Jump to content

icon for microcaches?


brad.32

Recommended Posts

Multiple cosmetic changes to the icons have been happening lately, which has brought up mention of an icon for micros. I would like to see the latter. I have heard the argument about how it's a size not a type, e.g., the final for a multilocation cache can be a micro and a multi is a type or, the opposite, the skills needed to find a micro are different, so it's a separate type.

 

I did a San Mateo city search this morning and it came up with over 2900 (within 100 miles). Most of the first 20 are micros, some are multi-micros (the following pages are similar), but I have to look at each non-virtual one to determine if it is a micro.

Link to comment

If I've said it once, I've said it thirteen bajillion times (well, okay, at least twelve times), if you want to do the things Watcher does, just use Watcher already.

 

(This doesn't fall under the "if Watcher doesn't do what you want, ask for it" banner, since Watcher's done this for umpteen years... well, at least for a very long time.)

 

[[[ ClayJar Networks ]]]

Home of Watcher downloads, Official Geocaching Chat, and the Geocache Rating System

Link to comment

I would say that micros are both a size and type.

 

A VW bug is a automibile. So is a Chevy Suburban. Same type of machine, different size and attributes.

 

Same logic applies to micros.

 

And yes, I use watcher. But I am not always at home where I can access the WAtcher program to see all those details.

 

Perhaps something like an icon would help those on the road and at work when sorting cache types.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have never been lost. Been awful confused for a few days, but never lost!

N61.12.041 W149.43.734

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Bilder:

I would say that micros are both a size and type.

 

A VW bug is a automibile. So is a Chevy Suburban. Same type of machine, different size and attributes.

 

Same logic applies to micros.


Couldn't have said it better myself. Same logic then says that micros are an attribute, not a type.

quote:

And yes, I use watcher. But I am not always at home where I can access the WAtcher program to see all those details.

 

Perhaps something like an icon would help those on the road and at work when sorting cache types.


Okay, if Watcher doesn't float yer boat, certainly GPX Spinner will get you where you want to go. It already has the built in capability to change the icon of any micro cache to its own designated icon. I never use this feature since the size of a cache doesn't matter to me.

 

--Marky

...Be nice to your fellow geocachers, they might be Hemlock...

Link to comment

The poll is to assess the geocaching.com users to see if the icon vocabulary on geocaching.com should be expanded for those users , not to assess or question the features or users of Watcher.

 

... and, yes, people should be aware of Watcher and I know Watcher can do many things, including (micro) filtering.

Link to comment

The only way that this would/could happen is if there were new icons for the following:

  • Traditional/Micro

  • Traditional/Regular

  • Traditional/Large

  • Multi-Stage/Micro

  • Multi-Stage/Regular

  • Multi-Stage/Large

  • Puzzle/Micro

  • Puzzle/Regular

  • Puzzle/Large

  • Letterbox/Micro

  • Letterbox/Regular

  • Letterbox/Large

I hope this helps highlight why this request is not valid.

 

--Marky

...Be nice to your fellow geocachers, they might be Hemlock...

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Marky:

The only way that this would/could happen is if there were new icons for the following:

+ Traditional/Micro

+ Traditional/Regular

...


Or if a new type 'Micro' is created. Virtuals are already handled that way: 'Virtual' is a type AND a size.

 

To repeat myself: So the question is: should micros have their own group (= cache type)?

 

Cornix

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Cornix:

To repeat myself: So the question is: should micros have their own group (= cache type)?


In my opinion, no. The size of a cache has nothing what so ever to do with what type of cache it is. The size "Virtual" is pointless and redundant. Virtual caches have no meaningful size attribute. The Virtual in the Size pulldown menu is there just to confuse you. Okay, maybe it might be used in a mystery/puzzle cache type to inform you that there is no physical cache to locate.

