Jump to content

New World Record - 1157 geocache finds in 24 hours


Recommended Posts

Now about 10%-15% of the caches I find are illegal as in Buried, Punched into the ground, screwed or glue into trees, naile to private property. In the pat maybe .5% of the caches I came accross were illegal (I no longer log finds on illegal caches that I have come accross)

If you contact the owner about the problem they will sat "well I found one like that so it must be OK"

If some one should post the SBA log then the locals get pissed off. Most cachers do not care if a cache os illegal, they just want to add it to their numbers.

Let's not forget about ignoring "No Trespassing" signs. It just amazes me how some cachers are so concerned with numbers they will ignore a No Trespassing sign. It also amazes me how some cache owners will ignore people pointing out No Trespassing signs. Just about a week ago, a cache owner kept deleting my SBA logs with a picture of the No Trespassing sign and cussed me out in an email.

These are examples of cache owners who haven't read the guidelines, or if they did, they chose to ignore them. Either way, hides like this give caching a bad name, and caches like this should be reported.

 

The good thing about a Needs Archived log is that even though the owner deletes it, the reviewer will have already gotten a copy and know about it.

 

If you'd rather not have people know you've reported a cache, you can always send a private note to the reviewer who will take it from there.

Link to comment
1) Enforce rules on private property

I've been harping about this for years. I've even posted something to that effect in the Feedback site. It only got 7 votes, and not so much as a whisper from TPTB. The guidelines specify caches must have "adequate" permission, regardless of location. Yet, in the tips to hiding a cache section, we see this: "If you place a cache on private land, you must ask permission before hiding your cache". But since that statement is not part of the guidelines, it is not enforced. The contradiction between the two seems pretty inconsistent coming from a company that bills itself as caring about property rights.

Link to comment

Whoops. It looks like the grader just eliminated caches #600 thru #675. :unsure:

A geocacher was replacing them until the grader guy stopped him.

So.... #600 thru #606 have been replaced.

I have a feeling the grader will be doing extensive damage to the run if he continues North on that side of the highway.

 

Time will tell.....

Link to comment

Whoops. It looks like the grader just eliminated caches #600 thru #675. :unsure:

A geocacher was replacing them until the grader guy stopped him.

So.... #600 thru #606 have been replaced.

I have a feeling the grader will be doing extensive damage to the run if he continues North on that side of the highway.

 

Time will tell.....

Yikes!

 

It'll be interesting to see if we see found logs for #607-675 in the near future. B)

Link to comment

Go Grader Go!!!!!! Anyway we can encourage the grader to keep on going?

 

Would not a responsible cache placer think about things like road graders before placing caches in a place like that. I think this is just another example of why these power trails should be banned. I wonder if the cache placer is going to go out and find out the destroyed containers and remove them or just let them be litter.

 

In the early days of caching, in almost all cases there was thought and consideration in placing a cache. I've done some of these smaller power trails and I got so fed up with mindlessness and carelessness of the cache placement, I did not cache for a while, There is so much garbage out there (like this power trail), I cache much less than I used to. In the early days, we competed, but it was not mindless numbers. When you did a cache, you left with a good experience besides having another find. In the early days, I did not think I could ever catch the cachers with 500 finds. So I competed in the number of hides and had more hides than anyone else in the world for quite a while. Even though I was trying to maintain my lead as the most hides in the world, I always took the time for high quality hides and I would never had placed a cache like most of the caches you find nowadays. Caching needs to get back to what it started out as.

Link to comment

Go Grader Go!!!!!! Anyway we can encourage the grader to keep on going?

 

<snip of good stuff>

 

Caching needs to get back to what it started out as.

So you know where I stand...most caches I've gotten in one day is 32. Most days I never get more than one cache. I don't have the stamina or interest to pick up 1100 caches in one day.

 

But...

 

Speed caching is a different game than you do (or did) in the 'old days'. It doesn't appeal to everybody, obviously, but it is a heck of a lot of fun for those who do enjoy it. Reading through the logs of people who've done the E.T. power trail (as the biggest example) I see lots of notes about how much those cachers really enjoyed the experience. For some it's the challenge of how many can I do in a day, for others it's the physical challenge, some enjoy the scenery and the light-hearted nature of this type of caching.

 

It's a different kind of challenge than finding that carefully camo'd lockbox that requires three miles of bushwacking, but it's a challenge just the same. Maybe not one that you or I would enjoy, but others do.

 

For me, the E.T. power trail don't bother me at all. It's out in the middle of nowhere, doesn't have any real affect on the placement of other caches, and it is it's own unique animal.

 

Are there potential issues with setting up a power trail? You betcha! But there are issues with other kinds of placements as well. If a power trail is done well, it provides a lot of enjoyment to a number of cachers.

 

YMMV. :unsure:

Edited by Ecylram
Link to comment

A geocacher was replacing them until the grader guy stopped him.

Why isn't the owner doing their own maintenance? I thought it was generally frowned upon to practice "Throw Down" caching?

Are power trails being given a pass on this simply because they are so difficult to maintain?

Wouldn't that be a great reason against allowing them in the first place? :unsure:

Link to comment

Ecylram,

 

The problem with your argument is these power trails and mindless caches (lampposts, guardrails, etc) have overwhelmed the quality caches. There is no way to filter out the garbage. These nothing mater but numbers cachers have so overwhelmed caching, it is harder and harder for those who enjoy the kind of caching it was in the early days (there was a purpose for the cache besides another find) to enjoy caching. If their mindless number hounding was not making it very difficult for those who care about more than numbers to enjoy caching, I would not be upset with it.

