Jump to content

Stop! Search before you hide a cache!


Recommended Posts

I'm utterly perplexed when out caching and search around for a cache and find many great places to hide even a large cache, all the while the actual is a micro tucked in a ridiculous location.

 

Searching for an evil nano, (yeah, ok it's evil) this weekend and found at least two locations which could have hosted a 'toids tin with a minimal amount of effort. Another spot hosted something about the size of a film can, while I located at least two spots which could easily have hosted a medium Lock & Lock.

 

Stop and think before you stash, can I do better?

 

Odds are, you can. Search that location, like there's already a cache there and see what hide possibilities turn up.

Edited by DragonsWest
Link to comment

I think your encouraging cachers to hide larger caches. I think.

 

I have always agreed with the general notion that we should all be hiding as large a container as we can in the given environment. Sometimes that means a micro to compliment a specific location or theme but generally, most area could easily support a larger cache.

Link to comment

I am not going to say that people should hide the largest cache that they possibly can. Some folks enjoy hunting for an evil nano. Some don't. But when hiding a cache we need to take into consideration if the cache appropriate for the location. As examples a larger cache may be mistaken for a suspicious package. Or a nano could lead to excessive stress on the location. No, as much as I prefer a larger cache in a great location not every great location should have one.

Link to comment

I'm utterly perplexed when out caching and search around for a cache and find many great places to hide even a large cache, all the while the actual is a micro tucked in a ridiculous location.

 

Searching for an evil nano, (yeah, ok it's evil) this weekend and found at least two locations which could have hosted a 'toids tin with a minimal amount of effort. Another spot hosted something about the size of a film can, while I located at least two spots which could easily have hosted a medium Lock & Lock.

 

Stop and think before you stash, can I do better?

 

Odds are, you can. Search that location, like there's already a cache there and see what hide possibilities turn up.

 

Odds are? I take exception to that. (And I'd rather find a nano than an Altoids tin anyday!)

If you were to be less presumptuous and say 'Frequently you can do better'...

'The container appropriate to the location' is good.

I can take you to some spectacular places where only an MKH or nano will work. Thank you any way.

I found a great, evil micro in the woods yesterday. Sure, he could have hidden an ammo can, but that would have been boring. (It was not an especially interesting location. It was the evil micro that made it interesting.) So, please do not go looking for my micro hidden up the rear end of the bronze rabbit hidden in a tree stump. It's only fun if you have a sense of humor.

On the other fin, I will agree that there are far too many film canisters hiden out there. They're terrible containers! IMHO, it's more about the quality of the container than the size.

Link to comment

Stop and think before you stash, can I do better?

Odds are, you can. Search that location, like there's already a cache there and see what hide possibilities turn up.

I can take you to some spectacular places where only an MKH or nano will work.

 

In that case, searching around, & considering if you could do better would result in an answer of "no". But at least you thought about it instead of jumping on the first idea that popped into your head.

 

I think this is excellent advice. It isn't always a matter of "can I hide something bigger", either. Sometimes its just a matter of hiding something in a new way.

Link to comment

I for one love nanos, but if only I have to hunt for them. The magnetic keyholder or film canister placed on the sign or in the guard rail is booring. Sure, it's a quick P&G but I'm in this sport about fun, not racking up chaches I've found. It doesn't bother me in the least if I have to go back a couple of times. Sure it's nice to find an ammo can full of swag, especialy if the G-Kids are with me, but no-one leaves anything worth trading anymore. I used to leave lotto tickets in every cache I found but due to people not reporting if they had a winner (not saying they had to) I kind of stopped that practice. To get back to the topic, my favorite caches have either been nanos or nanos in the stages of a multi.

Link to comment

You're making the presumption that there are very few geocachers who like nanos/micros and/or that everyone should strive to hide the largest possible cache that an area can handle. Both, in my opinion, are erroneous presumptions. In fact, a lot of people actually like nanos/micros. Hard to believe, I know, but it's true. Some people appreciate a clever hide or good camo over size.

 

This topic brings to mind a few popular cliches:

  • Good things come in small packages.
  • Size isn't everything.
  • It's not how big it is but how you use it. (Or hide it, as the case may be)

Link to comment

Nanos, micros and even small containers have taken a big chunk out of the fun we used to have caching. People find it so easy to just stuff a micro or nano in some small hole and if the container goes missing, so what, it was cheap. The reason some of the fun is gone now is due to the fact that you can't put a TB in most caches hidden now. Even most small containers will not accept even just the TB dog tag. We used to buy TBs and send them out. We even used unactivated tags for swag. Now that is just a waste of time and money since so many caches can not even hold a TB.