 

The cache size (Micro/Regular/Large) has nothing to do with how one might go searching for the cache. When designated correctly, the cache type should give you an idea of what you need to do to find the cache. A traditional cache should be located at the posted coordinates. A multi-cache will have multiple legs to visit before the final cache. A Mystery/Puzzle will usually have something to sovle before the final coordinates reveal themselves. The cache size offers very little additional information for these cache types other than to tell you what size of object you will be looking for at the final coords.

 

--Marky

...Be nice to your fellow geocachers, they might be Hemlock...

Link to comment

At first glance, the comment about "virtual" being a member of both the cache type and cache size enumerations is irrelevant. However, upon further consideration, one could easily say that the existance of the "virtual" designation for cache size *substantiates* the case for *not* having a "micro" cache *type*.

 

Why bother having a "virtual" cache size if there already exists a "virtual" cache type? Quite obviously, because the container is not necessarily the defining datum of what type of cache it is. For example, if you have a cache with more than one waypoint, it is *by definition* a multi-cache. The type, then, should be multi-cache, regardless of the particular size of the waypoints. The existence of a cache size parameter allows the cache hider to specify additional information regarding the items or information to be located.

 

To call a multi-cache that is made up of informational waypoints with no physical containers a "virtual cache" instead of a "multi-cache" of size "virtual" is to lose information. While the existence of both a virtual cache type and a virtual cache size is indeed redundant, it does not in any way substantiate any hypothetical need for additional size-dependant cache types. If anything, it indicates an inefficiency in cache type and size designations, although it is easily noted that to "correct" this redundancy would not be advisable due to application and user expectation issues.

 

[[[ ClayJar Networks ]]]

Home of Watcher downloads, Official Geocaching Chat, and the Geocache Rating System

Link to comment

In my oppinion it's the 'multi' type that doesn't fit. 'Multi' is an attribute that can be assigned to (nearly) all caches.

 

'Micro' is not only a cache size, it also means 'no trading items' in most cases.

 

So to me this distinction in cache types seems perfectly valid:

Virtual (no log, no trading)

Micro (log, no trading)

Regular (log & trading)

 

Perhaps 'Micro' is the wrong word for this concept, but I hope you'll get the idea.

 

Cornix

Link to comment

If you are going to pursue this line of thought, then take it to the logical conclusion. Throw out all the cache types and all the cache sizes and the bathwater and the baby, and then just have cache attributes without anything else at all. Then you can be content with something like:

quote:

[Y/N] Logbook

[Y/N] Trading

[Y/N] Theme

[Y/N] Waterproof

[Y/N] Rectangular

[Y/N] Blue

[Y/N] White

[Y/N] Green

[Y/N] Purple
*OR* we can keep the cache types and cache sizes and sometime in the future add cache attributes. There's no reason to create a different type for every possible combination, and there are plenty of reasons to abstain.

 

[[[ ClayJar Networks ]]]

Home of Watcher downloads, Official Geocaching Chat, and the Geocache Rating System

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Cornix:

In my oppinion it's the 'multi' type that doesn't fit. 'Multi' is an attribute that can be assigned to (nearly) all caches.

 

'Micro' is not only a cache size, it also means 'no trading items' in most cases.

 

So to me this distinction in cache types seems perfectly valid:

 

+ Virtual (no log, no trading)

+ Micro (log, no trading)

+ Regular (log & trading)

 

Perhaps 'Micro' is the wrong word for this concept, but I hope you'll get the idea.

 

Cornix


 

I've traded items in several Micros, what about that?

 

___________________________________________________________

If trees could scream, would we still cut them down?

Well, maybe if they screamed all the time, for no reason.

Click here for my Geocaching pictures and Here (newest)

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by martmann:

I've traded items in several Micros, what about that?


Perhaps 'Log-only' or 'No-trading' cache would be a better description.

 

I've no problem with the current system as the cache density in my region is not so high. icon_wink.gif

But some people seem to care about the trading aspect of the game and such a categorization scheme could help them.

 

Cornix

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Cornix:

I've no problem with the current system as the cache density in my region is not so high. icon_wink.gif

But some people seem to care about the trading aspect of the game and such a categorization scheme could help them.