 

Instead of making it difficult for those who care about something other than numbers, why don't they go out and form speedcaching and keep it separate? I just don't understand why Groundspeak will not at least provide a way to filter out all this garbage. Or do something like they did with locationless caches. That started out interesting and I did some of them, but it really was not what caching was about. People also really started abusing it. I think the last straw was when someone published the "Yellow Jeep" locationless cache (which I refused to do). For that one, all you had to do was post a picture of you, your GPS, and a yellow jeep to log a find. For others you had to find something like a caboose. They shut the locationless caches down and started waypointing. So why cannot they shut down these mindless caches and start something separate for the numbers hounds? Or at least cahnge the rules to allow circular power trails when you can find the same cache over and over again.

Link to comment
So why cannot they shut down these mindless caches and start something separate for the numbers hounds?

It's been my experience that any time a question starts with "Why don't they...", the answer is usually "Money".

Those cachers who prefer the mindless P&Gs represent a huge percentage of the whole.

If Groundspeak negatively impacts the number cachers, they'll be cutting their own paycheck.

I suspect this is the motivation behind the company ignoring the "Adequate vs Explicit" issue as applied to caches on private property.

Link to comment

Ecylram,

 

The problem with your argument is these power trails and mindless caches (lampposts, guardrails, etc) have overwhelmed the quality caches. There is no way to filter out the garbage.

//snip//

In my (warped, twisted) mind, Power Trails and 'mindless caches' are not the same thing.

 

This trail, E.T., is out in the middle of honkin' nowhere. It's not having a significant impact on the planting of other caches. It's also quite obviously a power trail and is not going to be confused with other cache types.

 

As for 'mindless' caches...Yep, they are. It's frustrating to see a LHC, guardrail and other similar micros just a few feet away from a much better hide that could have supported a better container. It's also frustrating to see so many (can I use the word?) idiotic placements. In my area, I'm blessed to live in a 'cache rich' area but it's also a curse as SO MANY placements are 'mindless'. And you're right...in many cases they DO block the ability for much better caches to be placed in the area. The one bright side to those...it does bring in new cachers who get a quick taste of success on those simple hides and keep caching (and moving on to better caches, hopefully).

Link to comment

The problem with your argument is these power trails and mindless caches (lampposts, guardrails, etc) have overwhelmed the quality caches. There is no way to filter out the garbage.

 

I haven't noticed that. Usually a quick glance at the cache page, especially the map on the cache page, gives me enough information to know that I'm not going to enjoy finding a particular cache.

 

No one can FORCE you to go out in the desert and find all the caches on the E.T. trail. And it's certainly easy to spot the parking-lot skirt-lifters without actually driving up to them.

Link to comment

Hmmmmmmm:

 

E.T. Trail 1,000 (ish) caches. >>> World wide 1.2 million caches

 

Yepper: those are having a tremendous negative impact on geocaching. Those thousand caches are diluting the reservoir of quality.

 

The abomination is upon us: the 350 or so souls who have started the E.T. Trail have no inkling how their actions have degraded the sport. To the pillories with them!! ( Ooooops that includes me )

 

Woe is me, woe unto the geocachers of the world. BUT WAIT, there have been a number of folks who left the trail before completing it. Perhaps they have seen the light and carry with them a vision of a more perfect geocaching world.

 

" The vision of a more perfect " geocaching world might have been revealed to a select few and they must be formulating a doctrine of shoulds, musts, and must nots.

Link to comment

The problem with your argument is these power trails and mindless caches (lampposts, guardrails, etc) have overwhelmed the quality caches. There is no way to filter out the garbage.

 

I haven't noticed that. Usually a quick glance at the cache page, especially the map on the cache page, gives me enough information to know that I'm not going to enjoy finding a particular cache.

 

No one can FORCE you to go out in the desert and find all the caches on the E.T. trail. And it's certainly easy to spot the parking-lot skirt-lifters without actually driving up to them.

 

Right, if you want to go to an new area and do some quality caches, it is reasonable to expect you to spend days going through the thousands of cache pages to try to figure out what are the quality caches and what are the mindless caches. Or it is reasoble to expect you to spend all day driving around and finding something that is not a lamppost.

Link to comment

Hmmmmmmm:

 

E.T. Trail 1,000 (ish) caches. >>> World wide 1.2 million caches

 

Yepper: those are having a tremendous negative impact on geocaching. Those thousand caches are diluting the reservoir of quality.

 

The abomination is upon us: the 350 or so souls who have started the E.T. Trail have no inkling how their actions have degraded the sport. To the pillories with them!! ( Ooooops that includes me )

 

Woe is me, woe unto the geocachers of the world. BUT WAIT, there have been a number of folks who left the trail before completing it. Perhaps they have seen the light and carry with them a vision of a more perfect geocaching world.

 

" The vision of a more perfect " geocaching world might have been revealed to a select few and they must be formulating a doctrine of shoulds, musts, and must nots.

 

Right, the ET Trail is the only power trail out there and they are the only mindless caches out there. Ignoring reality does not change reality.

