Micros the scurge of geocaching and maybe the end?

[Clan Riffster]

For those who only count the numbers, all caches may be equal.

 

For those who cherish the memories that caching brings them, all caches are not equal.

 

You oversimplify the situation.

No, you're just being obtuse.

Even someone who 'loves' all hides won't derive the same degree of quality memories from one cache that they would on another. Depending on their individual preferences, an exhaust laden, 500 acre parking lot bristling with soccer mom driven SUVs is going to provide a different quality of memory than a hike through a natural area, to the base of a waterfall. One will have more meaning than the other, depending on whether one prefers parking lots or natural habitats.

 

In the end, the only thing equal to the two are the smiley icons.

[Mr.Yuck]

But you don't disagree that "people like different things".

Of course not. Heck, some people even like cabbage.

 

I love boiled cabbage and I love micros.

 

Trust me, I know several tens of thousands of cache finders who hold their noses every time they lift a skirt in a parking lot.

Impossible, you need two hands to lift a lamp skirt.

 

I wouldn't know. Actually, I do, and I'd say you're correct. I've found and logged maybe 3 (one was in a town park overlooking a pond). I've jokingly been the official skirt lifter on several group caching occasions with other people (that I didn't log). See I told you I know several people who find anything and everything.

 

And the fact that I'd like to clear up that I meant I don't know several thousand people who hold their nose while lifting the skirt, just several.

 

If there are people out there who truly cherish every find like A&T, I'm fine with that. I just don't know any of them personally. The people I know with thousands of finds who find everything know darn well what is good, and what is lame. I guess they're not the dance around the lampskirt and sing kum bah ya types.

Edited June 16, 2013 by Mr.Yuck

[Clan Riffster]

If there are people out there who truly cherish every find like A&T,...

I'm reminded of this excerpt from my dog's diary:

 

8:00 am - Dog food! My favorite thing!

9:30 am - A car ride! My favorite thing!

9:40 am - A walk in the park! My favorite thing!

10:30 am - Got rubbed and petted! My favorite thing!

12:00 PM - Lunch! My favorite thing!

1:00 PM - Played in the yard! My favorite thing!

3:00 PM - Wagged my tail! My favorite thing!

5:00 PM - Milk bones! My favorite thing!

7:00 PM - Got to play ball! My favorite thing!

8:00 PM - Wow! Watched TV with the people! My favorite thing!

11:00 PM - Sleeping on the bed! My favorite thing!

[+ArtieD]

Even someone who 'loves' all hides won't derive the same degree of quality memories from one cache that they would on another.

 

How can you know that? Why can't they?

[+ArtieD]

If there are people out there who truly cherish every find like A&T, I'm fine with that. I just don't know any of them personally. The people I know with thousands of finds who find everything know darn well what is good, and what is lame. I guess they're not the dance around the lampskirt and sing kum bah ya types.

 

There are lame hides indeed. No arguments there. The caching experience to me is being out there and doing what it is I do. A lame hide does not diminish the awesome day I am having being out there in the field caching.

[Clan Riffster]

Even someone who 'loves' all hides won't derive the same degree of quality memories from one cache that they would on another.

 

How can you know that?

By observation and dialog.

[+L0ne.R]

Even someone who 'loves' all hides won't derive the same degree of quality memories from one cache that they would on another.

 

How can you know that? Why can't they?

 

Kind of like saying you have the same quality memory experience looking at the Horseshoe Falls as you do watching water fall out of a sewage pipe.

[+wimseyguy]

I would rather find a micro at an interesting location, or one that is well camo'd yet in plain view in an urban setting than a larger sized container behind the dumpster in a suburban parking lot. I reserve my snarkiest logs for dumpster hides: "thanks for sharing your special place with me."

 

Size doesn't matter as much as the thought put into the location.

[+tozainamboku]

Even someone who 'loves' all hides won't derive the same degree of quality memories from one cache that they would on another. Depending on their individual preferences, an exhaust laden, 500 acre parking lot bristling with soccer mom driven SUVs is going to provide a different quality of memory than a hike through a natural area, to the base of a waterfall. One will have more meaning than the other, depending on whether one prefers parking lots or natural habitats.