 

John

Link to comment

Often a small container in the area offers a good challenge. Some people like these sorts of finds. I for one Do Not.

 

About a month ago i went after a cache called Green Hell. Its a green colored micro is a good sized stand of Bamboo. Good challenge, beautiful area, and high difficulty. It was a great location even if i didn't find it. Could have easily hid a very large container in the thick of it. Most of the area the bamboo is growing only inches from each other then opens up into some small clearings. Keeping difficulty high while hiding a very large cache.

Link to comment

I found 64 caches over two days and I'll say at least 55 were micros - film can or smaller. Many of these locations could have accommodated larger cache containers.

 

I've got a few micros myself out there, but when I'm hauling around a backpack full of travel bugs I want some places to drop them.

 

The Fire-and-forget methodology of geocaching is probably the basis for most anti-micro rants, not that micros are bad, but so many are done thoughtlessly. I was so please when I found some well done hides I made certain to note them in my log entries. Bravo for geocachers who put some effort into actual Caches.

Link to comment

Yeah I know what you mean. A couple weeks ago I was doing some caches in a neighboring county. My county has very few LPCs or guardrail caches, but our neighbors make up for that. Coming upon one, I parked at an old historic church on disply for the public with a park and everything. I then walked 200 feet to the end of a guardrail for a filmcan surrounded by trash.

 

I love caches of all sizes, but I do find some areas where they dont seem to live up to their full potential, being rather meaningless.

Link to comment

Nanos, micros and even small containers have taken a big chunk out of the fun we used to have caching. People find it so easy to just stuff a micro or nano in some small hole and if the container goes missing, so what, it was cheap. The reason some of the fun is gone now is due to the fact that you can't put a TB in most caches hidden now. Even most small containers will not accept even just the TB dog tag. We used to buy TBs and send them out. We even used unactivated tags for swag. Now that is just a waste of time and money since so many caches can not even hold a TB.

John

Actually, I'd be willing to bet that there are just about as many caches large enough to accept a TB... but a much lower percentage of caches that can.

 

Nevertheless, my area, at least, is being flooded recently with caches that state right on the cache page, "It is what it is. Just a quick P&G for those that need to keep a streak going or need to fill in their grid". When did geocaching become all about "streaks" and "grids"? :(

Link to comment
Nevertheless, my area, at least, is being flooded recently with caches that state right on the cache page, "It is what it is. Just a quick P&G for those that need to keep a streak going or need to fill in their grid". When did geocaching become all about "streaks" and "grids"?

 

When Statistics become a tab on your profile.

And yeah, Challenges too.

Link to comment

Nevertheless, my area, at least, is being flooded recently with caches that state right on the cache page, "It is what it is. Just a quick P&G for those that need to keep a streak going or need to fill in their grid". When did geocaching become all about "streaks" and "grids"? :(

 

Our area is not being flooded. There are three places in the region that have winter friendly, "It is what it is", types of caches; St. Paul bus stops, Hudson fire hydrants, and rural gravel roads, and perhaps Rochester bus stops. I would not consider that a flood when considering the size of the mtro and the outlying areas.

 

That being said, the recent "flood" is a function of our record snows this season and cachers are demanding to get out of the house. It is what it is, ignore them if you don't like. But some of us NEED to get back outside... without wading through 4' of snow.

Link to comment

Nanos, micros and even small containers have taken a big chunk out of the fun we used to have caching. People find it so easy to just stuff a micro or nano in some small hole and if the container goes missing, so what, it was cheap. The reason some of the fun is gone now is due to the fact that you can't put a TB in most caches hidden now. Even most small containers will not accept even just the TB dog tag. We used to buy TBs and send them out. We even used unactivated tags for swag. Now that is just a waste of time and money since so many caches can not even hold a TB.

 

John

You know, you can always filter out caches with containers designated as "micro" or "small". Nobody forces anyone to hunt for caches they don't like. GreySmirk.gif

 

Stop blaming other cache hiders for spoiling your fun because they aren't hiding the types of caches you want to find. The real problem isn't micros. The real problem is people letting their obsession with numbers, TB's, coins, etc. take priority and then whining about how much they hate looking for micros or whatever other kind of cache they don't like. Deal with your obsessions first (i.e. - forget about the micros/nanos/small containers) and then you'll find caching fun again.