Link to comment

The problem with your argument is these power trails and mindless caches (lampposts, guardrails, etc) have overwhelmed the quality caches. There is no way to filter out the garbage.

 

I haven't noticed that. Usually a quick glance at the cache page, especially the map on the cache page, gives me enough information to know that I'm not going to enjoy finding a particular cache.

 

No one can FORCE you to go out in the desert and find all the caches on the E.T. trail. And it's certainly easy to spot the parking-lot skirt-lifters without actually driving up to them.

 

Right, if you want to go to an new area and do some quality caches, it is reasonable to expect you to spend days going through the thousands of cache pages to try to figure out what are the quality caches and what are the mindless caches. Or it is reasoble to expect you to spend all day driving around and finding something that is not a lamppost.

 

Ah, now I see your angst. In the old days you had only three or four caches to choose from in a 500 square mile area. Now you have 10,000 or 20,000 to choose from. So many caches, so little time. Much better when it was so much time and so little caches. Got it.

Link to comment

On Sept 27th, 2010 we took a trip out to the Alien Highway in Nevada.

Our goal was to find all 1021 ET geocaches in 24 hours (they are numbered E.T. #001 thru E.T. #1021).

We only took one vehicle and 4 geocachers.

We only drove 165 miles between 2 gas stations, yet we had to add 10 gallons of gas (we brought it with us)

 

 

I think it is pretty cool. I think you are nuts for doing it, but then again, if I had the time and energy I could see myself trying it. I guess that makes me nuts too :D.

 

Congratulations on the feat.

Link to comment

On Sept 27th, 2010 we took a trip out to the Alien Highway in Nevada.

Our goal was to find all 1021 ET geocaches in 24 hours (they are numbered E.T. #001 thru E.T. #1021).

We only took one vehicle and 4 geocachers.

We only drove 165 miles between 2 gas stations, yet we had to add 10 gallons of gas (we brought it with us)

 

 

I think it is pretty cool. I think you are nuts for doing it, but then again, if I had the time and energy I could see myself trying it. I guess that makes me nuts too :D.

 

Congratulations on the feat.

 

My first mini trail ( 60 caches ) on the McCloud River Arm of Shasta Lake had me snickering over the absurdity of the activity.

 

I questioned my sanity and ... now " They are coming to take me away ha ha, hee hee, ho ho "

 

I am too old and slow to even approach any record run but I can admire the planning and execution.

 

Prior to the Trail Of The Gods and the E.T. Trail I had nothing but disdain for the deserts, however, my extended experiences have altered my perceptions.

Link to comment

The problem with your argument is these power trails and mindless caches (lampposts, guardrails, etc) have overwhelmed the quality caches. There is no way to filter out the garbage.

 

I haven't noticed that. Usually a quick glance at the cache page, especially the map on the cache page, gives me enough information to know that I'm not going to enjoy finding a particular cache.

 

No one can FORCE you to go out in the desert and find all the caches on the E.T. trail. And it's certainly easy to spot the parking-lot skirt-lifters without actually driving up to them.

 

Right, if you want to go to an new area and do some quality caches, it is reasonable to expect you to spend days going through the thousands of cache pages to try to figure out what are the quality caches and what are the mindless caches. Or it is reasoble to expect you to spend all day driving around and finding something that is not a lamppost.

 

Oh come on, your a premium member how long is it going to take you to set up a PQ with the types of caches you want, unless you like looking for 1D 1T or you just like to complain

Link to comment
...I had nothing but disdain for the deserts...

I think the desert along that stretch is quite lovely.

If I ever make the journey, it will be mostly to admire the scenery.

And to cache the giant Alien Head series.

I thought of a way to best the current time record:

Build a PVC pipe cannon with a muzzle that will fire a film can.

Fuel it with a valve, and ignite it electronically.

Load just over a thousand film cans with a presigned log, and a penny for weight.

Drive down the road and pull the trigger every time the odometer clicks.

I bet I could do the whole thing in less than 2 hours. :D:D

Link to comment

 

My first mini trail ( 60 caches ) on the McCloud River Arm of Shasta Lake had me snickering over the absurdity of the activity.

 

I questioned my sanity and ... now " They are coming to take me away ha ha, hee hee, ho ho "

 

I am too old and slow to even approach any record run but I can admire the planning and execution.

 

Prior to the Trail Of The Gods and the E.T. Trail I had nothing but disdain for the deserts, however, my extended experiences have altered my perceptions.

 

Well you could convince three others to run out and find them for you while you drove the jeep. :D

 

Then you could come to the forums and pat yourself on the back untill your arm falls off :(

Link to comment

Can't resist adding my two cents, likely stirring the pot in the process.

 

In no particular order of relevance...

 

*Most of the naysayers appear to be out on the east coast. Completely different environment/geography out there. Not too difficult -but still annoying after the first dozen posts- to understand why they feel as they do.

 

*I did the trail on opening weekend and spread it over a couple days. Even then, vehicular traffic was sparse at best. Yeah, there was a good bit of driving onto the shoulder though I saw VERY little evidence of folks having actually driven beyond and into the scrub. More often than not, the winds pretty much erased the shoulder incursions. Maybe things are different 4.5 months later. As for the Alien Head trail, I'd say the foot-to-vehicular traffic ratio was probably something like 10 to 1. But true, it often does take only one to screw it up for the rest. Without exception, everyone -and I mean EVERYONE- who was out there on foot who saw the vehicles was extremely vocal in expressing their dismay.