 

In the end, the only thing equal to the two are the smiley icons.

You're making the assumption that people cache for "quality memories from one cache".

 

Some people may spend the time looking for caches that provide a standalone thrill, but others view geocaching as some thing done in a broader context.

 

If someone's wife drags them to the mall to go shopping, they may find the lamppost hide in the parking lot just the thing to break up the day and make the trip to mall bearable. Someone may plan a trip to get one particular adventurous hide in an alligator infested swamp, and find the guardrail cache at the parking area an added bonus. Even a group of friends who just want to spend a few hours together may find the urban area saturated with micros is a better idea than going to a movie or watching the game at a sports bar.

 

For many people the question is not "which geocache has the better experience" but more of "is geocaching better than doing something else" or "how can I combine geocaching with something else to make it better".

[Mr.Yuck]

If there are people out there who truly cherish every find like A&T, I'm fine with that. I just don't know any of them personally. The people I know with thousands of finds who find everything know darn well what is good, and what is lame. I guess they're not the dance around the lampskirt and sing kum bah ya types.

 

There are lame hides indeed. No arguments there. The caching experience to me is being out there and doing what it is I do. A lame hide does not diminish the awesome day I am having being out there in the field caching.

 

Don't get me wrong. You are in the mainstream, I am not. I am one of those grumpy old people that Roman mentioned in the last day or two. Don't remember if it was this thread, or another one. We can file this under "it's all caching". It's not just a numbers thing, the guy who joined last year who has 100 finds on his smartphone who has never looked at these forums looks at a film canister under a skirt in the Wal-Mart parking lot and a 1/2 mile one way hike to an ammo box next to a waterfall and says "it's all caching". Does he think one is better than the other? I say so, and You'll never convince me otherwise.

 

By the way, I'm an long-time admirer of your work in the Garmin Opencaching forums.

[Clan Riffster]

Even someone who 'loves' all hides won't derive the same degree of quality memories from one cache that they would on another. Depending on their individual preferences, an exhaust laden, 500 acre parking lot bristling with soccer mom driven SUVs is going to provide a different quality of memory than a hike through a natural area, to the base of a waterfall. One will have more meaning than the other, depending on whether one prefers parking lots or natural habitats.

 

In the end, the only thing equal to the two are the smiley icons.

You're making the assumption that people cache for "quality memories from one cache". .

I do see some assumptions here, but they are not mine.

My only assumption is that those who continue to cache, do so for whatever enjoyment they get out of it. Do they love long hikes? Scenic paddles? Lonely ammo cans? Racking up numbers? Evil hides? Film cans in suburbia? All of the above? Some of the above? Some other aspect?

 

It really doesn't matter what the specifics are.

 

They cache.

 

My point, which you so artfully ignored, is that the vast majority of people are not like pooches.

The things they experience during this hobby have varying degrees of pleasure, from "Meh" to "Awesome".

Even A&T said that, according to him, some caches are lame.

By using the L word, A&T admit that all caches are not equal.

[+tozainamboku]

My point, which you so artfully ignored, is that the vast majority of people are not like pooches.

The things they experience during this hobby have varying degrees of pleasure, from "Meh" to "Awesome".

Even A&T said that, according to him, some caches are lame.

By using the L word, A&T admit that all caches are not equal.

My point, was that people who say that all caches are equal are not like your dog at all. It isn't that every cache, individually, gives an equivalent experiences. They certainly may find one cache more enjoyable than another - on a cache to cache basis. But for many, just how enjoyable a particular cache is doesn't change the equation when measuring their overall reasons for geocaching.

 

I don't doubt that for some people, their goal is incrementing their find count. It's clear that for this purpose, one cache is equal to another. Perhaps it can even be argued that a power trail or a urban area rich in micro caches is "better: as these caches allow the find count to be incremented with less effort.

