall, the accuracy is about the same.

 

The Garmin, like most hand held GPS receivers, has enough sense to freeze the display if I'm standing still. This is a software thing, because the satellites are moving and the coordinates are jumping around (as shown in another thread.) But the BlackBerry shows all of those little micro-bobbles, which gets annoying sometimes.

[+coffee/wired]

The free GPS app on hubby's Android phone is only off by a few feet compared to what our Garmin eTrex Legend reads. We use both units when placing a cache, and the last one we put out was dead-on for coordinates. So far we've had good readings with his phone.

[+L0ne.R]

The free GPS app on hubby's Android phone is only off by a few feet compared to what our Garmin eTrex Legend reads. We use both units when placing a cache, and the last one we put out was dead-on for coordinates. So far we've had good readings with his phone.

 

So then why all the fuzzy coordinates lately? The last few posts indicate that cell phone GPS devices are quite accurate. I'm seeing a lot of FTF on noob caches in my area say the coords were off by 60 meters. So what are people's theories about why poor coords seems to be a rising trend?

[+roziecakes]

However, I will also say that a caching friend of ours says that she does not get as accurate of a reading from her iphone as she does her handheld GPS (I believe she has a Garmin 60CSX, but I'm not positive).

 

I can add a data point: My BlackBerry is about as accurate as my Garmin eTrex Vista HC. It is bothered a bit more by tree cover than the Garmin. And it jumps around a bit when I'm standing still. But overall, the accuracy is about the same.

 

The Garmin, like most hand held GPS receivers, has enough sense to freeze the display if I'm standing still. This is a software thing, because the satellites are moving and the coordinates are jumping around (as shown in another thread.) But the BlackBerry shows all of those little micro-bobbles, which gets annoying sometimes.

 

Awesome! We were curious to try caching with a blackberry but weren't sure how it would stand up. Thanks

[+roziecakes]

It might not help the topic too much, but we just found one of the best caches we have ever found by someone with 7 finds...

[+Vater_Araignee]

The free GPS app on hubby's Android phone is only off by a few feet compared to what our Garmin eTrex Legend reads. We use both units when placing a cache, and the last one we put out was dead-on for coordinates. So far we've had good readings with his phone.

 

So then why all the fuzzy coordinates lately? The last few posts indicate that cell phone GPS devices are quite accurate. I'm seeing a lot of FTF on noob caches in my area say the coords were off by 60 meters. So what are people's theories about why poor coords seems to be a rising trend?

TT&FF.

Tiny Text & Fat Fingers.

[Andronicus]

If some sort of find requirement were inacted years ago, none of you would have any caches to find. Luckily, no such requirement was put in place and the game was able to grow to allow for today's noobs to be able to find lots of caches in a short amount of time. I doubt that the ability to find these caches is necessary to today's noobs being able to hide a good cache, however. Anyone that believes that such a requirement is necessary must also believe that today's noobs are stupider than those of yesteryear.

 

One thing that today's noobs have that wasn't available a few years ago, was a way to get coordinates from other sources besides a GPS unit - google earth, google maps, cell phone. I think that fuzzy coordinates are one of the big problems with noob placements. Back in 2002 you had to invest in the game, many bought $500 equipment just to play. Now anyone with a cell phone can play. Makes for poor coordinates and more fly-by-nighters. Things change, technology changes, that's OK, but so should the need to regulate so that the game remains viable and fun.

Well, I am one of the "anyone with a cell phone" people. Turns out my cell phone is way more accurate than that $500 GPSr you bought in 2002. The fly-by-nighters may be a valid point, but poor coordinates is due to lack of care, not cell phones.

[+Chokecherry]

The monetary investment was the reason I didn't get into the game in 2002 or any of the years until I found an app by happenstance on my phone. Since then I have invested in a GPS which wasn't $500 to continue doing this. That being said I'll agree that not all phones are created equal. While mine does a reasonable job for some conditions my GPS has just served me better, but there are even conditions with that that are less than ideal.