 

*As I read through this and similar threads, I'm struck by the similarities between power trails and one of my other passions, ham radio contesting. Each is about pushing oneself -and the hobby in general- to ever increasing lengths. Also in each, there are -sadly- those who 'get it' and those who don't, and those who don't seem to take great pride bashing those who do.

Link to comment

The problem with your argument is these power trails and mindless caches (lampposts, guardrails, etc) have overwhelmed the quality caches. There is no way to filter out the garbage.

 

I haven't noticed that. Usually a quick glance at the cache page, especially the map on the cache page, gives me enough information to know that I'm not going to enjoy finding a particular cache.

 

No one can FORCE you to go out in the desert and find all the caches on the E.T. trail. And it's certainly easy to spot the parking-lot skirt-lifters without actually driving up to them.

 

Right, if you want to go to an new area and do some quality caches, it is reasonable to expect you to spend days going through the thousands of cache pages to try to figure out what are the quality caches and what are the mindless caches. Or it is reasoble to expect you to spend all day driving around and finding something that is not a lamppost.

 

Oh come on, your a premium member how long is it going to take you to set up a PQ with the types of caches you want, unless you like looking for 1D 1T or you just like to complain

 

Please explain how one can filter out all the mindless garbage in your PQ (or even GSAK).

Link to comment

Each is about pushing oneself -and the hobby in general- to ever increasing lengths. Also in each, there are -sadly- those who 'get it' and those who don't, and those who don't seem to take great pride bashing those who do.

 

Tom,

 

In most cases it seems to me JEALOSY/ENVY more then anything JMO

 

SS

Link to comment

The problem with your argument is these power trails and mindless caches (lampposts, guardrails, etc) have overwhelmed the quality caches. There is no way to filter out the garbage.

 

I haven't noticed that. Usually a quick glance at the cache page, especially the map on the cache page, gives me enough information to know that I'm not going to enjoy finding a particular cache.

 

No one can FORCE you to go out in the desert and find all the caches on the E.T. trail. And it's certainly easy to spot the parking-lot skirt-lifters without actually driving up to them.

 

Right, if you want to go to an new area and do some quality caches, it is reasonable to expect you to spend days going through the thousands of cache pages to try to figure out what are the quality caches and what are the mindless caches. Or it is reasoble to expect you to spend all day driving around and finding something that is not a lamppost.

 

 

Oh come on, your a premium member how long is it going to take you to set up a PQ with the types of caches you want, unless you like looking for 1D 1T or you just like to complain

 

Please explain how one can filter out all the mindless garbage in your PQ (or even GSAK).

 

The majority of as you call them mindless garbage caches are going to be 1d 1t or 1 1/2d 1 1/2t

don't look for anything less then a 2d 2t or 2 1/2d 2 1/2t

That should take care almost all the carp you don't care to look for. True you may lose a few good ones but look at all the garbage you get rid of in your pq

Link to comment

Please explain how one can filter out all the mindless garbage in your PQ (or even GSAK).

The majority of as you call them mindless garbage caches are going to be 1d 1t or 1 1/2d 1 1/2t

don't look for anything less then a 2d 2t or 2 1/2d 2 1/2t

That should take care almost all the carp you don't care to look for. True you may lose a few good ones but look at all the garbage you get rid of in your pq

+1

Link to comment

The problem with your argument is these power trails and mindless caches (lampposts, guardrails, etc) have overwhelmed the quality caches. There is no way to filter out the garbage.

 

I haven't noticed that. Usually a quick glance at the cache page, especially the map on the cache page, gives me enough information to know that I'm not going to enjoy finding a particular cache.

 

No one can FORCE you to go out in the desert and find all the caches on the E.T. trail. And it's certainly easy to spot the parking-lot skirt-lifters without actually driving up to them.

 

Right, if you want to go to an new area and do some quality caches, it is reasonable to expect you to spend days going through the thousands of cache pages to try to figure out what are the quality caches and what are the mindless caches. Or it is reasoble to expect you to spend all day driving around and finding something that is not a lamppost.

 

 

Oh come on, your a premium member how long is it going to take you to set up a PQ with the types of caches you want, unless you like looking for 1D 1T or you just like to complain

 

Please explain how one can filter out all the mindless garbage in your PQ (or even GSAK).

 

The majority of as you call them mindless garbage caches are going to be 1d 1t or 1 1/2d 1 1/2t

don't look for anything less then a 2d 2t or 2 1/2d 2 1/2t

That should take care almost all the carp you don't care to look for. True you may lose a few good ones but look at all the garbage you get rid of in your pq

 

It would appear you are acknowldging there is no way to filter out the garbage/mindless caches. Some of the neatest caches I have ever done would be eliminated by your suggested filtering. Unless someone can show a way to filter out all the mindless garbage, the numbers hounds should not be acting like they are not messing up caching for those who care avbout something other than numbers.

Link to comment

I have the same issue....except it is the exact opposite. :antenna:

I have been attempting to filter out all the tough hides, the hiking hides, and the bush hides.

I only want to see those lampost hides, and those hides where I don't have to trudge thru shrubbery, climb rock piles, and be exposed to Poison Oak, rattle snakes, and ticks.