 

I'd argue however, that even for those for whom the numbers don't matter, their enjoyment is that they are caching instead of doing something else (or in addition to doing something else). Whether the else is hiking, shopping, or driving a snowplow, doesn't matter. Any cache that they can find while doing something else enhances the experience. In this respect all caches are equal in potentially making some other activity better.

[+Roman!]

Well, the thread is three years old and both micros and Geocaching have grown a lot in the three years, could it be that micros are not the scurge but rather the saviour?

[nonaeroterraqueous]

In this respect all caches are equal in potentially making some other activity better.

 

...or worse. I can only agree with you for your use of the word, "potentially." There are significant types of caches that, were they the only kind, would cause me to stop caching by virtue of the fact that finding them would be less enjoyable than not looking for any at all. Twice a year I park right next to a lamp post cache at my dentist's office. I have never looked for it. Much as I don't enjoy going to the dentist....

[nonaeroterraqueous]

...both micros and Geocaching have grown a lot in the three years, could it be that micros are not the scurge but rather the saviour?

 

I'll bet if you think about it you can come up with a few other possible reasons for the growth of geocaching, like the great increase in GPS ownership via smart phones, increase in public awareness of the hobby, word of mouth, etc.

[+Roman!]

...both micros and Geocaching have grown a lot in the three years, could it be that micros are not the scurge but rather the saviour?

 

I'll bet if you think about it you can come up with a few other possible reasons for the growth of geocaching, like the great increase in GPS ownership via smart phones, increase in public awareness of the hobby, word of mouth, etc.

 

Smart phones and public awareness will not get some Kentucky fried fatso 15 miles into the wilderness to find an awesome ammo can, it will however get him to that McDonalds parking lot and that's how Geocaching grows.

Edited June 17, 2013 by Roman!

[Clan Riffster]

Any cache that they can find while doing something else enhances the experience. In this respect all caches are equal in potentially making some other activity better.

Even with that qualifier, I don't think "equal" belongs in that sentence.

For instance, my favorite other hobby is kayaking. It combines well with geocaching. Let us say, for argument's sake, that I kayak down a new, (to me), stretch of river, which has two caches along its route. The first cache is an ammo can, at the base of the largest cypress tree in the county, with an interesting write up. The second cache is a soggy log film can with a poorly spelled, grammatically horrid, single sentence write up, such as "This is my furst cash I hop you like it". Because of my personal caching aesthetics, I am going to enjoy the first one far more than the second. In fact, the second one would actually detract from my experience, not enhance it. I can't speak for the majority, though I suspect, for many, the degree of enhancement would not be equal.

 

I will grant you that, for the pooch cacher, "Oooh! An ammo can! My favorite!... Oooh! A soggy log film can! My favorite!", or for those who only cache to increase their find count, (nothing wrong with that, mind you), then the degree of enhancement would be equal.

[+Mudfrog]

Any cache that they can find while doing something else enhances the experience. In this respect all caches are equal in potentially making some other activity better.

Even with that qualifier, I don't think "equal" belongs in that sentence.

For instance, my favorite other hobby is kayaking. It combines well with geocaching. Let us say, for argument's sake, that I kayak down a new, (to me), stretch of river, which has two caches along its route. The first cache is an ammo can, at the base of the largest cypress tree in the county, with an interesting write up. The second cache is a soggy log film can with a poorly spelled, grammatically horrid, single sentence write up, such as "This is my furst cash I hop you like it". Because of my personal caching aesthetics, I am going to enjoy the first one far more than the second. In fact, the second one would actually detract from my experience, not enhance it. I can't speak for the majority, though I suspect, for many, the degree of enhancement would not be equal.

 

I will grant you that, for the pooch cacher, "Oooh! An ammo can! My favorite!... Oooh! A soggy log film can! My favorite!", or for those who only cache to increase their find count, (nothing wrong with that, mind you), then the degree of enhancement would be equal.

 

Not an ice cream analogy, allthough that would work , but,,, This kind of reminds of how people look at cellphones. At first, just getting any cellphone is a plus for most people. After a while though, they find that there are certain models that they fancy more than others. The old tried and true phone no longer suits them so they do whatever they can to get one with the features they want.