 

Cornix


Well, I live in NJ, the state with the highest overall density of physical caches in the world, and I still don't have a problem with the current system. I agree 100% with what ClayJar and Marky said, so there is no reason to repeat, just scroll up.

 

"This is gc.com, love it or leave it "

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Mopar:

+ _"This is gc.com, love it or leave it "_


 

Oh, so geocaching.com will only have cosmetic changes and people should start splinter web sites when they want additional features and otherwise duplicate this site. Now there's a good idea ohh.gif

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by brad.32:

Oh, so geocaching.com will only have cosmetic changes and people should start splinter web sites when they want additional features and otherwise duplicate this site.


Um, then again, a lot of the desired features can be provided via PQ GPX applications (Watcher, Spinner, etc). If you want a feature that's not provided by default, it may be something that can be done locally. (And doing it locally means you can do it however you'd like, too. icon_biggrin.gif)

 

[[[ ClayJar Networks ]]]

Home of Watcher downloads, Official Geocaching Chat, and the Geocache Rating System

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Marky:

The only way that this would/could happen is if there were new icons for the following: + Traditional/Micro

+ Traditional/Regular

+ Traditional/Large

+ Multi-Stage/Micro

+ Multi-Stage/Regular

+ Multi-Stage/Large

+ Puzzle/Micro

+ Puzzle/Regular

+ Puzzle/Large

+ Letterbox/Micro

+ Letterbox/Regular

+ Letterbox/Large


 

Actually, it points out another idea: clothes have S/M/L designations, why not caches? It doesn't have to entail a whole new set of icons, just smack an S, M or L next to the cache type icon.

 

And, knowing the size of container does effect how you look for the darn thing. I won't bother to look for M/L containers underneath the narrow beam on the bridge, for instance.

 

-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-

Wearer of duplicative protective headgear.

Link to comment

I have been watching this thread with interest because I had given thought to starting one on the subject myself. I think that an individual icon for micros is a valid suggestion.

 

The reason that I think this is because micros are not “caches” in respect to what the adventure started out as. True, there may be a FEW micros that contain a trade item or two at the most, but the vast majority are nothing more than a log book. To me such an object seems better suited to another adventure than geocaching.

 

For those who do not know, the term geocache originated by Matt Stum May 30, 2000 in an email group after Dave Ulmer suggested that the name GPS Stash Hunt may not be the best choice of names for the young adventure. Here is the quote from Matt’s original post: “’Back in the old days’, especially in the Yukon and northern climes, explorers would leave caches of food and supplies at known locations so that they'd have them on their return trip. Some caches were ‘community property’ and known by all who took a particular trail. If they needed something, they took it, and if they had extras of something, they left it. Sound familiar?”

 

From this concept the adventure has grown and is growing into the raging success that it is today. In my opinion, micros should be restricted as or more severely than virtual and locationless because they do not fit into the name of the game any better than the latter.

 

It seems to me that much of the argument against separate icons for micros was built on hollow aggrandizement. If the point is a strong point there is no reason to embellish the argument with such needless suggestions as making a separate icon for every size and color of cache. If a cache is a micro it does not matter if it is a multi or a single location. In either case it is a micro and only needs a single icon. Also the argument for using other software is invalid in my opinion. Considering the length of my post I don’t think that I need to elaborate because the reasons are not that difficult to contemplate, and it seems to me that this point was less about the subject at hand and more about a personal plug.

 

By these blunt comments I do not in anyway mean to disparage any individual who has placed a micro or supports them. At times it is necessary and welcome to place them because the location may not be suitable to anything else. However a large percentage of the micros that I have found have been placed where a perfectly suitable “cache” could have been placed. I quote the word cache because to call a micro a cache is in most cases a revision of the name.

 

I polled a certain urban location that contained 31 caches in a 5 mile radius. Out of those 55% (17) were micros and only 29% (9) were real caches. The rest were virtuals and an event. I personally find micros a bit disappointing after a while. Finding one every now and again in an interesting location is fun. But I see no excitement in locating a steel guard rail or sign post!