I filter my PQ's to only show those terrain 2.0's and below. ;)

 

Oh.... I guess I just dragged my own thread off subject..... dang. ;)

Link to comment

I think we need a new attribute ... mindless garbage cache. Then filtering would be easy. Of course the trick is to get cache owners to apply the attribute correctly.

 

A "power trail" attribute would be a good start.

 

That came out wrong. I'm not suggesting that "power trail" = "mindless garbage." I'm just saying that there are a lot of people who would like to filter them out of their searches, and a lot of people who would specifically search for them.

Link to comment

Just to repeat, a power trail is not necessarily the same as a"mindless garbage" cache. Having said that...

 

There is no one definition as to what is "mindless garbage". Not everybody agrees with what qualifies for inclusion in that club and almost no cache owner thinks they are putting out garbage.

 

Best advice: stop complaining about what is and do your part. Put out what you think are quality caches and write great logs for the non-garbage caches. Life is too short to get too worked up over what you can't contol.

 

It is what it is.

Link to comment

mindless garbage=a cache placed to provide number hounds another find. It would not include a cache that takes you someplace to show you something interesting or to challenge you. Once you have seen one lamppost, guard rail, cornfield, Walmart, etc. you have seen them all. If the cache is not taking you to an interesting location, on a nice walk, or a cleverly hidden cache, there should be a way to filter it out.

Link to comment

I have the same issue....except it is the exact opposite. :antenna:

I have been attempting to filter out all the tough hides, the hiking hides, and the bush hides.

I only want to see those lampost hides, and those hides where I don't have to trudge thru shrubbery, climb rock piles, and be exposed to Poison Oak, rattle snakes, and ticks.

I filter my PQ's to only show those terrain 2.0's and below. ;)

 

Oh.... I guess I just dragged my own thread off subject..... dang. ;)

Back in '01, I suppose most geocachers had the problem of there not being enough geocaches in their area. They were able to find every cache, whether it was "mindless garbage" or too tough. They didn't worry about filtering or about whether the filter eliminated some neat caches. You found everything, and if there were caches you didn't like you didn't complain because they didn't keep you from finding the ones you like. I still occasionally find an old cache on one of my hikes where the Ventura_Kids signed the log long ago, which I take as strong evidence that there was a time when people didn't distinguish between mindless garbage and what they like.

 

Now it may be the case as well that myotis finds his "mindless garbage" makes up a higher percentage of caches than it once did. The early adopters of geocaching were more likely to be outdoor types who already owned a GPS for hiking, mountain biking, or hunting. They were more likely to hide caches in remote areas that you needed to hike or mountain bike to get to. Even when they hid an urban cache they may have been more selective in the location, picking places they found interesting that would attract finders from far away to come visit. Overtime, the demographics of geocaching have changed. We now have people who geocache because they found a app for their iPhone or Android phone. They are much more urban and may prefer caches to be in urban settings. And since there are more caches overall, many look for caches that are nearby to where they live. For various reasons, they may not want to drive 100 miles to find one cache even if it is in the neatest of locations. No doubt many are influenced by how many caches they can find rather than by where they can go see something neat.

 

The problem becomes how to maximize the fun you have geocaching. For people who like the numbers it is fairly easy to find power trails or to use maps to find areas with a high density of unfound caches. Using pocket queries and GSAK they can limit caches to lower terrain (and in some cases lower difficulty ratings) and even eliminate caches with several recent DNFs that might be misssing. Similarly, cachers who prefer hiking can generally find caches with higher terrain ratings. If they don't enjoy looking for micros because the find them to be "needle-in-the-haystack" hides, they can filter these out. They can use maps to avoid urban areas and look for only rural hides.

 

I think the biggest problems remains for those who like both urban and rural caches but find some park and grab locations to be "mindless garbage". They refuse to eliminate all park and grab type caches, because in the past they have found some of these to be quite memorable caches. Perhaps the container was expertly camouflaged, making for a challenging hide; or perhaps the cache pointed out something nearby that they found interesting so they were happy that the cache brought them to an interesting place. My approach would be to filter out most urban hides but leave in a few. If you discover which hiders have more interesting urban hides, then include their caches; or eliminate hides by people whom you find are leaving microSpew. Take advantage of bookmark lists of recommended caches that might point out the "better" urban hides. (As a premium member, start your own bookmark list to help others out). Perhaps, Groundspeak will eventually roll out some kind of system that allows cachers to recognize exceptional caches and that will help you find these and let you be more restrictive in filtering out other caches. Don't try to find every cache, you can't do that anymore. If you are not having fun caching in a certain area, move on.

Link to comment

I have the same issue....except it is the exact opposite. :antenna:

I have been attempting to filter out all the tough hides, the hiking hides, and the bush hides.

I only want to see those lampost hides, and those hides where I don't have to trudge thru shrubbery, climb rock piles, and be exposed to Poison Oak, rattle snakes, and ticks.

I filter my PQ's to only show those terrain 2.0's and below. ;)

 

Oh.... I guess I just dragged my own thread off subject..... dang. ;)

Back in '01, I suppose most geocachers had the problem of there not being enough geocaches in their area. They were able to find every cache, whether it was "mindless garbage" or too tough. They didn't worry about filtering or about whether the filter eliminated some neat caches. You found everything, and if there were caches you didn't like you didn't complain because they didn't keep you from finding the ones you like. I still occasionally find an old cache on one of my hikes where the Ventura_Kids signed the log long ago, which I take as strong evidence that there was a time when people didn't distinguish between mindless garbage and what they like.