 

Of course there are a few phone users (cachers) who are happy as can be with most any phone (cache), as long as it works (they can log it). The vast majority however, want phones (caches) that incorporate the things they want. They'll use an old phone (find a cache that's not their favorite type) in a pinch, but would rather avoid doing so if they had their way.

[+M 5]

...both micros and Geocaching have grown a lot in the three years, could it be that micros are not the scurge but rather the saviour?

 

I'll bet if you think about it you can come up with a few other possible reasons for the growth of geocaching, like the great increase in GPS ownership via smart phones, increase in public awareness of the hobby, word of mouth, etc.

 

Smart phones and public awareness will not get some Kentucky fried fatso 15 miles into the wilderness to find an awesome ammo can, it will however get him to that McDonalds parking lot and that's how Geocaching grows.

 

That is not a good thing.

[+L0ne.R]

Any cache that they can find while doing something else enhances the experience. In this respect all caches are equal in potentially making some other activity better.

I am going to enjoy the first one far more than the second. In fact, the second one would actually detract from my experience, not enhance it.

 

That is so true! A number of times I've enjoyed a nice walk on a lovely day, anticipating a nice cache at the end of it, only to find a soggy pill jar under a pile of rocks, with a crushed, moist and tattered logsheet inside, that was listed as a small rather then a micro. It sours the experience.

[+L0ne.R]

...both micros and Geocaching have grown a lot in the three years, could it be that micros are not the scurge but rather the saviour?

 

I'll bet if you think about it you can come up with a few other possible reasons for the growth of geocaching, like the great increase in GPS ownership via smart phones, increase in public awareness of the hobby, word of mouth, etc.

 

Smart phones and public awareness will not get some Kentucky fried fatso 15 miles into the wilderness to find an awesome ammo can, it will however get him to that McDonalds parking lot and that's how Geocaching grows.

 

That is not a good thing.

 

+1

[+Off Grid]

I know many dont like micros and neither do I. Lately I have been wondering if they will be the eventual end of geocaching. We are lucky enough to live in an area that has over 2000 geocaches within 25 miles of the house unfortunately the majority of them are micros. It seems that there are so many micros with little or no thought to their placement that it has gotten to the point they are interfering with the placement of larger caches due to the over saturation rule. So why if so many feel the same way are there still so many micros placed around. This should be about quality not quantity and I fear if this trend continues we will not draw nearly as many new cachers to keep the sport growing. OK off my soap box and maybe off to find a good ole ammo can.

I agree I have taken a few of my friends geocaching and I found a micro or two and they were like uh thought it was a container with stuff in it. I said no geocaching added a stupid container that's the size of my pinky. I prefer big containers over little if some one calls the bomb squad well welcome to a weird world

[+Off Grid]

Any cache that they can find while doing something else enhances the experience. In this respect all caches are equal in potentially making some other activity better.

I am going to enjoy the first one far more than the second. In fact, the second one would actually detract from my experience, not enhance it.

 

That is so true! A number of times I've enjoyed a nice walk on a lovely day, anticipating a nice cache at the end of it, only to find a soggy pill jar under a pile of rocks, with a crushed, moist and tattered logsheet inside, that was listed as a small rather then a micro. It sours the experience.

Or ruins a good spot who puts a nano in the forest that's made for containers

[+Off Grid]

Well, the thread is three years old and both micros and Geocaching have grown a lot in the three years, could it be that micros are not the scurge but rather the saviour?

Could not stop laughing when I read this. No an example is an area we have that has hag nanos. We went to each nano now these are in the forest and you have to hike to them. They were all soggy messes and after about the fourth one finding a blood tube gets old fast.

[+tozainamboku]

...both micros and Geocaching have grown a lot in the three years, could it be that micros are not the scurge but rather the saviour?