 

GreySquint.gif

Link to comment

Nevertheless, my area, at least, is being flooded recently with caches that state right on the cache page, "It is what it is. Just a quick P&G for those that need to keep a streak going or need to fill in their grid". When did geocaching become all about "streaks" and "grids"? :(

 

Our area is not being flooded. There are three places in the region that have winter friendly, "It is what it is", types of caches; St. Paul bus stops, Hudson fire hydrants, and rural gravel roads, and perhaps Rochester bus stops. I would not consider that a flood when considering the size of the mtro and the outlying areas.

 

That being said, the recent "flood" is a function of our record snows this season and cachers are demanding to get out of the house. It is what it is, ignore them if you don't like. But some of us NEED to get back outside... without wading through 4' of snow.

Off the top of my head, that's maybe 250-300 or more recently placed caches (I haven't checked Rochester). I'd call that a flood. And I think it creates an unfortunate precidence for new cachers, as well.

Link to comment

Nevertheless, my area, at least, is being flooded recently with caches that state right on the cache page, "It is what it is. Just a quick P&G for those that need to keep a streak going or need to fill in their grid". When did geocaching become all about "streaks" and "grids"? :(

 

Our area is not being flooded. There are three places in the region that have winter friendly, "It is what it is", types of caches; St. Paul bus stops, Hudson fire hydrants, and rural gravel roads, and perhaps Rochester bus stops. I would not consider that a flood when considering the size of the mtro and the outlying areas.

 

That being said, the recent "flood" is a function of our record snows this season and cachers are demanding to get out of the house. It is what it is, ignore them if you don't like. But some of us NEED to get back outside... without wading through 4' of snow.

Off the top of my head, that's maybe 250-300 or more recently placed caches (I haven't checked Rochester). I'd call that a flood. And I think it creates an unfortunate precidence for new cachers, as well.

The precedence would be: Caches that meet the guidelines will be listed?
Link to comment

Nevertheless, my area, at least, is being flooded recently with caches that state right on the cache page, "It is what it is. Just a quick P&G for those that need to keep a streak going or need to fill in their grid". When did geocaching become all about "streaks" and "grids"? :(

 

Our area is not being flooded. There are three places in the region that have winter friendly, "It is what it is", types of caches; St. Paul bus stops, Hudson fire hydrants, and rural gravel roads, and perhaps Rochester bus stops. I would not consider that a flood when considering the size of the mtro and the outlying areas.

 

That being said, the recent "flood" is a function of our record snows this season and cachers are demanding to get out of the house. It is what it is, ignore them if you don't like. But some of us NEED to get back outside... without wading through 4' of snow.

Off the top of my head, that's maybe 250-300 or more recently placed caches (I haven't checked Rochester). I'd call that a flood. And I think it creates an unfortunate precidence for new cachers, as well.

The precedence would be: Caches that meet the guidelines will be listed?

You just love to argue, don't you?

Link to comment

Nevertheless, my area, at least, is being flooded recently with caches that state right on the cache page, "It is what it is. Just a quick P&G for those that need to keep a streak going or need to fill in their grid". When did geocaching become all about "streaks" and "grids"? :(

 

Our area is not being flooded. There are three places in the region that have winter friendly, "It is what it is", types of caches; St. Paul bus stops, Hudson fire hydrants, and rural gravel roads, and perhaps Rochester bus stops. I would not consider that a flood when considering the size of the mtro and the outlying areas.

 

That being said, the recent "flood" is a function of our record snows this season and cachers are demanding to get out of the house. It is what it is, ignore them if you don't like. But some of us NEED to get back outside... without wading through 4' of snow.

Off the top of my head, that's maybe 250-300 or more recently placed caches (I haven't checked Rochester). I'd call that a flood. And I think it creates an unfortunate precidence for new cachers, as well.

The precedence would be: Caches that meet the guidelines will be listed?

You just love to argue, don't you?

I don't love it, but I'm OK with it.