 

I think some of the issue with fuzzy coordinates is that not everyone knows how to work the equipment they have to it's best accuracy. And it appears that there is some equipment diversity. People out there with different brands, phones, and types of GPS systems. That alone cannot be blamed on newbies.

 

Also for the newbies information is not exactly logically placed on the website if you are just fresh into this and don't even have the language fully down it can be a complicated process to find what you want on the website. I wanted clarification on cache size the other night for another reason but I had to go digging through various places to find that simple information.

 

And finally using the forums for guidance can be problematic as well. Instead of a place to mentor people it's got the potential to be very inhospitable.

 

So what's a new cacher living some place where there aren't gatherings or parties or a multitude of older cachers to do? They're bound to learn by trial and error.

[+coffee/wired]

The free GPS app on hubby's Android phone is only off by a few feet compared to what our Garmin eTrex Legend reads. We use both units when placing a cache, and the last one we put out was dead-on for coordinates. So far we've had good readings with his phone.

 

So then why all the fuzzy coordinates lately? The last few posts indicate that cell phone GPS devices are quite accurate. I'm seeing a lot of FTF on noob caches in my area say the coords were off by 60 meters. So what are people's theories about why poor coords seems to be a rising trend?

I don't know. I haven't ran into fuzzy coordinates. Occasionally, my Garmin will go wonky and say that a cache is somewhere that it's not, as much as .80 miles off, while my friend's Delorme is saying the cache is right here, and since the clues to the cache point to the spot the Delorme is pointing, I go with his. This has happened several times with my Garmin, to the point where I don't fully trust it. It is dead-on 90% of the time, but we have our Androids (a Samsung Moment and an HTC Hero) for backup. We don't cache WITH them yet; we use the Garmin to load the caches and find the caches and use the phones as back ups.

 

Perhaps people with soft coords are doing so on purpose to make the find harder (I certainly hope that's not the case). Perhaps they don't bother to stay in that spot long enough for the GPS to settle down. Perhaps, like our very first hide, a GPS with no previous problems reads inacurately and you get a 300' discrepency between where your coords are and where the actual cache is hidden, but you don't know it because you have no reason to suspect that the coordinates are off.

 

Or perhaps the coordinates aren't fuzzy and people are failing to account for the different readings on different GPS's so their GPS says the cache is 10' away but the hiders GPS puts the coordinates at Ground Zero. In other words, people are expecting too much from the technology. You should rely on your gut, your instinct, your experience, and your eyes, then your GPS.

[+AlohaBra and MaksMom]

I thought I would just add to this because last weekend, I was nearing the end of the afternoon of caching in Livermore, CA when I came across two caches by a noobie and the first one was on a trail, but along the fence of a guys house. The logs had indicated that this gentleman did not appreciate people peering in his back yard. The GZ was off and no one had found it yet including some experienced cachers. Sure enough he was up there in his upstairs window giving us the evil eye. DNF here.

So the next cache, I went to was by the same CO and it was on private property, an apartment complex named something commons. Well it was afternoon, so the people that live there was getting POed that we were there trespassing on private property. We left in a hurry, before we had to explain to LEOs, as have happened before in situations like this. Did not bother to log, but sent a note to the local reviewer.

 

Now, this caching things has been a lot of fun, but being a non-iPhone user...I can see where the iPhone users get into it pretty quickly and think that the iPhone is a real GPSr. Fortunately, the ones really into it get a handheld GPSr because the iPhone batteries will go dead in the field pretty quickly. I was caching with an iPhone noob recently and I was impressed with his skills but his iPhone went dead after a few hours out of the car.

Edited April 30, 2010 by alohabra

[+TreeSqueezers]

Being someone that goes after a lot of FTFs, I've seen a large number of problems with caches put out by newbies.

I'm not a newbie, but on a cache we recently hid, we accidentally entered the coords wrong and the FTFers were looking 1/2 mile away from where the cache was.