 

My suggestion for the micro icon is a film can since it is easily recognizable and is the most common form of micro.

 

[This message was edited by AB4N on October 22, 2003 at 05:25 PM.]

Link to comment

How do you personally organize caches you wish to hunt? I break them down into 5 groups (Traditional-Regular/Large, Traditional-Micro, Virtual, Multi, & Puzzle). I geocache because I like to find SOMETHING other than signs or monuments, so Virtuals don't really interest me. I like exchanging items, so Traditional Regular/Large are more rewarding than Micros. Multi's & Puzzles tend to require MORE time.

 

The Micro caches have grown so quickly in numbers and they differ significantly from Regular/Large Traditionals (size & hiding techniques) that I believe they deserve their own icon. So what icon do you use for Multi or Puzzle Micros? A precedence is set up. If it's a Multi & a Micro then use the Multi icon. That's the way it's currently done.

 

It seems important enough that other popular programs (Watcher & GPX Spinner) allow users to break out Micros. I would think Geocaching.com would also consider it worthwhile. As many icon changes that have been going on recently on the website, why not just give a Micro icon a try and see what the response is.

 

Wanting something and getting something are TWO different things. If the Geocaching God/Gods don't want it then we'll never see it, no matter how many Forum prayers we say. I guess I'm a cynic.

Link to comment

quote:
The reason that I think this is because micros are not ''caches'' in respect to what the adventure started out as. True, there may be a FEW micros that contain a trade item or two at the most, but the vast majority are nothing more than a log book. To me such an object seems better suited to another adventure than geocaching.

 

I took a quick look at my list of 925 waypoints that stretch around an area that includes South Lake Tahoe, Sacramento, Stockton, Modesto, Martinez, Novato, San Francisco, Santa Cruz, San Jose, and Gilroy (not that I've really done ANY caching lately).

 

Interestingly, of the 150 oldest caches, 11 are virtual (7.3%), 2 are webcams (1.3%), and 10 are micros (6.7%). Of the 150 newest caches, 2 are virtual (1.3%), none are webcams, and 65 are micros (43.3%). Of the last 25 caches placed, 16 or 64% are micros. The major transition from a majority of traditional to a near-majority of micro occured in November 2002 after the Bay Area and Central Valley release of dozens of prepared micros by well-intentioned mega-cachers. It's amazing how one or two people can so greatly affect the sport overnight.

 

My point? I agree that the sport has vastly changed from the original, perhaps to its detriment. I have never been a proponent of micros, although I have sunk to the level of other prolific cachers and created several micros of my own -- it's a hell of a lot easier to put a few prepared film canisters in a backpack in preparation for a 10-mile hike than it is to pack in an ammo can. It's cheaper, too. And lighter...

 

I'll ramble on... It does say ''Micro'' on the cache page (but not in the search results) and (as we all know) the micros can be filtered out with various utilities including ones advertised here ad nauseum -- although I agree that it would be very useful to have the functionality built into the site itself. No, I don't use Watcher or the other advertised utilities as they don't meet my needs. My home-grown utilities do exactly what I want instead.

 

Rambling continued... I'm feeling a bit wishy-washy about this whole issue because each side has valid points; (1) micro is a size attribute; (2) I wouldn't necessarily classify a VW and a Surburban as the same type; (3) Most of the arguments against a size icon are made by those arguing that a combined type/size icon should/can not be created -- despite the original proposal that a *second* icon be used to designate size; (4) The biggest nay-sayers to adding an icon are from those who either create the utilities or use the utilities -- what about those people using library or school computers that are not allowed to install software? (5) Cache creators often don't categorize their caches properly anyway, and the approvers don't bother looking for those mistakes; (6) Would adding a second icon cause any harm or create significant work, or would it just makes things easier for some people? Adding a small 15x15 graphic with either XS, S, M, L, XL is a no-brainer; (7) the site obviously doesn't meet the needs of a large audience (including ClayJar, Marky and myself) otherwise we wouldn't have to develop or use second- or third-party utilities. (8) If no one will listen to your needs, find an out-of-the-box solution yourself -- I recently purchased a second membership to gc simply because I wanted eight PQs. After months of waiting for TPTB to make a simple change, I now have up to 10 queries! Not the perfect solution, but my needs are met.