 

Still, the theory that new cachers go out and find caches that they believe to be lame and then copy those hide styles has often been floated by people who dislike one variety of cache or another. It wasn't very compelling those other times and it still isn't.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

Nevertheless, my area, at least, is being flooded recently with caches that state right on the cache page, "It is what it is. Just a quick P&G for those that need to keep a streak going or need to fill in their grid". When did geocaching become all about "streaks" and "grids"? :(

 

Our area is not being flooded. There are three places in the region that have winter friendly, "It is what it is", types of caches; St. Paul bus stops, Hudson fire hydrants, and rural gravel roads, and perhaps Rochester bus stops. I would not consider that a flood when considering the size of the mtro and the outlying areas.

 

That being said, the recent "flood" is a function of our record snows this season and cachers are demanding to get out of the house. It is what it is, ignore them if you don't like. But some of us NEED to get back outside... without wading through 4' of snow.

Off the top of my head, that's maybe 250-300 or more recently placed caches (I haven't checked Rochester). I'd call that a flood. And I think it creates an unfortunate precidence for new cachers, as well.

The precedence would be: Caches that meet the guidelines will be listed?

You just love to argue, don't you?

 

And champion the mediocre.

Link to comment

You know, you can always filter out caches with containers designated as "micro" or "small". Nobody forces anyone to hunt for caches they don't like. GreySmirk.gif

This advice applies only when the cache owner selects the actual size of the container when he publishes the cache. Around here, the trend seems to be to not specify the size of the container. That drives me nuts.

 

I know there are hides where figuring out the size of the container is half the fun, and I'm not referring to those. I'm referring to hiders who deliberately leave out the cache size for a micro or nano because they know there are cachers (myself included) who would otherwise filter them out.

 

--Larry

Link to comment

Nevertheless, my area, at least, is being flooded recently with caches that state right on the cache page, "It is what it is. Just a quick P&G for those that need to keep a streak going or need to fill in their grid". When did geocaching become all about "streaks" and "grids"? :(

 

Our area is not being flooded. There are three places in the region that have winter friendly, "It is what it is", types of caches; St. Paul bus stops, Hudson fire hydrants, and rural gravel roads, and perhaps Rochester bus stops. I would not consider that a flood when considering the size of the mtro and the outlying areas.

 

That being said, the recent "flood" is a function of our record snows this season and cachers are demanding to get out of the house. It is what it is, ignore them if you don't like. But some of us NEED to get back outside... without wading through 4' of snow.

Off the top of my head, that's maybe 250-300 or more recently placed caches (I haven't checked Rochester). I'd call that a flood. And I think it creates an unfortunate precidence for new cachers, as well.

 

250-300 new caches in an area that has over 5000, or more, caches within an 80 mile or greater radius?

 

Let's use St. Paul as the center of our circle here.. Hudson, about 10 miles away. Cannon Falls and the surrounding rural areas, minimum 35 miles out. Rochester, about 75 miles out. Doesn't sound like much of a flood to me.

 

Besides, if you look at MY involvement in some of those caches, you have to admit that some of your cool, but lonely, caches have gotten more visits than ever because of those hides. Just saying..

Edited by bflentje
Link to comment

Nevertheless, my area, at least, is being flooded recently with caches that state right on the cache page, "It is what it is. Just a quick P&G for those that need to keep a streak going or need to fill in their grid". When did geocaching become all about "streaks" and "grids"? :(

 

Our area is not being flooded. There are three places in the region that have winter friendly, "It is what it is", types of caches; St. Paul bus stops, Hudson fire hydrants, and rural gravel roads, and perhaps Rochester bus stops. I would not consider that a flood when considering the size of the mtro and the outlying areas.

 

That being said, the recent "flood" is a function of our record snows this season and cachers are demanding to get out of the house. It is what it is, ignore them if you don't like. But some of us NEED to get back outside... without wading through 4' of snow.

Off the top of my head, that's maybe 250-300 or more recently placed caches (I haven't checked Rochester). I'd call that a flood. And I think it creates an unfortunate precidence for new cachers, as well.

 

250-300 new caches in an area that has over 5000, or more, caches within an 80 mile or greater radius?

 

Let's use St. Paul as the center of our circle here.. Hudson, about 10 miles away. Cannon Falls and the surrounding rural areas, minimum 35 miles out. Rochester, about 75 miles out. Doesn't sound like much of a flood to me.

 

Besides, if you look at MY involvement in some of those caches, you have to admit that some of your cool, but lonely, caches have gotten more visits than ever because of those hides. Just saying..

