Locate Popular Caches

[+USMCGecko]

Is there a way to locate popular caches for a certain area. I understand PQs can pull up specific TYPES and Sizes of Geocaches. I will be making a 1300 mile road trip across several states and won't be able to find all of them along the route, so I would like to know what are the most POPULAR finds in a certain area. So, is there a way?

[Motorcycle_Mama]

Define what "popular" means to you?

 

Most finds with a specified period of time?

A cache that people "like" the best?

Easy to find?

Easy to get to?

Something else?

[+Markwell]

Not really. The definition of "popular" is really hard to fathom in this context. Let's look at dictionary definitions:

 

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

So this means well-liked. See below.

 

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

In caching - very similar to definition #1

 

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.

These don't really apply.

 

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

This would equate to frequently found, regardless of their quality.

 

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.

These two mean ordinary - you're looking for better than ordinary.

 

So popular in caching could mean well-liked or frequently-found.

 

Frequently-found is actually quantifiable, but not with the tools on the website. You can look at the cache pages and see what ones have a lot of finds, but there's no automatic way. Well-liked is VERY hard to quantify. People will come up with different definitions of what they like. Some people cache just for numbers, so they like easy-to-find caches in dense cache areas. Some people love puzzles. Some people hate micros. Some people hate dense forests with ticks.

 

For a 1300 mile trip, I'd start with the caches along a route and get the caches on your path. Weed out characteristics that you typically don't like. Don't like micros - don't bring them in to your query. Can't do level 5 caches, weed them out as well. Only want traditional caches at the coordinates? Select only those.

 

Once you have your subset of caches, use tools like GSAK to weed further. I search in GSAK for anything with the word "poison" or "ivy" and weed out the ones that will give me a reaction. Attributes CAN help if they're used, but they're not used consistently. I also look at the last 5 logs and if 4 or more are DNF, or the last 3 are DNF, I'd weed them out. Once you have the list to a manageable size of caches, export it to GPX file and use Google Earth - flying along your path. I presume you're traveling by interstate. There are some spots on interstates that have 20 or 30 miles between exits, and if there's a cache that's only a half-mile from the interstate, but 15 miles from the nearest exit, you might want to weed that one off as well.

 

Once you have the caches to a list of less than 1000, you can be pretty sure that even if they're not "popular" caches, if you've selected the criteria of stuff you'd like to find, you should have fun. Set the list of caches as a bookmark list ("Caches for my trip"). Then, just before you are ready to leave clear out the archived caches from the Bookmark list and run a PQ from the Bookmark List. You'll have ready-made list of active caches that you'd most likely enjoy.

 

If you really want a suggestion list, ask in some forums that center around where you're traveling. For example, if you're traveling through Northeastern Illinois near Chicago, ask on the GONIL forum if there are some "must-do" caches.

[+USMCGecko]

Thank you both. I realized a while after I submitted this post, that "popular" would be a questioned word. What it means for me, is basically a cache that takes me somewhere worth going to. Some micros are in great places but I don't feel like lifting a sprinkler head in the parking lot of Petco while Im on this trip. Don't get me wrong, Ill do a micro out and about town, but not something I want to hunt on this trip, unless it takes me to see something.

 

Ive picked a few caches that I had seen mentioned in other topics that I have bookmarked to keep an eye on. Ill create my CAAR and see where it leads me then ask like Markwell suggested.

 

Thank you once again.

[+Coldgears]

Thank you both. I realized a while after I submitted this post, that "popular" would be a questioned word. What it means for me, is basically a cache that takes me somewhere worth going to. Some micros are in great places but I don't feel like lifting a sprinkler head in the parking lot of Petco while Im on this trip. Don't get me wrong, Ill do a micro out and about town, but not something I want to hunt on this trip, unless it takes me to see something.

 

Ive picked a few caches that I had seen mentioned in other topics that I have bookmarked to keep an eye on. Ill create my CAAR and see where it leads me then ask like Markwell suggested.

 

Thank you once again.

 

You could start a new thread complaining that we need a rating system, and this is the reason why. Everyone else does it, maybe with your help it'll work.

[+USMCGecko]

Thank you both. I realized a while after I submitted this post, that "popular" would be a questioned word. What it means for me, is basically a cache that takes me somewhere worth going to. Some micros are in great places but I don't feel like lifting a sprinkler head in the parking lot of Petco while Im on this trip. Don't get me wrong, Ill do a micro out and about town, but not something I want to hunt on this trip, unless it takes me to see something.

 

Ive picked a few caches that I had seen mentioned in other topics that I have bookmarked to keep an eye on. Ill create my CAAR and see where it leads me then ask like Markwell suggested.

 

Thank you once again.

 

You could start a new thread complaining that we need a rating system, and this is the reason why. Everyone else does it, maybe with your help it'll work.

 

Im too much of a rookie. I was told I had to have 100 finds before I was allowed to complain.

 

UGG... so after I entered the above response. I continue looking through the forums, and see where a "Star Rating System" has been asking for OVER a 100 times. I tried looking up "Popular" and "Favorite" Caches, but didn't get relevant results.

 

....and all this time Ive tried to NOT ask the same questions that have been asked/answered a thousand times.

 

Sorry.

Edited May 18, 2010 by USMCGecko

[knowschad]

Is there a way to locate popular caches for a certain area. I understand PQs can pull up specific TYPES and Sizes of Geocaches. I will be making a 1300 mile road trip across several states and won't be able to find all of them along the route, so I would like to know what are the most POPULAR finds in a certain area. So, is there a way?