 

Several years ago one of the most raved about caches in our area was placed by someone with only 1 find. It's still one of the most talked about caches and on most people's "to do" list. On the other hand, I've seen caches placed by folks with lots of finds, and they aren't very good.

 

I'm not opposed to some kind of a test, perhaps 10 random questions from the guidelines. Until the cacher passes the test, the option to hide a cache won't be available. I know all cachers are supposed to familiarize themselves with the guidelines, but not everyone does.

 

I've talked with cachers about hides that violate the guidelines, and have heard things like, "Oh, I didn't know caches weren't allowed on school property."

 

Edited a typo.

 

I agree, with modifications. I believe a longer tutorial is in order before hiding the first cache. Then a semi random 5 question test thereafter in order to submit a cache. Why for every cache? Because the activity is ever evolving and so are the rules. Plus, a refresher every once in a while certainly can't hurt.

[+AlohaBra and MaksMom]

I don't believe in more rules, just more education and explanation of the rules for hiding caches. More emphasis on what not to do as well as what to do. The same thing is happening in our schools, they are not teaching the basics, the common sense things.

Edited April 30, 2010 by alohabra

[+GeoGeeBee]

I don't think we need more rules, but I agree that we need more education.

 

And we, ourselves, are responsible for that education. When a newbie (or an experienced cacher, for that matter) makes a bad hide, don't just log "TFTC." Give them some useful feedback in your logs. If there's a problem with the hide, let them know. How else can you expect them to learn.

 

Post that DNF log with a comment, "This cache is on private property and should be re-located." Post "the cache is on the edge of the trail and the owner of the adjoining property was giving us the evil eye."

 

People are so polite they are afraid to sound critical in a log. But if you don't give accurate feedback, you'll keep getting the same crappy hides.

[+Azisbest]

Being someone that goes after a lot of FTFs, I've seen a large number of problems with caches put out by newbies. I've also seen a lot of problems from cachers that should know better but don't care.

 

There have been some very good caches put out by newbie cachers and when there is a problem most (not all) are will to fix them right away after I drop them a note about the problem. Even though I'm willing to help out any cacher, I do think there should be a minimum number of finds before they can put out their first cache. My first thought is at least 100, I would prefer to see it be 200 caches and 2 months before they can put one out. Unless they have someone who is willing to help them and be willing to put their name next to the newbie as cache placer.

 

Some will say "That's not fair to someone that has been caching for a long time under a shared account and now is starting fresh". My answer to that is... If you have been playing awhile then getting 100 caches should be no problem. We just did 43 finds this past Sunday (personal best) but normally it would take us about 1.5 to 2 months to get 100. If someone is not willing to wait till they find 100 caches or to get someone to work with them, then maybe they should not be caching at all. This game is not for everybody and not everyone should play this game.

 

For myself I waited till I had found 500 but that's me.

I hid my first cache with way less than 100 finds. I would wager my cache is in the top 10% of anyone who has found it, if you asked them. I have had people with thousands of finds say it was in the top five, not percent, top five. The number of finds has nothing to do with the quality of the hide.

[+power69]

Being someone that goes after a lot of FTFs, I've seen a large number of problems with caches put out by newbies. I've also seen a lot of problems from cachers that should know better but don't care.

I was burned by one of those this week. took me 1.5hrs to get there and its not even close. off by 45,000 feet.

turns out the hider had 4 finds.

so now when a new hide shows up i look at how many finds they have. one yesterday showed up and hider only had one find[i didn't bother trying for ftf, i'll look for it if i see others finding it.

[+jellis]

Being someone that goes after a lot of FTFs, I've seen a large number of problems with caches put out by newbies. I've also seen a lot of problems from cachers that should know better but don't care.

 

There have been some very good caches put out by newbie cachers and when there is a problem most (not all) are will to fix them right away after I drop them a note about the problem. Even though I'm willing to help out any cacher, I do think there should be a minimum number of finds before they can put out their first cache. My first thought is at least 100, I would prefer to see it be 200 caches and 2 months before they can put one out. Unless they have someone who is willing to help them and be willing to put their name next to the newbie as cache placer.