 

Somewhere above is a point, I'm sure. Look for it at your own risk. Enough rambling... Signing off...

Link to comment

What are watchers? Sorry I'm not up on that one. The only watchers I know are on Highlander........icon_smile.gif..

But one thing I do know is, that no matter what the icons look like, some will approve & some won't. Known fact. Can't please everyone. Although I do think the icons for the micro's should be different. JMO. Happy & Safe Caching.......

Or change the words a little for Micro's. EX> Traditional Cache-M or something like that. At least you would know the if the traditional cache is a micro or regular. Just a thought.

 

rocker51

 

give to the world the best you have,

and the best will come back to you.

...............MaryAinge deVere

Link to comment

Watcher can be downloaded from Clayjar's site.

 

"Watchers" could be used to refer to users of the Watcher program.

 

As I wrote previously, the question addressed in the poll above is how micros should be handled on geocaching.com, not how a third-paty application can process a pocket query / LOC / GPX file. If micros have their own icon, then people conclude that every combination of type and size should have a unique icon, which may not be the case. Separating micros from the rest may be all that is really needed. It depends on the users needs or, as some have said, on Jeremy's whims, because it's really his page page, and we are just visitors.

 

In the New Cache Icons thread, Jeremy wrote "We do plan to create a poll." I'm waiting for that one big_smile.gif

Link to comment

I used to dislike micros, but if they are not placed in a

way that makes them nearly impossible to find (except by luck)

then they can be sort of fun. The nice thing is that they are

low maintenance, which makes them a possibility for people who

really can't dedicate the time required to a full scale cache.

 

The other consideration is this:

If somone places a micro somewhere, there is no reason I am

compelled to seek it. I can ignore micros if I choose to.

Perhaps some provision for anyone who desires to replace a micro

with a full size cache would be desirable...

If I go to a micro, and think that a full size cache would be better,

I can always contact the cache owner and ask him if I can convert

it to a full size.

 

Once he says okay, I would place the full size, and then either

the micro would get archived, or it would be editted to show

that it is now a traditional cache with me or the previous

person as the owner, as agreed to by me and the original owner

(Maybe I would just donate the container, or the container and

contents, or maybe the owner might provide a container and I'd

go place it.

 

Of course, if you wanted to be militant about it, you could

just start pirating the micros, but why ruin the fun of others

just because you have a different philosophy.

 

Which brings me back to my first point... if a person wants

to place a micro somewhere, who am I to say he shouldn't...

unless I am willing to step up and place a traditional there.

A simple log entry "It looks like this would be a good place

for a traditional cache" might be all that is needed to encourage

someone to convert it to one.

 

Micros are sort of a quick & dirty way to get people to visit

an interesting place.

 

"I'm not Responsible... just ask my wife, She'll confirm it"

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by brad.32:

... It depends on the users needs or, as some have said, on Jeremy's whims, because it's really his page page, and we are just visitors.


I respectfully disagree. Especially for those who have sent in the donation to become a premium member, but for everyone, we all should have a say in what is worthwhile of implementation.

 

Yes, ultimately we only can make suggestions... but I'm getting a bit tired of that being referred to as "Whining".

 

That is actually a large problem in our current society... suggestions get repressed by closed minded people who think that only people in charge should have the priveledge and power of having ideas that are worthy of consideration.

 

So all you who think people with ideas should shut up... quit whining about people who make sugestions.

 

I think that seperate icons for Locationless, virtual, micro, multi, night-time, and maybe even other specialized caches (picture caches, if they become prevalent) allow people to decide quickly if they are interested in looking at the details.

 

Some people think micros shouldn't even exist.

Virtuals have become an endangered species.

Night caches seem to be an emergent form sparking interest.