 

I'll bet if you think about it you can come up with a few other possible reasons for the growth of geocaching, like the great increase in GPS ownership via smart phones, increase in public awareness of the hobby, word of mouth, etc.

 

Smart phones and public awareness will not get some Kentucky fried fatso 15 miles into the wilderness to find an awesome ammo can, it will however get him to that McDonalds parking lot and that's how Geocaching grows.

 

That is not a good thing.

Personal opinion.

 

For someone who is not the least bit interested in hiking 15 miles into the wilderness or wading nipple-deep in a swamp full of alligators, the cache in the McDonald's parking lot may be a good thing.

 

I'd make an argument that there are more people willing to look for a cache in a McDonalds parking lots (even if it is a micro under the lamppost skirt), than are willing to take the hike or wade in the swamp. If geocaching were to just appeal to the outdoor types, its growth would be limited.

 

Not an ice cream analogy, allthough that would work , but,,, This kind of reminds of how people look at cellphones. At first, just getting any cellphone is a plus for most people. After a while though, they find that there are certain models that they fancy more than others. The old tried and true phone no longer suits them so they do whatever they can to get one with the features they want.

 

Of course there are a few phone users (cachers) who are happy as can be with most any phone (cache), as long as it works (they can log it). The vast majority however, want phones (caches) that incorporate the things they want. They'll use an old phone (find a cache that's not their favorite type) in a pinch, but would rather avoid doing so if they had their way.

Thanks. The ice cream analogy would have worked better for me.

 

What I think Clan Riffster is saying is that ice cream may enhance any meal, but that not every flavor of ice cream will enhance a meal for him. Some flavors (like cabbage ice cream) may even be a negative.

 

I can understand this.

 

While some caches prefer large container, I don't see the need to put all micros in the category of cabbage ice cream. My guess is that people who object to micros are associating the cache size with some other issue. It isn't as if every micro is in a lousy place, or that every micro is in a crummy container with a soaked log. Nor does hiding a small or regular cache mean the location is great and the insides are dry.

 

The overwhelming majority of geocachers have no issue with micro caches. IMO, it is only a few vocal forum participants who call them the scurge of geocaching. Some people, of course, like to trade items and move travel bugs and would like to see more small and regular sized caches that allow this. Maybe a few cache with small children who expect to find "treasure" in every cache. These people can certainly avoid looking for micros. While some caches are miscatgorized and others leave the size unspecified, there are plenty of small and regular caches to find.

 

Excluding entire categories of caches is like a pretentious foody who won't eat ice cream unless it is hand made with natural ingedients (maybe even cabbage ice cream if it is made with locally grown organic cabbage). Every cache does not need to be above average to be enjoyed. For many, what others find as boring unoriginal hide in a mediocre location, is a fun and enjoyable part of whatever activity they were doing that day.

[Clan Riffster]

What I think Clan Riffster is saying is that ice cream may enhance any meal, but that not every flavor of ice cream will enhance a meal for him. Some flavors (like cabbage ice cream) may even be a negative.

Humorous side note: One of my favorite Sci-Fi authors created a sentient species that, prior to encountering humans, had no food similar to ice cream. The species evolved from prairie dwelling, felinoud carnivores. After discovering the wonder of ice cream, they showed a marked preference for one particular flavor, bourbon and raw catfish.

 

Sorry for the off topic diversion.

 

Let's get back to bashing micros.

[nonaeroterraqueous]

...both micros and Geocaching have grown a lot in the three years, could it be that micros are not the scurge but rather the saviour?

 

I'll bet if you think about it you can come up with a few other possible reasons for the growth of geocaching, like the great increase in GPS ownership via smart phones, increase in public awareness of the hobby, word of mouth, etc.

 

Smart phones and public awareness will not get some Kentucky fried fatso 15 miles into the wilderness to find an awesome ammo can, it will however get him to that McDonalds parking lot and that's how Geocaching grows.

 

No, but a smart phone will get him to a local park with a regular or small in a hedge. If it has to be near his favorite parking spot at the KFC where he's going anyway, then he probably isn't going to be an avid cacher who adds much to the geocaching community. As a rule of thumb, the more people invest into an activity, the more committed they are to improving it. Hence, having to go out of one's way to snag a cache selects for cachers that would invest more time and effort into cache placement, also.