It may be that you have a local geocaching organization that, like mine, has a membership voted Cache of the Month, as well as a Recommended Caches section. No rating system will make up for the word of your peers and friends.

[+Coldgears]

Thank you both. I realized a while after I submitted this post, that "popular" would be a questioned word. What it means for me, is basically a cache that takes me somewhere worth going to. Some micros are in great places but I don't feel like lifting a sprinkler head in the parking lot of Petco while Im on this trip. Don't get me wrong, Ill do a micro out and about town, but not something I want to hunt on this trip, unless it takes me to see something.

 

Ive picked a few caches that I had seen mentioned in other topics that I have bookmarked to keep an eye on. Ill create my CAAR and see where it leads me then ask like Markwell suggested.

 

Thank you once again.

 

You could start a new thread complaining that we need a rating system, and this is the reason why. Everyone else does it, maybe with your help it'll work.

 

Im too much of a rookie. I was told I had to have 100 finds before I was allowed to complain.

I don't have 100 finds yet either! I have 62, I only have so much time in my life to dedicate to caching!

[+USMCGecko]

edited my response above....

[+roziecakes]

A couple of ideas...

 

1) Go to a local forum for cachers in your area and ask them what their favorite cache finds have been.

 

2) Look through travel magazines and books, etc and find an area you really want to visit, and then look up caches in that area, you will at least know for sure that the place you are travelling is where you want to be and you'll be pleased...

 

Hope that helps

[+Desert_Trailblazers]

We recently took a trip that was only 350 miles, so yours would be a lot more work, but there is a way to Create a Route and you can specify how many miles off the route you would be willing to go. After you have created the Route (instructions under User Routes on the right side of your main page) then you can do what we did... not an efficient system at all, but we quickly glanced at all of the results pages to see if something interesting stood out, and if it did, then we looked at it closer, and printed it out and downloaded it. Mind you, this was just for the drive along the highway.

 

Once we arrived at the actual destination, we used the google maps method to pull up caches near major points of interest, (found through a typical travel book,) and found a lot of interesting caches that way. Again, it took some time to read about them, but we found enough to get us started, and then when we got there, we had access to a computer, and used some of the good ones to find more in that area. We saw some great things because of caching in the area that we would have never seen if we had just stuck to the travel guides!

 

I know this is a lot of work, and I don't know how much time you have before you leave, but an afternoon of doing this should get you some good results.

 

I think the suggestion to contact cachers in the area you are going to visit is a great idea, too.

 

Good luck!

[+tozainamboku]

Thank you both. I realized a while after I submitted this post, that "popular" would be a questioned word. What it means for me, is basically a cache that takes me somewhere worth going to. Some micros are in great places but I don't feel like lifting a sprinkler head in the parking lot of Petco while Im on this trip. Don't get me wrong, Ill do a micro out and about town, but not something I want to hunt on this trip, unless it takes me to see something.

 

Ive picked a few caches that I had seen mentioned in other topics that I have bookmarked to keep an eye on. Ill create my CAAR and see where it leads me then ask like Markwell suggested.

 

Thank you once again.

 

You could start a new thread complaining that we need a rating system, and this is the reason why. Everyone else does it, maybe with your help it'll work.

Not sure how a rating system would help. Look at Markwell's response for the reasons why.

 

A better way to describe what the OP might be looking for is a way to find highly recommended caches - where "highly recommended" mean recommended by several people. Markwell has suggested in the past that a system be set up that would allow people to recommend some limited number of caches - perhaps using the bookmark lists that premium members can already setup. The proposed system could help you find caches that are recommended by at least a certain number of people.

 

It's too bad there is no way to search for bookmark lists that might exist. You either have to ask if any one knows of some lists or just happen on them by accident. If you can find a few people's list in the areas you will be visiting you can use these as recommendations.

[+GeoGeeBee]

This is just an idea... I haven't actually tried it. But it's something I would try if I were planning a trip.

 

Find some point of interest in the area you are visiting. By "point of interest," I mean a scenic mountain peak, a waterfall, the world's largest ball of twine, anything that YOU would find interesting. Then locate that point on the GC map search tool. There will probably be some geocaches near it.

 

Check out web page for a few of those caches. Specifically, you are looking for a box on the right-hand side of the page labeled "Bookmark List." If you are lucky, you'll find a list with a name like "Cachername's Favorites," or "West Podunk's Most Scenic Caches."

 

It's a long shot, but if you find such a list, you'll be glad you did.

[GermanSailor]

Is there a way to locate popular caches for a certain area.

GCVote, even this AddOn is not yet very popular in the US.

Bookmark Lists.

 

GermanSailor

[+USMCGecko]

Thank you for all the suggestions, I didn't realize this "Rating system" had been discussed immensely. It would make sense, when you go to log a find you can easily give a star rating. do like on Amazon.com 1-5 stars. Then people type their log. When you look at Amazon you can see how many 1 star, 2 star, 3 star and so on ratings there are.

 

But since that apparently isn't coming anytime. Ill stick with the suggestions Ive gotten here.

 

Thank you,

[+wimseyguy]

Is there a way to locate popular caches for a certain area. I understand PQs can pull up specific TYPES and Sizes of Geocaches. I will be making a 1300 mile road trip across several states and won't be able to find all of them along the route, so I would like to know what are the most POPULAR finds in a certain area. So, is there a way?