 

Some will say "That's not fair to someone that has been caching for a long time under a shared account and now is starting fresh". My answer to that is... If you have been playing awhile then getting 100 caches should be no problem. We just did 43 finds this past Sunday (personal best) but normally it would take us about 1.5 to 2 months to get 100. If someone is not willing to wait till they find 100 caches or to get someone to work with them, then maybe they should not be caching at all. This game is not for everybody and not everyone should play this game.

 

For myself I waited till I had found 500 but that's me.

I hid my first cache with way less than 100 finds. I would wager my cache is in the top 10% of anyone who has found it, if you asked them. I have had people with thousands of finds say it was in the top five, not percent, top five. The number of finds has nothing to do with the quality of the hide.

1 out of 2 isn't bad. Notice some of the caches near your other goes against the guideline of:

Caches near, on or under public structures deemed potential or possible targets for terrorist attacks. These may include but are not limited to highway bridges, dams, government buildings, elementary and secondary schools, and airports.

 

And another cache in our area by a newbie, put near trash. The two first finders mentioned it and the CO said he would clean it up. When we got there it was still pretty trashed. Why would anyone put a good cache near underwear that obviously has been there for a long time, along with other assorted garbage?

I am not saying every cacher under 100 finds is bad, but in many cases it happens. I admit my mistakes. And I sometimes wish they would put some kind of reminder when you submit a hide. Such as when you enter info that maybe some messages would come up " Did you double check your coords?" "Is it on private property?" "Is it really wheelchair accessible?"

Edited May 13, 2010 by jellis

[+RatRunCrew]

Hi!

Im a newbie and actully found your post to be quite helpful, having found half a dozen I decided to hide two, I read the info on placing caches and made several glaring errors!

Most notably mixing DMS with Decimal Degrees!!

However restricting placements until having found 100 is a tad draconian imo.

[aniyn]

Finding 100 caches could be a problem in some areas. Rural cachers especially. Where I live there are about 4 caches, I have to travel over an hour to get into a more cached area. Putting a min find of 100 would make it almost impossible for some people to ever have the opportunity to hide some. It could take some people YEARS to get up to the hundred marker. That's just elitist and a sure fire way to turn people off.

I agree. When I started caching there were *2* caches in my town. The 2 closest towns had *1* each. I made my first hide with 8 finds - that was everything within 45 minutes of where I lived. But i took the time to read the guidelines, used my common sense and (surprise surprise) it all worked out just fine.

 

It took me 2 years before I hit 100. If I hadn't started hiding caches when I did I never would have gotten that far, and there'd be 10 fewer caches (and 450 fewer smilies) for the rest of you.

 

I could support a waiting period before you're allowed to start hiding. I've seen what happens when people sign up, immediately make one terrible hide, then disappear forever. And sorry guys, I also think hiding should require a dedicated gpsr. Smartphones just don't cut it. But that won't happen anyways since tptb are making money off the dang things.

[+Larene]

As a newbie myself, I agree with you! My son (who is 6) loves geocaching and cannot wait to place our first container. I told him exactly what you said. We need to log 100 finds before we can place one. I explained to him that you need to visit the cache every few months in order to maintain it and that it was a responsibility where other people were counting on you.

 

He understands and is slowly working his way to 100. I truly think it should be a policy that people with less than 50-75 finds cannot place caches.

[+thistleRacers]

I would like to protest the idea of needing 100 caches to place one. I think it is up to the individual and how well you know GPS and how it works as well as how comfortable you are with geocaching.

 

We have only log 19 caches but feel ready to hide one, though I am a geographer and have been responsible for the GPS systems at my work for years, I only recently purchased a family GPS that we can use for Geocaching.

 

I think 20 or 30 finds should be sufficient for someone do get "the feel" for it. Maybe they should add an averaging test to the requirements for a first hide. Make certain that the person knows how to average coordinates...