 

Now it may be the case as well that myotis finds his "mindless garbage" makes up a higher percentage of caches than it once did. The early adopters of geocaching were more likely to be outdoor types who already owned a GPS for hiking, mountain biking, or hunting. They were more likely to hide caches in remote areas that you needed to hike or mountain bike to get to. Even when they hid an urban cache they may have been more selective in the location, picking places they found interesting that would attract finders from far away to come visit. Overtime, the demographics of geocaching have changed. We now have people who geocache because they found a app for their iPhone or Android phone. They are much more urban and may prefer caches to be in urban settings. And since there are more caches overall, many look for caches that are nearby to where they live. For various reasons, they may not want to drive 100 miles to find one cache even if it is in the neatest of locations. No doubt many are influenced by how many caches they can find rather than by where they can go see something neat.

 

The problem becomes how to maximize the fun you have geocaching. For people who like the numbers it is fairly easy to find power trails or to use maps to find areas with a high density of unfound caches. Using pocket queries and GSAK they can limit caches to lower terrain (and in some cases lower difficulty ratings) and even eliminate caches with several recent DNFs that might be misssing. Similarly, cachers who prefer hiking can generally find caches with higher terrain ratings. If they don't enjoy looking for micros because the find them to be "needle-in-the-haystack" hides, they can filter these out. They can use maps to avoid urban areas and look for only rural hides.

 

I think the biggest problems remains for those who like both urban and rural caches but find some park and grab locations to be "mindless garbage". They refuse to eliminate all park and grab type caches, because in the past they have found some of these to be quite memorable caches. Perhaps the container was expertly camouflaged, making for a challenging hide; or perhaps the cache pointed out something nearby that they found interesting so they were happy that the cache brought them to an interesting place. My approach would be to filter out most urban hides but leave in a few. If you discover which hiders have more interesting urban hides, then include their caches; or eliminate hides by people whom you find are leaving microSpew. Take advantage of bookmark lists of recommended caches that might point out the "better" urban hides. (As a premium member, start your own bookmark list to help others out). Perhaps, Groundspeak will eventually roll out some kind of system that allows cachers to recognize exceptional caches and that will help you find these and let you be more restrictive in filtering out other caches. Don't try to find every cache, you can't do that anymore. If you are not having fun caching in a certain area, move on.

Well stated.

Link to comment

 

I am too old and slow to even approach any record run but I can admire the planning and execution.

 

 

I'm right with you. A power trail of sorts popped up on a rails-to-trail path from Philadelphia to Valley Forge a few weeks ago. I have been on it every weekend since, hitting a mile here and there as I find time. It has been wonderful getting out on a bike again and I've met quite a number of cachers I've only read about in logs before.

Link to comment

I have the same issue....except it is the exact opposite. :antenna:

I have been attempting to filter out all the tough hides, the hiking hides, and the bush hides.

I only want to see those lampost hides, and those hides where I don't have to trudge thru shrubbery, climb rock piles, and be exposed to Poison Oak, rattle snakes, and ticks.

I filter my PQ's to only show those terrain 2.0's and below. ;)

 

Oh.... I guess I just dragged my own thread off subject..... dang. ;)

Back in '01, I suppose most geocachers had the problem of there not being enough geocaches in their area. They were able to find every cache, whether it was "mindless garbage" or too tough. They didn't worry about filtering or about whether the filter eliminated some neat caches. You found everything, and if there were caches you didn't like you didn't complain because they didn't keep you from finding the ones you like. I still occasionally find an old cache on one of my hikes where the Ventura_Kids signed the log long ago, which I take as strong evidence that there was a time when people didn't distinguish between mindless garbage and what they like.

 

Now it may be the case as well that myotis finds his "mindless garbage" makes up a higher percentage of caches than it once did. The early adopters of geocaching were more likely to be outdoor types who already owned a GPS for hiking, mountain biking, or hunting. They were more likely to hide caches in remote areas that you needed to hike or mountain bike to get to. Even when they hid an urban cache they may have been more selective in the location, picking places they found interesting that would attract finders from far away to come visit. Overtime, the demographics of geocaching have changed. We now have people who geocache because they found a app for their iPhone or Android phone. They are much more urban and may prefer caches to be in urban settings. And since there are more caches overall, many look for caches that are nearby to where they live. For various reasons, they may not want to drive 100 miles to find one cache even if it is in the neatest of locations. No doubt many are influenced by how many caches they can find rather than by where they can go see something neat.

 

The problem becomes how to maximize the fun you have geocaching. For people who like the numbers it is fairly easy to find power trails or to use maps to find areas with a high density of unfound caches. Using pocket queries and GSAK they can limit caches to lower terrain (and in some cases lower difficulty ratings) and even eliminate caches with several recent DNFs that might be misssing. Similarly, cachers who prefer hiking can generally find caches with higher terrain ratings. If they don't enjoy looking for micros because the find them to be "needle-in-the-haystack" hides, they can filter these out. They can use maps to avoid urban areas and look for only rural hides.