 

Plot your general route on the map. See if there are local caching organizations along the way. Reach out to them to see if they have a greatest hits list set up as a bookmark or web page or forum section. Be very specific in what you consider a must see type of cache to help filter out the signal from the noise.

 

Happy Travels.

 

PS-on a slight tangent. Ratings work well on Amazon/yelp/etc. as the viewers/readers/diners are usually not the same people who have written the book or own the restaurant. Even so, you cannot simply go by the stars, you still need to read the reviews.

Edited May 18, 2010 by wimseyguy

[+USMCGecko]

 

PS-on a slight tangent. Ratings work well on Amazon/yelp/etc. as the viewers/readers/diners are usually not the same people who have written the book or own the restaurant. Even so, you cannot simply go by the stars, you still need to read the reviews.

 

But, it's easier to look up star ratings, Say based on average rating, then look at logs and go from there. I buy from Amazon all the time and greatly value, user reviews. If I see an item has 100 reviews, but of those reviews, the 3,2,1 stars outnumber the 4 and 5 stars. I would probably skip it. But like you said even with the star rating, I read reviews to find out what people didn't like about it, or what they did. I think it would just be easier add a filter option to find caches by a rating, then once you find your 4 and 5 star caches, you can investigate further and find out what it best. That's just my opinion.

[+Jennifer&Dean]

If you are using GSAK, try searching for caches older than 2009 and whose size is larger than micro. You will usually end up finding decent caches. Narrow it more with a terrain of 2 or greater and you will take a lot more walks in the woods.

 

Popular, maybe not, but most of them will be in pretty spots.

But your mileage may vary.

Jen

[+DENelson83]

How about defining a "popular cache" as having the highest find rate in a given time period, like finds per day, or per week, or per month?

[+hukilaulau]

I have gone to the local forums in several states when I've known I was going to a particular place, asking about nice caches. I've ALWAYS gotten helpful suggestions and encouragement, met several local cachers, and once even got a kayak and a guide for a day! It's amazing how much effort some people will put into helping you figure out just the right caches for your visit! Much better than any computer thingie I've seen.

[+GeoGeeBee]

How about defining a "popular cache" as having the highest find rate in a given time period, like finds per day, or per week, or per month?

 

That's great, if you enjoy spending your time in parking lots lifting lamp post skirts.

[+narcissa]

Honestly, the only way to figure out which caches are worth your time and which aren't is for you to look at the cache descriptions and logs yourself. Everyone has different criteria, and "popular" is hard to quantify.

[+drain13]

so, care to post you route, im sure there may be a couple of people in the cities you travel through on here that might throw out some faves. and the previos mentions of additional tools to weed out specifics.

[+briansnat]

Find some point of interest in the area you are visiting. By "point of interest," I mean a scenic mountain peak, a waterfall, the world's largest ball of twine, anything that YOU would find interesting. Then locate that point on the GC map search tool. There will probably be some geocaches near it.

 

It is unfortunate that geocaching has changed from a sport that you could use to discover interesting places to one where you need to find interesting places to look for decent caches.

[+Markwell]

Honestly, the only way to figure out which caches are worth your time and which aren't is for you to look at the cache descriptions and logs yourself. Everyone has different criteria, and "popular" is hard to quantify.

 

I agree that popular is hard to quantify (as I said in my post). I think what we're looking for is "enjoyable" and that "many people have liked". I don't think the ONLY way to find this out is through reading the descriptions and logs. That's quite daunting. As I suggested and still firmly believe, take the existing searchable characteristics that you KNOW are ones you like (terrain rating, difficulty rating, container size, cache type, key words searchable in GSAK, a smattering of attributes, etc.) and you can definitely narrow the search down. Couple that with how far you're willing to stray from the main route by examining Google Earth and interstate exits, and the choices will be significantly narrowed. THEN read the descriptions and logs.

 

Find some point of interest in the area you are visiting. By "point of interest," I mean a scenic mountain peak, a waterfall, the world's largest ball of twine, anything that YOU would find interesting. Then locate that point on the GC map search tool. There will probably be some geocaches near it.

 

It is unfortunate that geocaching has changed from a sport that you could use to discover interesting places to one where you need to find interesting places to look for decent caches.

 

Thanks for saying exactly what I was thinking (as usual).

[Keystone]

Run a pocket query for the area you're visiting and/or the route you're taking.

 

Preview the pocket query search results.

 

Click on the link for the photo gallery. This will be a collection of every image uploaded to any of the 1000 caches in your query results.

 

Browse through the images. Caches with a scenic view or an oddball local attraction will have lots of photos in their galleries. Caches in parking lots tend not to attract large image galleries.

 

Bookmark the caches that had images which were of interest to you.

[+sbell111]

 

PS-on a slight tangent. Ratings work well on Amazon/yelp/etc. as the viewers/readers/diners are usually not the same people who have written the book or own the restaurant. Even so, you cannot simply go by the stars, you still need to read the reviews.

 

But, it's easier to look up star ratings, Say based on average rating, then look at logs and go from there. I buy from Amazon all the time and greatly value, user reviews. If I see an item has 100 reviews, but of those reviews, the 3,2,1 stars outnumber the 4 and 5 stars. I would probably skip it. But like you said even with the star rating, I read reviews to find out what people didn't like about it, or what they did. I think it would just be easier add a filter option to find caches by a rating, then once you find your 4 and 5 star caches, you can investigate further and find out what it best. That's just my opinion.