Using the 5000 cache count that you used, 250-300 caches would be 5%-6%. Sounds small until you consider that the ones that you and I are thinking of have all been placed in just the last couple of months. You certainly have a right to your own opinion, but my opinion stands.

Link to comment

Nanos, micros and even small containers have taken a big chunk out of the fun we used to have caching. People find it so easy to just stuff a micro or nano in some small hole and if the container goes missing, so what, it was cheap. The reason some of the fun is gone now is due to the fact that you can't put a TB in most caches hidden now. Even most small containers will not accept even just the TB dog tag. We used to buy TBs and send them out. We even used unactivated tags for swag. Now that is just a waste of time and money since so many caches can not even hold a TB.

 

John

You know, you can always filter out caches with containers designated as "micro" or "small". Nobody forces anyone to hunt for caches they don't like. GreySmirk.gif

 

Stop blaming other cache hiders for spoiling your fun because they aren't hiding the types of caches you want to find. The real problem isn't micros. The real problem is people letting their obsession with numbers, TB's, coins, etc. take priority and then whining about how much they hate looking for micros or whatever other kind of cache they don't like. Deal with your obsessions first (i.e. - forget about the micros/nanos/small containers) and then you'll find caching fun again.

 

GreySquint.gif

 

Yes, the real problem is micros. Have you ever tried to leave a TB or a coin in one? Even most small containers will not hold a coin or just the TB tag.

 

I do filter out nanos, micros, and "other" (since "other" is almost always a micro).

 

I have found that those that hide micros in our area just can't be bothered to put out the effort it takes to hide a regular sized cache. Too many of them can't even choose good places to hide a cache.

 

I don't have any obsessions with TBs, coins, numbers, etc. Check our profile and tell us about obsessions. I just said that our enjoyment was lessened by the number of very small sized containers. Perhaps you need to learn how to read what is actually written and not try to interpret what is there into what you want the post to say. I said some of the fun is gone, I did NOT say that I do not enjoy caching anymore. There was NO whining involved, I just stated the fact that due to the number of micros/small containers now being hidden, the use of TBs/coins is being hindered.

 

John

Link to comment

250-300 new caches in an area that has over 5000, or more, caches within an 80 mile or greater radius?

 

Let's use St. Paul as the center of our circle here.. Hudson, about 10 miles away. Cannon Falls and the surrounding rural areas, minimum 35 miles out. Rochester, about 75 miles out. Doesn't sound like much of a flood to me.

 

Besides, if you look at MY involvement in some of those caches, you have to admit that some of your cool, but lonely, caches have gotten more visits than ever because of those hides. Just saying..

Using the 5000 cache count that you used, 250-300 caches would be 5%-6%. Sounds small until you consider that the ones that you and I are thinking of have all been placed in just the last couple of months. You certainly have a right to your own opinion, but my opinion stands.

 

I am the last one to say you aren't entitled to you opinion. Just keep in mind that with all floods, the flood water eventually subsides. ;)

Edited by bflentje
Link to comment

Thanks for this thread. I was about to plant a micro cache but will go and have a more thorough look and see if I cannot get a small one in the area instead.

A good point was made earlier about people having TB's on them wanting to offload them.

Link to comment

Yes, the real problem is micros. Have you ever tried to leave a TB or a coin in one? Even most small containers will not hold a coin or just the TB tag.

No, the problem isn't micros. There is nothing in any of the guidelines that declares that cache containers should be able to accommodate travelers or swag. As I stated previously, the only problem is expecting other cachers to only hide the types of caches you want to find.

 

I don't have any obsessions with TBs, coins, numbers, etc. Check our profile and tell us about obsessions. I just said that our enjoyment was lessened by the number of very small sized containers. Perhaps you need to learn how to read what is actually written and not try to interpret what is there into what you want the post to say. I said some of the fun is gone, I did NOT say that I do not enjoy caching anymore.

Perhaps you should take your own advice about learning to read what was actually written. You DID say that, "Nanos, micros and even small containers have taken a big chunk out of the fun we used to have caching". Nowhere did I write or claim that you did not enjoy caching anymore, merely that the offending containers were "spoiling" your fun. Likewise, it was you that stated that "the reason some of the fun is gone now is due to the fact that you can't put a TB in most caches hidden now" so TB's and coins are obviously an important part of the game for you and a big part of why caching is less fun for you.