 

Being able to differentiate them quickly would provide flexibility to allow them all to co-exist, and for geocache.com users to decide how they want to enjoy the hobby.

 

"I'm not Responsible... just ask my wife, She'll confirm it"

Link to comment

I personally fall in the "micros are boring" camp.

 

When I pull up a cache page and look at the type, I see one of a number of things. Regular. Multi. Virtual. Unknown (puzzle). and Micro. Micro is already treated as a type, because the word on the page is different from Regular. It's already in the data, so why can't it have a different icon?

 

I don't really care if pages identify the stages of a multi as micro or not, or a puzzle as a micro or not. I just want to know if the garden variety cache in the search results is a film cannister or not.

Link to comment

Mark42, I agree with your last couple of posts above. (I should explain my "whining" reference: I say it seems like everybody is whining because they are making such a big thing of whether to have a separate icon for micros or not. For goodness sake, just go ahead and make/implement the new icon! icon_razz.gif I didn't mean for my use of whining to sound like I was trying to stifle the creative spirit, but rather I'd like to see the energy wasted in the "big debate" turned into placing and/or finding new caches!)

 

If it isn't too taxing on the database, for goodness sake just have a separate icon for each main category of cache. -Ken

 

P.S. Just because any of you don't enjoy a particular kind of cache, you shouldn't suggest that they be 86'd. There are plenty of people who enjoy each kind of cache that has been implemented thus far. Don't rain on someone else's parade because you don't like or partake in their form of enjoyment! Simply move on to the kinds of caches you enjoy. icon_smile.gif

Link to comment
Originally posted by Marky:

The only way that this would/could happen is if there were new icons for the following: + Traditional/Micro

+ Traditional/Regular

+ Traditional/Large

+ Multi-Stage/Micro

+ Multi-Stage/Regular

+ Multi-Stage/Large

+ Puzzle/Micro

+ Puzzle/Regular

+ Puzzle/Large

+ Letterbox/Micro

+ Letterbox/Regular

+ Letterbox/Large

I really like this idea. I often just list the caches in an area I may want to goto. I don't like MICRO's very much and any thing to see at a glance if a regular is Small, Medium, Large or MICRO would help the sorting a lot.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by hoffenmuller:

It seems to me that the main purpose of micros is boost stats. I agree that they don't suit the name of the game.


 

Not to be snotty, but exactly what experience have you with this that would cause you to come to that conclusion? Have you found any? I looked and didn't see that you'd found any caches at all. -Ken

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Mark 42:

quote:
Originally posted by brad.32:

... It depends on the users needs or, as some have said, on Jeremy's whims, because it's really his page page, and we are just visitors.


I respectfully disagree. Especially for those who have sent in the donation to become a premium member, but for everyone, we all should have a say in what is worthwhile of implementation.


 

That was not my idea. If we pay for the service and there's a forum for discussing changes, then we ought to be discussing what we would like. Jeremy, et al.'s work on this site make geocaching possible and is part of the experience.

 

Groudspeak is a business. They promote geocaching. They sell related merchandise and gear. They don't have their own line of GPS units, perhaps licensed from, e.g., Garmin, to carry the logo (yet).

 

I am a premium member, have a pocket query set up, have Watcher and GPXView, but I'm not a mega cacher. I like TBs. I pay Groundspeak for TB tags/tracking service. TBs don't fit in micros.

Link to comment

You know, I DID do a search for micro icon before posting this thread. I did. I did.

 

In that thread you linked in...

quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy:

Since microcaches are different in many ways, we should probably move them to their own cache type. That would give it its own icon.

 

smile.gif Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location


 

That was in July. "Should" is not "will".

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by hoffenmuller:

It seems to me that the main purpose of micros is boost stats. I agree that they don't suit the name of the game.


 

If I wanted to boost stats I'd go for the regular sized ones. They're usually much easier to find than a well placed micro.

 

I see micros and regulars as very different types and depending on my mood prefer one over the other. Sometimes I love the micros where the hider put in a lot of effort to making it a fun hide and it takes me a while to find the cache. Other times I enjoy the out of the way locations of the well placed regular caches.