The difference is that with Amazon, you and the rater have the same interests (whatever the book's topic is). With this silly game, different cachers like different things and have different expectations. For example:

Find some point of interest in the area you are visiting. By "point of interest," I mean a scenic mountain peak, a waterfall, the world's largest ball of twine, anything that YOU would find interesting. Then locate that point on the GC map search tool. There will probably be some geocaches near it.

It is unfortunate that geocaching has changed from a sport that you could use to discover interesting places to one where you need to find interesting places to look for decent caches.

The game hasn't changed. Your expectations have.

 

When the game began, caches showed us to some really cool places and to some mundane ones. This is still the case. The only difference is that some people have developed an expectation that every cache must show them something that they think is awesome. Most early caches didn't live up to this expectation. Why should current ones?

[+Markwell]

When the game began, caches showed us to some really cool places and to some mundane ones. This is still the case. The only difference is that some people have developed an expectation that every cache must show them something that they think is awesome. Most early caches didn't live up to this expectation. Why should current ones?

I disagree. Maybe most of the early caches YOU found didn't live up to that expectation. All of the early caches I found except one did, and I was not selective in my caching experience.

 

Here's some anecdotal data to back that up. When I began on March 13, 2001, the entire Chicago area had 16 active caches. Of those 16 caches, 15 were placed in locations that were scenic wooded areas mostly in forest preserves - leaving only one (6%) of the caches in non-scenic areas. That one cache was behind a dumpster and had a broken bottle of tabasco in it. Three years later on March 13, 2004, there were 297 traditional caches within 20 miles of my home. I just mapped them out and found that 43 out of 297 traditional caches (14.4%) were placed in parking lots or non-park/forest preserve areas. Did this increase percentage of non-park caches increase? I tried to find out. I started to map and look at the 2100+ active traditional caches within 20 miles of my home, but the task was too daunting to even consider. There's just too many to weed through. Weeding it down to caches within 20 miles of my home, traditional, with a size of "regular", "small" or "large", with terrain greater than 1.0 and difficulty less than 4.0, not temporarily disabled still gives 835 caches - which is still quite a few to try and figure out.

 

The majority of the caches I have seen listed that were placed in the earliest years of Geocaching did not show mundane parking areas or utilize Walmart lamp posts for hiding caches. Instead they were in parks and along trails. Maybe that was indicative of the Chicago area and not your area of Tennessee. So in the Chicago area, and others, maybe it can be said that caching was a chance to show people areas of interest and beauty and maybe in Tennessee it was a way to increase find counts by one, maybe due to prolific hiders. To that I cannot speak.

 

But the mass of caches to try to weed through brings us back to the the whole point of this thread.

 

The OP was looking for a way to find caches along his route that would appeal to him, and give him an enjoyable caching experience. The quantifiable characteristics of the caches SHOULD give selection enough caches to be able to enjoy his experience. But there is no qualitative or affinity characteristic that says "This cache is good" or "You and cacher John Smith like similar caches and he liked this cache."

Edited May 19, 2010 by Markwell

[+wimseyguy]

 

PS-on a slight tangent. Ratings work well on Amazon/yelp/etc. as the viewers/readers/diners are usually not the same people who have written the book or own the restaurant. Even so, you cannot simply go by the stars, you still need to read the reviews.

 

But, it's easier to look up star ratings, Say based on average rating, then look at logs and go from there. I buy from Amazon all the time and greatly value, user reviews. If I see an item has 100 reviews, but of those reviews, the 3,2,1 stars outnumber the 4 and 5 stars. I would probably skip it. But like you said even with the star rating, I read reviews to find out what people didn't like about it, or what they did. I think it would just be easier add a filter option to find caches by a rating, then once you find your 4 and 5 star caches, you can investigate further and find out what it best. That's just my opinion.

The difference is that with Amazon, you and the rater have the same interests (whatever the book's topic is). With this silly game, different cachers like different things and have different expectations.

 

No, my point was that the ratings on other websites work well because the raters are unlikely to have a personal relationship with the movie director/cast or restaurant chef/owner/staff or author/publisher. Since geocachers create the playing field, there is more chance here that a low rating will be perceived as the equivalent of telling someone they have an ugly baby and create personal strife and issues. So either people will be afraid to be honest with their ratings, or we will see artificially inflated ratings of our friends caches so they get that elusive 5* rating. Then stupid challenges will evolve that count the ratings stars, so there will be even more encouragement to post bogus reviews.

 

Recently yelp has come under fire for a sniff of inappropriate behavior, which of course they denied. So just how much can one trust online, supposed transparent ratings and reviews anyway?

 

Sorry for continuing the tangent, but I felt my post was being misinterpreted.

 

I still think the best way to plan for a trip is to contact some locals, and share your desires and priorities with them to get some recommendations. The social aspect of geocaching is developing in a far better direction than many of the cache placements are.

[+Kit Fox]

 

A better way to describe what the OP might be looking for is a way to find highly recommended caches - where "highly recommended" mean recommended by several people. Markwell has suggested in the past that a system be set up that would allow people to recommend some limited number of caches - perhaps using the bookmark lists that premium members can already setup. The proposed system could help you find caches that are recommended by at least a certain number of people.