[+M 5]

...both micros and Geocaching have grown a lot in the three years, could it be that micros are not the scurge but rather the saviour?

 

I'll bet if you think about it you can come up with a few other possible reasons for the growth of geocaching, like the great increase in GPS ownership via smart phones, increase in public awareness of the hobby, word of mouth, etc.

 

Smart phones and public awareness will not get some Kentucky fried fatso 15 miles into the wilderness to find an awesome ammo can, it will however get him to that McDonalds parking lot and that's how Geocaching grows.

 

That is not a good thing.

Personal opinion.

 

For someone who is not the least bit interested in hiking 15 miles into the wilderness or wading nipple-deep in a swamp full of alligators, the cache in the McDonald's parking lot may be a good thing.

 

I'd make an argument that there are more people willing to look for a cache in a McDonalds parking lots (even if it is a micro under the lamppost skirt), than are willing to take the hike or wade in the swamp. If geocaching were to just appeal to the outdoor types, its growth would be limited.

 

 

Now we're talking. That would be a good thing.

[+L0ne.R]

While some caches prefer large container, I don't see the need to put all micros in the category of cabbage ice cream. My guess is that people who object to micros are associating the cache size with some other issue. It isn't as if every micro is in a lousy place, or that every micro is in a crummy container with a soaked log. Nor does hiding a small or regular cache mean the location is great and the insides are dry.

 

The overwhelming majority of geocachers have no issue with micro caches.

 

Sure not all micros are cabbage ice cream flavored, but the majority are. I have no issue with micros in quality water tight containers, in locations that one would want to show off to another cacher (e.g. scenic spot at the falls in Niagara), where a small or larger container won't fit. Or quality container micros in creative outer containers, in pleasant locations. But most cache owners choose micro size because they don't cost anything (free film canister or pill bottle - CO won't even splurge by spending a buck on a Coghlan's matchstick container) and are easier to hide.

 

Yes, some micros are creative and placed appropriately, but they are the minority.

 

The overwhelming majority of geocachers have no issue with micro caches.

 

I would say that Mudfrog 's cell phone analogy works well here. The overwhelming majority of geocachers that have no issue with cheap, easy micros are likely casual geocachers or new geocachers who haven't developed a taste for a fuller caching experience with more interesting features.

Edited June 17, 2013 by L0ne R

[+stijnhommes]

To me a cache should either have a fun puzzle element, a clever hiding spot or a nice location. It's even better if the cache has a combination of these.

I enjoy large caches as much as the next guy, but micros and nanos can be lots of fun too, if care has gone into the placement. I have only placed 3 caches myself so far and that is very much on purpose.

I have a nano near a war memorial that most loggers enjoy because I brought their attention to a historic spot they didn't know existed. Another one of my hides is a small container multi through a park which people enjoy, not because of the size, but the environment. My final cache is a puzzle in a rather non-descript location, but so far I have had no complaints, because the people enjoy the attached puzzle and understand how it ties in with the hiding place.

 

To make it short: you can make any size cache fun, so long as you put time and effort in placing it. I just bought some materials for a future placement. I have no clue where I will place it yet, and I won't until I found the right location.

[+wimseyguy]

Oh geez, he just said the P word. This thread is doomed now.

[+Roman!]

...both micros and Geocaching have grown a lot in the three years, could it be that micros are not the scurge but rather the saviour?

 

I'll bet if you think about it you can come up with a few other possible reasons for the growth of geocaching, like the great increase in GPS ownership via smart phones, increase in public awareness of the hobby, word of mouth, etc.

 

Smart phones and public awareness will not get some Kentucky fried fatso 15 miles into the wilderness to find an awesome ammo can, it will however get him to that McDonalds parking lot and that's how Geocaching grows.

 

No, but a smart phone will get him to a local park with a regular or small in a hedge.