 

I think the biggest problems remains for those who like both urban and rural caches but find some park and grab locations to be "mindless garbage". They refuse to eliminate all park and grab type caches, because in the past they have found some of these to be quite memorable caches. Perhaps the container was expertly camouflaged, making for a challenging hide; or perhaps the cache pointed out something nearby that they found interesting so they were happy that the cache brought them to an interesting place. My approach would be to filter out most urban hides but leave in a few. If you discover which hiders have more interesting urban hides, then include their caches; or eliminate hides by people whom you find are leaving microSpew. Take advantage of bookmark lists of recommended caches that might point out the "better" urban hides. (As a premium member, start your own bookmark list to help others out). Perhaps, Groundspeak will eventually roll out some kind of system that allows cachers to recognize exceptional caches and that will help you find these and let you be more restrictive in filtering out other caches. Don't try to find every cache, you can't do that anymore. If you are not having fun caching in a certain area, move on.

Well stated.

 

+2

Link to comment

tozainamboku stated

 

"Back in '01, I suppose most geocachers had the problem of there not being enough geocaches in their area. They were able to find every cache, whether it was "mindless garbage" or too tough. They didn't worry about filtering or about whether the filter eliminated some neat caches. You found everything, and if there were caches you didn't like you didn't complain because they didn't keep you from finding the ones you like. I still occasionally find an old cache on one of my hikes where the Ventura_Kids signed the log long ago, which I take as strong evidence that there was a time when people didn't distinguish between mindless garbage and what they like."

 

Reality; Back in 01-we did not have filters or PQs. You generally manually entered the cords into your GPS. You are right, in 01 there were not many caches. For perceptive, I hid my 44th cache in Oct 2001 and at that point I had more hides than anyone else in the world. But I do not recall people complaining about not enough caches-I remember people complaining about the distance they had to go. So I tried to set up 4 or 5 caches within the general area so it would be worth a weekend trip to get 5 caches. A 5 cache trip in 01 was a great weekend and it was much more fun that mindlessly going from one lame cache to another.

 

While I am sure someone could find a few exceptions, back in 2001, there was not mindless garbage. Cache places would take time and put thought into cache placement. For cache after cache, you would go there and say, wow this is a neat place I would have never seen if it was not for geocaching. Or there were devious cache hiders who could come up with really hard ones. You could spend many fun hours trying to figure out where the cache was. Caches were placed in nice and enjoyable locations. They were not placed in playgrounds, invassive jungles, dumps, lampposts, guardrails, etc. I remember how kids used to love to dig through all the swag in a cache. We would have log books and people would write logs and people would read about other's experience finding the cache.

 

The first time I ran into lame caches was geowoodstock in Nashville in 2004. I was shocked and appalled at what I found. I found 103 caches in a day-whenever someone would ask how many I had found in a day, I always felt the 103 was tainted and *ed. I always felt compelled to tell people I found them in Nashville. I set up my Nashville Decoys Cache (GCKKF0) as a statement against the kind of cache placement I found in Nashville. (When someone from Nashville came into town, they were not very happy with the cache and it was controversial.)

 

In the last year or two, the mindless caching/numbers hounding seems to be exponentially increasing. Perhaps it is because of all the goecaching apps.

 

tozainamboku stated

 

"The early adopters of geocaching were more likely to be outdoor types who already owned a GPS for hiking, mountain biking, or hunting. They were more likely to hide caches in remote areas that you needed to hike or mountain bike to get to. Even when they hid an urban cache they may have been more selective in the location, picking places they found interesting that would attract finders from far away to come visit.”

 

While I had a GPS before I started caching, most of the people I cached with back in 01 bought a GPS so they could go geocaching. There were lots of urban caches back then-they just were not lame.

 

tozainamboku stated

 

"Overtime, the demographics of geocaching have changed. We now have people who geocache because they found a app for their iPhone or Android phone. They are much more urban and may prefer caches to be in urban settings. And since there are more caches overall, many look for caches that are nearby to where they live. For various reasons, they may not want to drive 100 miles to find one cache even if it is in the neatest of locations. No doubt many are influenced by how many caches they can find rather than by where they can go see something neat.”

 

I would generally agree with that.

 

tozainamboku stated

 

"The problem becomes how to maximize the fun you have geocaching. For people who like the numbers it is fairly easy to find power trails or to use maps to find areas with a high density of unfound caches. Using pocket queries and GSAK they can limit caches to lower terrain (and in some cases lower difficulty ratings) and even eliminate caches with several recent DNFs that might be misssing. Similarly, cachers who prefer hiking can generally find caches with higher terrain ratings. If they don't enjoy looking for micros because the find them to be "needle-in-the-haystack" hides, they can filter these out. They can use maps to avoid urban areas and look for only rural hides.”

 

I would agree with you that the numbers hounds have it easy. But terrain rating and difficulty tend not to be accurate. For hiking caches, a trail map (like mine: http://www.gpsfiledepot.com/maps/view/53 ) is generally the best way.

 

tozainamboku stated

 

"I think the biggest problems remains for those who like both urban and rural caches but find some park and grab locations to be "mindless garbage". They refuse to eliminate all park and grab type caches, because in the past they have found some of these to be quite memorable caches. Perhaps the container was expertly camouflaged, making for a challenging hide; or perhaps the cache pointed out something nearby that they found interesting so they were happy that the cache brought them to an interesting place. My approach would be to filter out most urban hides but leave in a few. If you discover which hiders have more interesting urban hides, then include their caches; or eliminate hides by people whom you find are leaving microSpew. Take advantage of bookmark lists of recommended caches that might point out the "better" urban hides. (As a premium member, start your own bookmark list to help others out). Perhaps, Groundspeak will eventually roll out some kind of system that allows cachers to recognize exceptional caches and that will help you find these and let you be more restrictive in filtering out other caches. Don't try to find every cache, you can't do that anymore. If you are not having fun caching in a certain area, move on.”