 

It's too bad there is no way to search for bookmark lists that might exist. You either have to ask if any one knows of some lists or just happen on them by accident. If you can find a few people's list in the areas you will be visiting you can use these as recommendations.

 

The caches I like best almost always have multiple "favorites" bookmarks, and large photo galleries. If this was ever implemented by Groundspeak, it would help many of us.

[+GeoGeeBee]

The best thing about Amazon isn't the reviews, anyway. It's the recommendation service. You know, the thing that says "you've bought all these books... other people who bought those books really like these other books."

 

There are two barriers (at least) to having this implemented on GC.com -- first is the implementation. I don't know enough about programming to know how hard it would be, but I'm sure it's not trivial. The second is legal. Amazon owns the patent on their recommendation service.

[+sbell111]

 

PS-on a slight tangent. Ratings work well on Amazon/yelp/etc. as the viewers/readers/diners are usually not the same people who have written the book or own the restaurant. Even so, you cannot simply go by the stars, you still need to read the reviews.

 

But, it's easier to look up star ratings, Say based on average rating, then look at logs and go from there. I buy from Amazon all the time and greatly value, user reviews. If I see an item has 100 reviews, but of those reviews, the 3,2,1 stars outnumber the 4 and 5 stars. I would probably skip it. But like you said even with the star rating, I read reviews to find out what people didn't like about it, or what they did. I think it would just be easier add a filter option to find caches by a rating, then once you find your 4 and 5 star caches, you can investigate further and find out what it best. That's just my opinion.

The difference is that with Amazon, you and the rater have the same interests (whatever the book's topic is). With this silly game, different cachers like different things and have different expectations.

 

No, my point was that the ratings on other websites work well because the raters are unlikely to have a personal relationship with the movie director/cast or restaurant chef/owner/staff or author/publisher. Since geocachers create the playing field, there is more chance here that a low rating will be perceived as the equivalent of telling someone they have an ugly baby and create personal strife and issues. So either people will be afraid to be honest with their ratings, or we will see artificially inflated ratings of our friends caches so they get that elusive 5* rating. Then stupid challenges will evolve that count the ratings stars, so there will be even more encouragement to post bogus reviews.

 

Recently yelp has come under fire for a sniff of inappropriate behavior, which of course they denied. So just how much can one trust online, supposed transparent ratings and reviews anyway?

 

Sorry for continuing the tangent, but I felt my post was being misinterpreted.

 

I still think the best way to plan for a trip is to contact some locals, and share your desires and priorities with them to get some recommendations. The social aspect of geocaching is developing in a far better direction than many of the cache placements are.

We both agree that ratings for geocaches would be a different animal than that for Amazon. I was replying to USMCGecko, who disagrees with both of us.

[+sbell111]

Find some point of interest in the area you are visiting. By "point of interest," I mean a scenic mountain peak, a waterfall, the world's largest ball of twine, anything that YOU would find interesting. Then locate that point on the GC map search tool. There will probably be some geocaches near it.

It is unfortunate that geocaching has changed from a sport that you could use to discover interesting places to one where you need to find interesting places to look for decent caches.

When the game began, caches showed us to some really cool places and to some mundane ones. This is still the case. The only difference is that some people have developed an expectation that every cache must show them something that they think is awesome. Most early caches didn't live up to this expectation. Why should current ones?

I disagree. Maybe most of the early caches YOU found didn't live up to that expectation. All of the early caches I found except one did, and I was not selective in my caching experience. ...

I had little doubt that you would disagree with me.

 

Still, a look at the first dozen or so caches that I found would likely not find more than four or five that would end up on the 'approved by BS' list.

 

The problem with BS's statement is that he believes that the purpose of this game is to show him these interesting places. That's an error. The purpose of this game is, and always has been, to get you to a geocache through the use of an electronic gizmo that we call a GPSr. People like BS do themselves a disservice when they expect that all others should use their erred idea of what the game is.

Edited May 19, 2010 by sbell111

[+Snoogans]

If you are using GSAK, try searching for caches older than 2009 and whose size is larger than micro. You will usually end up finding decent caches. Narrow it more with a terrain of 2 or greater and you will take a lot more walks in the woods.

 

Popular, maybe not, but most of them will be in pretty spots.

But your mileage may vary.

Jen

 

Gotta try that one for my 20+ state 2 country round trip geodysse to GW8. THANKS!

 

Plus, I plan to post a helper thread as soon as I have the route locked. Ya just can't beat word of mouth IMO. Post your route Geckodude. I bet the real gems shake out then.

 

Gonna hit The Trifecta (Original Stash/Ape Cache/The Lilypad) AND pick up the GPS Adventure Maze in Redding, Ca. as well as doing cache maintenance on my caches in the Sierras along the way on my trip. I also plan to hit Mingo (the oldest active cache) on the way out.

[+Markwell]

Find some point of interest in the area you are visiting. By "point of interest," I mean a scenic mountain peak, a waterfall, the world's largest ball of twine, anything that YOU would find interesting. Then locate that point on the GC map search tool. There will probably be some geocaches near it.

It is unfortunate that geocaching has changed from a sport that you could use to discover interesting places to one where you need to find interesting places to look for decent caches.

When the game began, caches showed us to some really cool places and to some mundane ones. This is still the case. The only difference is that some people have developed an expectation that every cache must show them something that they think is awesome. Most early caches didn't live up to this expectation. Why should current ones?