 

And we all love caches hidden in hedges, don't we? Especially when they have soft coordinates.

[+tozainamboku]

...both micros and Geocaching have grown a lot in the three years, could it be that micros are not the scurge but rather the saviour?

 

I'll bet if you think about it you can come up with a few other possible reasons for the growth of geocaching, like the great increase in GPS ownership via smart phones, increase in public awareness of the hobby, word of mouth, etc.

 

Smart phones and public awareness will not get some Kentucky fried fatso 15 miles into the wilderness to find an awesome ammo can, it will however get him to that McDonalds parking lot and that's how Geocaching grows.

 

That is not a good thing.

Personal opinion.

 

For someone who is not the least bit interested in hiking 15 miles into the wilderness or wading nipple-deep in a swamp full of alligators, the cache in the McDonald's parking lot may be a good thing.

 

I'd make an argument that there are more people willing to look for a cache in a McDonalds parking lots (even if it is a micro under the lamppost skirt), than are willing to take the hike or wade in the swamp. If geocaching were to just appeal to the outdoor types, its growth would be limited.

 

 

Now we're talking. That would be a good thing.

 

Jeremy might disagree.

 

Perhaps you would prefer one of the other listings sites that hasn't grown too big for you?

Edited June 17, 2013 by tozainamboku

[+M 5]

...both micros and Geocaching have grown a lot in the three years, could it be that micros are not the scurge but rather the saviour?

 

I'll bet if you think about it you can come up with a few other possible reasons for the growth of geocaching, like the great increase in GPS ownership via smart phones, increase in public awareness of the hobby, word of mouth, etc.

 

Smart phones and public awareness will not get some Kentucky fried fatso 15 miles into the wilderness to find an awesome ammo can, it will however get him to that McDonalds parking lot and that's how Geocaching grows.

 

That is not a good thing.

Personal opinion.

 

For someone who is not the least bit interested in hiking 15 miles into the wilderness or wading nipple-deep in a swamp full of alligators, the cache in the McDonald's parking lot may be a good thing.

 

I'd make an argument that there are more people willing to look for a cache in a McDonalds parking lots (even if it is a micro under the lamppost skirt), than are willing to take the hike or wade in the swamp. If geocaching were to just appeal to the outdoor types, its growth would be limited.

 

 

Now we're talking. That would be a good thing.

 

Jeremy might disagree.

 

Perhaps you would prefer one of the other listings sites that hasn't grown too big for you?

 

Oh, I'm pretty sure that if you separated the business and the hobby side of things, there would be many well known names that rather geocaching didn't have quite the explosion it has. Despite your contrarian nature, surely even you can see that many inherent problems with geocaching are magnified significantly by extreme growth.

[+tozainamboku]

Oh, I'm pretty sure that if you separated the business and the hobby side of things, there would be many well known names that rather geocaching didn't have quite the explosion it has. Despite your contrarian nature, surely even you can see that many inherent problems with geocaching are magnified significantly by extreme growth.

I notice you were careful to say that the "extreme" growth of geocaching has significantly magnified the inherent problems rather than claiming that growth causes new problems. I would not deny that with more caches you are likely to see that problems occur more often. However I'm not sure what the you mean by significant. An argument can be made that as a percentage of caches, there are fewer problems.

 

This has a lot to do with land owners and land managers becoming more aware of geocaching and understanding it better. In the early days, land managers were quick to blame all kinds of problems - real and imagined - on geocaching and ban caches outright. I believe that today concerns are more likely to based on facts instead of false impressions. In some instance, land managers are willing to do a cost benefit analysis of caching and accept some minor issues due to the benefits that geocaching can bring. If you want an example, just look how legislators from rural Nevada were able to negotiate with the highway department to allow a famous power trail. This no doubt upsets those who see only the downside of power trails.

 

Another thing that reduces the percentage of problem caches has been the development of the guidelines and the work of the volunteer reviewers in enforcing guidelines. Certainly some of the worse types of problems are now prevented - or at the very least these caches are quickly archived when reported.