 

They should be treated as different IMHO. It would sure make things easier. I once spent a bunch of time looking for a 35mm film cannister because the owner said is was in a film cannister but didn't list the size of the cache. Turns out it was a regular sized cache and easily findable if you knew that.

Link to comment

There seems to be a lot of talk by relativly few people about different types of caches: micros, virtuals, locationless, etc, etc, etc. My question is, what's the big deal? You don't like doing a type of cache, so it should be banned? What gives? Why eliminate a part of the game that some people may enjoy just because you don't like them? If nobody liked a specific type of cache, they wouldn't get any posts, would they? Sure, if a micro is in a spot where a traditional could go, it could be changed. But why? Maybe there's a reason why the cache owner put the thing there in the first place. Maybe there's some grand scheme that has not yet come to fruitation. One set of caches that I've been eyeing is a scale model of the solar system. The individual planets are all micros, but they each have a component number that is used to calculate the bonus cache. The distances from the designated "sun" are all scaled to the real thing, but could this be done with the caches? No way. It'd be too easy to find a cache that's got a 12m diameter. Every type of cache is a part of the game. Maybe not as the game originated, but hey, things change. Look at the computer industry. Would you like to be using punch cards today, or would you like a pentium that you can hold in one hand? Change is inevitable, and there's no way to stop it, so to suggest that something that is not pat of the original game, before it spread out to the masses and is therefore evil is insane. Which do you prefer, a phonograph or an mp3 player? Change happens. Also, I always thought that micro refered to size rather than type. Is micro a type? Is a size a type? I don't think that a medium shirt is a different type than an extra large, but maybe that's just me.

 

In my own opinion, I like all of the caches that I've found thus far, and I plan on finding all the ones that I can, regular, micro, multi, virtual, and locationless. I like this game, and that's just what it is, a GAME. Maybe if TPTB want to know what people really think, rather than the relative few that speak up on the forums, there should be a designated poll. Maybe on the personal profile, or the edit profile, or something like that. Set a time limit on voting, count users rather than accounts(thus eliminating dummy accounts and thus multiple votes per player), and let the masses decide what direction the game takes.

 

Ok, that's probably a bit of an excessive rant. If anyone was offended it is not my intent to attack or offend anone, rather I just wanted to add another voice with another point of view. If one feels as though they were attacked, feel free to bring it up, or just flame me relentlessly. Either way.

 

'non thumpum equis mortum'....don't beat a dead horse

 

...the early bird may get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese...

Link to comment

You're not talking about banning any types, just providing more information up front so we can do a visual filter in the cache listing, and I don't mean the cache description.

 

... so far I haven't seen a post here from any Groundspeak/geocaching.com people about any plans.

 

In the other thread (New Cache Icons), an official poll was mentioned by Jeremy. When is the official poll coming or did I miss it?

Link to comment

just a quick comment on some of the above,

 

I like the SML idea (although we'd want mRL) and I'd guess that'd be an easy thing to add to the search script. not sure what they're using for the database, but in all I've used, it'd be a couple of clicks in the right report/form and perhaps a record lookup link. The existing database data wouldnt even need to be updated.

 

As for who likes them and who doesn't, and how prevalent they are, its not really the issue here, whether you like them or not it's an equally valid desire to know which is which.

 

Having said that, here's my reasoning why micros are on the increase: Since the restrictions started happening out in the parks, and a lot of the really good spots now have a cache within .1 mile or so, Plus the vacation cache rule, many cachers are turning to places very close to home for caches.

 

This means (and I don't even need to research this, it's simple logic) that the majority of cachers live in large towns or cities, and the safest way to place an urban cache is very often a micro.

Link to comment

When All Geocaches By Postal Code (or other search category) are displayed, the traditional cache icon may also display a Member-only cache icon alongside the traditional cache icon.

 

Maybe it would make sense to keep the traditional cache icon as is, but have an additional icon alongside as an indication that the cache is a micro?

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