I disagree. Maybe most of the early caches YOU found didn't live up to that expectation. All of the early caches I found except one did, and I was not selective in my caching experience. ...

The problem with BS's statement is that he believes that the purpose of this game is to show him these interesting places. That's an error. The purpose of this game is, and always has been, to get you to a geocache through the use of an electronic gizmo that we call a GPSr. People like BS do themselves a disservice when they expect that all others should use their erred idea of what the game is.

Here we will disagree, but we're both supposing that we know Brian's mind. However, since he and I agree on many points, I'll respond from my point of view. I believe the statement that "geocaching has changed from a sport that you could use to discover interesting places to one" indicates a sense that all caches SHOULD take you to cool places. I took his comment to point out that in the earlier days an excellent SIDE BENEFIT was that cachers could find new and interesting places. Now GeoGeeBee suggestion is that users start off with looking at interesting places and seeing if caches are near by. That's the change. Edited May 19, 2010 by Markwell

[+roziecakes]

Find some point of interest in the area you are visiting. By "point of interest," I mean a scenic mountain peak, a waterfall, the world's largest ball of twine, anything that YOU would find interesting. Then locate that point on the GC map search tool. There will probably be some geocaches near it.

 

It is unfortunate that geocaching has changed from a sport that you could use to discover interesting places to one where you need to find interesting places to look for decent caches.

 

I think there's still a fair amount of place discovery through caching, but I think if someone is travelling and wants to find good caches, looking at known places of historical interest is a start.

[+BulldogBlitz]

Run a pocket query for the area you're visiting and/or the route you're taking.

 

Preview the pocket query search results.

 

Click on the link for the photo gallery. This will be a collection of every image uploaded to any of the 1000 caches in your query results.

 

Browse through the images. Caches with a scenic view or an oddball local attraction will have lots of photos in their galleries. Caches in parking lots tend not to attract large image galleries.

 

Bookmark the caches that had images which were of interest to you.

 

clearly, i will have to start posting the picture below on all LPCs that i find

 

[+Jennifer&Dean]

If you are using GSAK, try searching for caches older than 2009 and whose size is larger than micro. You will usually end up finding decent caches. Narrow it more with a terrain of 2 or greater and you will take a lot more walks in the woods.

 

Popular, maybe not, but most of them will be in pretty spots.

But your mileage may vary.

Jen

 

Gotta try that one for my 20+ state 2 country round trip geodysse to GW8. THANKS!

 

Plus, I plan to post a helper thread as soon as I have the route locked. Ya just can't beat word of mouth IMO. Post your route Geckodude. I bet the real gems shake out then.

 

Gonna hit The Trifecta (Original Stash/Ape Cache/The Lilypad) AND pick up the GPS Adventure Maze in Redding, Ca. as well as doing cache maintenance on my caches in the Sierras along the way on my trip. I also plan to hit Mingo (the oldest active cache) on the way out.

 

When do you plan on going through Redding and heading north? I just scheduled 10 days in Medford, Oregon on a business trip before GW8. I fly home to MT on the 30th of June to drive to Seattle with Dean on the 1st of July.

 

If you can, be sure to hit the Cache Across America-Oregon as you pass through- it is just off I-5 north of Grants Pass. Quick find when I found it in January, not much but if you are collecting CAA caches, don't miss it!

 

Also, the Valley of the Rogue cache just outside of Rogue River, OR was a nice walk in the park- GC856. Older cache, from 2001 with a bunch of other fast caches to grab nearby.

 

One method of finding caches that are usually cool is to look for the oldest around. I have found that going for the older caches brings me into contact with groups of caches along nice trails and in cool park areas. They are also usually a slightly longer walk into the woods than a P&G type micro.

Jen

[+sbell111]

Find some point of interest in the area you are visiting. By "point of interest," I mean a scenic mountain peak, a waterfall, the world's largest ball of twine, anything that YOU would find interesting. Then locate that point on the GC map search tool. There will probably be some geocaches near it.

It is unfortunate that geocaching has changed from a sport that you could use to discover interesting places to one where you need to find interesting places to look for decent caches.

When the game began, caches showed us to some really cool places and to some mundane ones. This is still the case. The only difference is that some people have developed an expectation that every cache must show them something that they think is awesome. Most early caches didn't live up to this expectation. Why should current ones?

I disagree. Maybe most of the early caches YOU found didn't live up to that expectation. All of the early caches I found except one did, and I was not selective in my caching experience. ...

The problem with BS's statement is that he believes that the purpose of this game is to show him these interesting places. That's an error. The purpose of this game is, and always has been, to get you to a geocache through the use of an electronic gizmo that we call a GPSr. People like BS do themselves a disservice when they expect that all others should use their erred idea of what the game is.

Here we will disagree, but we're both supposing that we know Brian's mind. However, since he and I agree on many points, I'll respond from my point of view. I believe the statement that "geocaching has changed from a sport that you could use to discover interesting places to one" indicates a sense that all caches SHOULD take you to cool places. I took his comment to point out that in the earlier days an excellent SIDE BENEFIT was that cachers could find new and interesting places. Now GeoGeeBee suggestion is that users start off with looking at interesting places and seeing if caches are near by. That's the change.

You are taking the position that the two scenarios are mutually exclusive. I am not.

 

Geocacing has always shown me new things, and continues to do so. However, when traveling I still search based on cool locations that I know that I wish to visit. That doesn't mean that there aren't eleventeen thousand other new and interesting things that I don't visit.