 

There was NO whining involved, I just stated the fact that due to the number of micros/small containers now being hidden, the use of TBs/coins is being hindered.

Call it what you like. Complaining = whining = same difference. GreyLaughingAnim.gif

 

GreySquint.gif

Link to comment
You know, you can always filter out caches with containers designated as "micro" or "small". Nobody forces anyone to hunt for caches they don't like. GreySmirk.gif
This advice applies only when the cache owner selects the actual size of the container when he publishes the cache. Around here, the trend seems to be to not specify the size of the container. That drives me nuts.

 

I know there are hides where figuring out the size of the container is half the fun, and I'm not referring to those. I'm referring to hiders who deliberately leave out the cache size for a micro or nano because they know there are cachers (myself included) who would otherwise filter them out.

 

--Larry

I would suggest that in addition to filtering out Micros and Small, you also filter out the not selected size caches.

 

This will leave you with more Regular and Large caches than you can ever find, and you can pretend that the other ones don't even exist. It's going to be VERY rare that a micro is listed as a Regular. Problem solved.

Link to comment

I would suggest that in addition to filtering out Micros and Small, you also filter out the not selected size caches.

 

This will leave you with more Regular and Large caches than you can ever find, and you can pretend that the other ones don't even exist. It's going to be VERY rare that a micro is listed as a Regular. Problem solved.

At least in my neck of the woods, filtering out not-selected size caches would also eliminate a lot of challenging, but not micro-sized cache hides. As far as I can tell, there is no perfect solution.

 

I still submit that cache hiders shouldn't obfuscate the size of their micro and nano caches by not selecting the cache size, if the only reason is to prevent people like me, who prefer not to look for tiny caches, from filtering them out. It's only wasting my time and gasoline.

 

--Larry

Link to comment
I would suggest that in addition to filtering out Micros and Small, you also filter out the not selected size caches.

 

This will leave you with more Regular and Large caches than you can ever find, and you can pretend that the other ones don't even exist. It's going to be VERY rare that a micro is listed as a Regular. Problem solved.

At least in my neck of the woods, filtering out not-selected size caches would also eliminate a lot of challenging, but not micro-sized cache hides. As far as I can tell, there is no perfect solution.

 

I still submit that cache hiders shouldn't obfuscate the size of their micro and nano caches by not selecting the cache size, if the only reason is to prevent people like me, who prefer not to look for tiny caches, from filtering them out. It's only wasting my time and gasoline.

 

--Larry

What do you care if you miss some of the challenging caches that you'd accidentally filter out , when you'd remove the kinds of caches you don't like AND you'll have more of the caches that you do like than you can ever find??? You can't find all the challenging caches that you'd enjoy, you're going to miss out on most of them anyway because they're just too far away. So increase the ratio that you have in your PQ and you'll drive a *little* further to get to the ones that you now have in your GPS but wouldn't you rather use your gas to get to them than to the mislabeled micros that waste your time and gasoline?

 

There is only ONE downside that I can see to filtering out all the micros, smalls, and not listed sized caches, and that is you (and others) won't be able to complain about the lame micros in the forums anymore because for you they'll cease to exist.

Link to comment

...

What do you care if you miss some of the challenging caches that you'd accidentally filter out , when you'd remove the kinds of caches you don't like AND you'll have more of the caches that you do like than you can ever find??? You can't find all the challenging caches that you'd enjoy, you're going to miss out on most of them anyway because they're just too far away. So increase the ratio that you have in your PQ and you'll drive a *little* further to get to the ones that you now have in your GPS but wouldn't you rather use your gas to get to them than to the mislabeled micros that waste your time and gasoline?

 

There is only ONE downside that I can see to filtering out all the micros, smalls, and not listed sized caches, and that is you (and others) won't be able to complain about the lame micros in the forums anymore because for you they'll cease to exist.

While that may fit your agenda very well - it does not mesh well with mine.

 

I wish to discover [scenic, historic, little known, cool] locations through Geocaching. If I filter out all of those without further looking, I may miss some of the better locations. Even a micro 35mm filmcan hidden under a lampskrit in a 5 acre forest is better than the same one hidden in a 5 acre blacktop lot full of suvs.

Link to comment
...