 

I agree with your first sentence but I would call it what geocahing started out as. The overwhelming mindless caching you see nowadays has no resemblance to what caching started out as. You seem to be suggesting those who enjoy what caching started out as and those who gave their sweat and blood to get it started like this should not have an easy way to cache like it was meant to be. I believe the number hounds who have transformed this into something else, are the ones that need to do their part to not destroy the traditional caching experience.

Edited by myotis
Link to comment

I have the same issue....except it is the exact opposite. :santa:

I have been attempting to filter out all the tough hides, the hiking hides, and the bush hides.

I only want to see those lampost hides, and those hides where I don't have to trudge thru shrubbery, climb rock piles, and be exposed to Poison Oak, rattle snakes, and ticks.

I filter my PQ's to only show those terrain 2.0's and below. :santa:

 

Oh.... I guess I just dragged my own thread off subject..... dang. :santa:

Back in '01, I suppose most geocachers had the problem of there not being enough geocaches in their area. They were able to find every cache, whether it was "mindless garbage" or too tough. They didn't worry about filtering or about whether the filter eliminated some neat caches. You found everything, and if there were caches you didn't like you didn't complain because they didn't keep you from finding the ones you like.

 

As I sit here at the desk of a hotel where I have been staying for the past four days I am waiting for the results of a pocket query I created a couple of weeks ago to return the latest results so that I can update the caches in my GPS. I set the query to return the maximum number of caches of any type, size, and difficulty within a 200 mile radius. The preview page of the query indicates that I should expect to 95 results. No, I'm not in some rural remote area in the middle of nowhere. I'm in Beijing, China, a city with a population of 22 million people. I've been in plenty of places within the past few years where there were fewer than a 10 caches within 200 miles. In many parts of the world, the density of geocaches is essentially still like it was back in '01 yet it is suggested that there is one true method for filtering caches that can work for all of us.

Link to comment

tI hid my 44th cache in Oct 2001 and at that point I had more hides than anyone else in the world.

<snipped for brevity>

The overwhelming mindless caching you see nowadays has no resemblance to what caching started out as.

 

Ah, now I see. You're like one of those ham radio Old Timers lamenting that the no-code license is going to be the death of amateur radio.

 

You're right; geocaching is NOT what it was back on 2001. Of course, I can't think of anything that is the same now as it was back in 2001. Some changes are for the better; some are for the worse. But nothing stays the same.

 

On the one hand, there is a lot of what you call "mindless garbage" out there. On the other hand, the number of caches overall has grown exponentially. I'd be willing to be that there are far more "good caches" than there were in 2001. And I suspect that is true no matter how one chooses to define "good caches."

 

If you want to cache like you did in 2001, it shouldn't be hard to do. Filter out micros, and filter out anything with a terrain rating <2. That will take care of most of the "mindless garbage," if I'm correctly interpreting what you mean by that term. As for the rest, it should be pretty easy to tell what you will like and what you won't like just be looking at the map.

 

Search the map for caches that are away from roads; pick three or four at a time, and manually enter them into your GPS. Voilà! It's 2001 all over again!

Link to comment

tI hid my 44th cache in Oct 2001 and at that point I had more hides than anyone else in the world.

<snipped for brevity>

The overwhelming mindless caching you see nowadays has no resemblance to what caching started out as.

 

Ah, now I see. You're like one of those ham radio Old Timers lamenting that the no-code license is going to be the death of amateur radio.

 

73 to All 'Ya All

Link to comment

tI hid my 44th cache in Oct 2001 and at that point I had more hides than anyone else in the world.

<snipped for brevity>

The overwhelming mindless caching you see nowadays has no resemblance to what caching started out as.

 

Ah, now I see. You're like one of those ham radio Old Timers lamenting that the no-code license is going to be the death of amateur radio.

 

You're right; geocaching is NOT what it was back on 2001. Of course, I can't think of anything that is the same now as it was back in 2001. Some changes are for the better; some are for the worse. But nothing stays the same.

 

On the one hand, there is a lot of what you call "mindless garbage" out there. On the other hand, the number of caches overall has grown exponentially. I'd be willing to be that there are far more "good caches" than there were in 2001. And I suspect that is true no matter how one chooses to define "good caches."

 

If you want to cache like you did in 2001, it shouldn't be hard to do. Filter out micros, and filter out anything with a terrain rating <2. That will take care of most of the "mindless garbage," if I'm correctly interpreting what you mean by that term. As for the rest, it should be pretty easy to tell what you will like and what you won't like just be looking at the map.

 

Search the map for caches that are away from roads; pick three or four at a time, and manually enter them into your GPS. Voilà! It's 2001 all over again!

 

You can rationalze all you want that there is a way to filter out the garbage. But as the saying goes, you are entitled to your opinion but not your facts. Yes there have been some changes for the better (like getting rid of locationless caches), but transforming geocahing from being about the adventure to being about the numbers is not a postive change. In the early days of cacihing, the cache placers put thought and consideration into thier caches. Now the vast majority are mindless nothing matters but numbers caches.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...