 

Just because one can guarantee that they will like the surrounding area if they specifically choose caches near known awesomeness doesn't mean that there aren't bajillions of caches near awesomeness that is not on the cache seeker's radar. By attempting to twist GeoGeeBee's suggestion to try to make it serve his own pet argument, BS (and you, I suppose) did himself and the thread an injustice.

[+Snoogans]

If you are using GSAK, try searching for caches older than 2009 and whose size is larger than micro. You will usually end up finding decent caches. Narrow it more with a terrain of 2 or greater and you will take a lot more walks in the woods.

 

Popular, maybe not, but most of them will be in pretty spots.

But your mileage may vary.

Jen

 

Gotta try that one for my 20+ state 2 country round trip geodysse to GW8. THANKS!

 

Plus, I plan to post a helper thread as soon as I have the route locked. Ya just can't beat word of mouth IMO. Post your route Geckodude. I bet the real gems shake out then.

 

Gonna hit The Trifecta (Original Stash/Ape Cache/The Lilypad) AND pick up the GPS Adventure Maze in Redding, Ca. as well as doing cache maintenance on my caches in the Sierras along the way on my trip. I also plan to hit Mingo (the oldest active cache) on the way out.

 

When do you plan on going through Redding and heading north? I just scheduled 10 days in Medford, Oregon on a business trip before GW8. I fly home to MT on the 30th of June to drive to Seattle with Dean on the 1st of July.

 

If you can, be sure to hit the Cache Across America-Oregon as you pass through- it is just off I-5 north of Grants Pass. Quick find when I found it in January, not much but if you are collecting CAA caches, don't miss it!

 

Also, the Valley of the Rogue cache just outside of Rogue River, OR was a nice walk in the park- GC856. Older cache, from 2001 with a bunch of other fast caches to grab nearby.

 

One method of finding caches that are usually cool is to look for the oldest around. I have found that going for the older caches brings me into contact with groups of caches along nice trails and in cool park areas. They are also usually a slightly longer walk into the woods than a P&G type micro.

Jen

 

Proof enough for ya USMCGecko?

 

When in doubt on the best place to spend your quality time for cachin' just ask another geocacher who has been where you are going. It will save you time sifting through data and maximize your fun for that cachin' experience.

[+USMCGecko]

Ok, So here's my basic route.

 

Texas to Ohio route

 

I know I would like to see GCE02C

 

...and that's about as far as I have gotten. Any Suggestions??

[+briansnat]

]Here we will disagree, but we're both supposing that we know Brian's mind. However, since he and I agree on many points, I'll respond from my point of view. I believe the statement that "geocaching has changed from a sport that you could use to discover interesting places to one" indicates a sense that all caches SHOULD take you to cool places. I took his comment to point out that in the earlier days an excellent SIDE BENEFIT was that cachers could find new and interesting places. Now GeoGeeBee suggestion is that users start off with looking at interesting places and seeing if caches are near by. That's the change.

 

Markwell, I think you got my point. As far as the original intent of the sport, all anyone needs to do is read Dave Ulmer's earliest Usenet posts on the subject. When he wrote of placing caches in "unique locations" I don't think he meant Home Depot parking lots and when he wrote of placing caches to bring people to favorite spots I doubt he was referring to loading docks.

 

The pioneers of the game seemed to understand it. Taking a quick scan of my finds, it wasn't until Dec 2002 and about my 90th find when I encountered my first "pointless" cache. They were far and few between until about 2005, so the wide acceptance of the idea that geocaching doesn't necessarily need to take you some place pleasant or interesting came much later.

[+journey4truth]

I just started a thread earlier that tries to address this problem in a way.

 

Last weekend I was in Vermont, and while generating pocket queries in a cafe that covered the route I was taking back home to downstate NY, it occurred to me that I had no way of differentiating between quality caches and other caches that would be too boring to be worth pulling over for. Case in point, there was a nearby cache with a 3 star difficulty rating, so I opted to stop by to search that one, only to find that it was a typical lamp post hide in the middle of a Walmart parking lot. Unless you're checking the logs carefully these caches can be a big let down, and sifting through endless logs when there are hundreds of caches to go over is a tedious experience, to say the least.

 

To address the issue, I decided to experiment with a geolocation app on my iPod called Whrrl that would highlight only the most interesting geocaches I've found. You can create a society where members can recommend the best spots/geocaches near your current location, and these recommendations will automatically pop up based on how close you are to these geocaches. No more stumbling on bookmark lists or praying God can help you out in finding a better than average geocache when you're on the road. This is something I REALLY hope Groundspeak will implement in some way in their upcoming Ribbit network.

[+GeoGeeBee]

I'm planning a trip to New York next week (my honeymoon, actually) and I happened upon this cache:

 

GC1GMBV

 

That's relevant to this discussion because the cache page contains this:

 

Which made it really easy to find this:

2009 Metro GC Awards

 

And that list has more than enough caches on it for the limited time I'll have available while I'm there!

 

You might ask, "GeoGeeBee, how did you stumble upon this cache which contained this invaluable link?"

 

I'm glad you asked. It happens to be the closest cache to The Cloisters, and since I knew I'd be visiting that museum Tuesday morning, I thought to see what caches were close by. Of course, I got really lucky. It might be easier to just contact the geocaching club in the area and see if they have any similar list.

[+journey4truth]

I'm glad you asked. It happens to be the closest cache to The Cloisters, and since I knew I'd be visiting that museum Tuesday morning, I thought to see what caches were close by. Of course, I got really lucky. It might be easier to just contact the geocaching club in the area and see if they have any similar list.

 

NICE! Got it bookmarked for my excursion into the city next weekend. You should check out Punk Rock too, hidden in plain sight on location where American Punk Rock got its genesis I believe: GCYJCA

 

My sympathies on tying the knot too! Whoops, I mean congrats, not my sympathies.

[+sbell111]

Find some point of interest in the area you are visiting. By "point of interest," I mean a scenic mountain peak, a waterfall, the world's largest ball of twine, anything that YOU would find interesting. Then locate that point on the GC map search tool. There will probably be some geocaches near it.

It is unfortunate that geocaching has changed from a sport that you could use to discover interesting places to one where you need to find interesting places to look for decent caches.

When the game began, caches showed us to some really cool places and to some mundane ones. This is still the case. The only difference is that some people have developed an expectation that every cache must show them something that they think is awesome. Most early caches didn't live up to this expectation. Why should current ones?

I disagree. Maybe most of the early caches YOU found didn't live up to that expectation. All of the early caches I found except one did, and I was not selective in my caching experience. ...

The problem with BS's statement is that he believes that the purpose of this game is to show him these interesting places. That's an error. The purpose of this game is, and always has been, to get you to a geocache through the use of an electronic gizmo that we call a GPSr. People like BS do themselves a disservice when they expect that all others should use their erred idea of what the game is.

Here we will disagree, but we're both supposing that we know Brian's mind. However, since he and I agree on many points, I'll respond from my point of view. I believe the statement that "geocaching has changed from a sport that you could use to discover interesting places to one" indicates a sense that all caches SHOULD take you to cool places. I took his comment to point out that in the earlier days an excellent SIDE BENEFIT was that cachers could find new and interesting places. Now GeoGeeBee suggestion is that users start off with looking at interesting places and seeing if caches are near by. That's the change.

Markwell, I think you got my point. As far as the original intent of the sport, all anyone needs to do is read Dave Ulmer's earliest Usenet posts on the subject. When he wrote of placing caches in "unique locations" I don't think he meant Home Depot parking lots and when he wrote of placing caches to bring people to favorite spots I doubt he was referring to loading docks.

Correct. He clearly intended for all caches to be randomly placed on the side of the road.

The pioneers of the game seemed to understand it. Taking a quick scan of my finds, it wasn't until Dec 2002 and about my 90th find when I encountered my first "pointless" cache. They were far and few between until about 2005, so the wide acceptance of the idea that geocaching doesn't necessarily need to take you some place pleasant or interesting came much later.

How sad is that. I don't think that I've ever found a pointless cache. Every single one served my intended purpose. I guess your expectations don't match the reality of the game. Edited May 20, 2010 by sbell111

[+USMCGecko]

Ok, So here's my basic route.

 

Texas to Ohio route

 

I know I would like to see GCE02C

 

...and that's about as far as I have gotten. Any Suggestions??

 

Ok, so far I have checked each state that I will be going through to see if there is a Geocaching website for that state. I have sent emails to members of Louisiana, Mississippi and Tennessee(Best Website). Alabama doesn't seem to have a website that is operational and I can't figure out how to contact anyone from Kentucky. I looked at several Ohio Geocaching pages and they either redirect to a generic search page or do not have a way to contact anyone.

[+Jennifer&Dean]

Ok, So here's my basic route.

 

Texas to Ohio route

 

I know I would like to see GCE02C

 

...and that's about as far as I have gotten. Any Suggestions??

Baton Rouge- The cache at the Rural Life Museum is in a pretty garden if you like flowers and greenery. A nice little walk. Burden of Beauty

 

New Orleans- you've got Vieux Carre, that is one of my favorites. I also enjoyed the virtual cache at the Michoud Nasa facility- Fly me to the Moon It is really neat if you like space stuff! If you want to visit a scary cemetery, check out the virtual Marie Laveau, Voodoo Queen but be warned, the cemetery is a host for crime and can be dangerous at night and sometimes during the day.

 

I could recommend a few caches in Huntsville, Alabama- the Monte Sano park there has some great hikes.

 

Bowling Green- KY- definitely grab the Cache Across America- KY if it is active- Dean still talks about the cool museum it is near.

 

Stop at Mammoth Cave NP in KY to check out the earthcaches and maybe take a tour, be prepared they can take quite a bit of time up.

 

Louisville- Oldest cache in KY- Tom Sawyer, lots of other caches in that park too!

 

In Cincinnati- if you like hikes and seeing nature, the caches in MT Airy Forest are pretty nice. Lots of older ones there. If you have kids with you, check out GCYWR2- the Treehouse Grande for a quick leg stretcher near bathrooms and playgrounds.

 

Can you tell we did a road trip through there a few years ago?

Jen

[+drain13]

see that was easy now wasnt it! now just keep this popping up til go time and it'll take months to to the drive

[+Ambrosia]

With my last several trips, I've been using the Waymarking site more for finding neat places to focus on. This works especially with areas that are touristy, like my trip to the NE (especially in D.C. and NYC). I'd look up touristy type categories, or view categories, etc. Then I'd know where the neat/interesting/historical/pretty spots were. Then, I could create pq's near those, or remember to whip out the iphone near those spots.