What do you care if you miss some of the challenging caches that you'd accidentally filter out , when you'd remove the kinds of caches you don't like AND you'll have more of the caches that you do like than you can ever find??? You can't find all the challenging caches that you'd enjoy, you're going to miss out on most of them anyway because they're just too far away. So increase the ratio that you have in your PQ and you'll drive a *little* further to get to the ones that you now have in your GPS but wouldn't you rather use your gas to get to them than to the mislabeled micros that waste your time and gasoline?

 

There is only ONE downside that I can see to filtering out all the micros, smalls, and not listed sized caches, and that is you (and others) won't be able to complain about the lame micros in the forums anymore because for you they'll cease to exist.

While that may fit your agenda very well - it does not mesh well with mine.

 

I wish to discover [scenic, historic, little known, cool] locations through Geocaching. If I filter out all of those without further looking, I may miss some of the better locations. Even a micro 35mm filmcan hidden under a lampskrit in a 5 acre forest is better than the same one hidden in a 5 acre blacktop lot full of suvs.

It's not my agenda at all, I'm trying to help out those in here that are complaining about Micros whether they're categorized as Micro or Unknown. I'm helping them to understand that if they dislike them, they're easily avoidable.

 

But I do understand that there are some folks in the forums that don't actually want help avoiding micros, they only want to complain about them. And they aren't going to be helped at all by the advice I gave. I learned that lesson long ago.

Link to comment

I am grateful for the Favorite feature. Now, I will consider looking for micros and unknowns/not chosen if they have at least 2 favorite votes, the write-up plus logs look good (and the D/T rating isn't too high for my liking).

 

But I agree with the OP's plea. Check the area out before planting to see if something larger then a micro will fit. Though, my guess is that most micro hiders aren't going to spend the extra money on a larger size cache. And probably some carry a few micros in their backpack to hide when the urge strikes them - carrying smalls and regulars take up to much room.

Edited by Lone R
Link to comment

But I do understand that there are some folks in the forums that don't actually want help avoiding micros, they only want to complain about them. And they aren't going to be helped at all by the advice I gave. I learned that lesson long ago.

For the record, I do not come to the forums to complain about micros or any other type of cache. It is, however, a pet peeve of mine that some cache hiders try to disguise the fact that they're hiding a micro or nano by not selecting the cache size. Like StarBrand, I'm looking for interesting places to visit, and don't particularly like the idea of missing a good number of experiences by having to filter out entire cache types simply because a cache hider is either too lazy or too deceiving to not specify the cache size.

 

--Larry

Link to comment

...

But I do understand that there are some folks in the forums that don't actually want help avoiding micros, they only want to complain about them. And they aren't going to be helped at all by the advice I gave. I learned that lesson long ago.

I only complain about micros that take me to uninteresting locations and/or have all the thoughtfulness of a litterbug tossing trash out of thier car window. Sadly that is a large percentage of micros. But not all of them.

Edited by StarBrand
Link to comment

There is the consideration that a few nano's in select locations can exclued much larger caches from being placed in areas that are appropriate for them, as far as the rules go, they all take the same space, 1/10th mile. Go to the center of a city park, place a micro and the entire park is locked down. Larry

Link to comment

Could be that things have diverged from the origional intentions of things. Look up Cache and you will probably first find the computer definition of memory storage and then the physical discription: cache (kăsh)

 

noun

a. A hiding place used especially for storing provisions.

b. A place for concealment and safekeeping, as of valuables.

c. A store of goods or valuables concealed in a hiding place: maintained a cache of food in case of emergencies.

 

It would seem that if it cannot hold goods of some sort then it is probably not a true "Cache" ???????????? Larry

Link to comment

Could be that things have diverged from the origional intentions of things. Look up Cache and you will probably first find the computer definition of memory storage and then the physical discription: cache (kăsh)

 

noun

a. A hiding place used especially for storing provisions.

b. A place for concealment and safekeeping, as of valuables.

c. A store of goods or valuables concealed in a hiding place: maintained a cache of food in case of emergencies.

 

It would seem that if it cannot hold goods of some sort then it is probably not a true "Cache" ???????????? Larry

 

A "cache", listed on the Geocaching.com website is whatever Groundspeak determines is a cache. A "cache" by this websites standards is a hidden container with a log sheet.

 

Granted, Lewis and Clark hid several caches along the Missouri River, so they could have supplies on their return trip. We once cached a gallon of ice water on an in and out trail so we could replenish ourselves on the way out. That's a true cache. We are just playing a game and as long as we don't violate the guidelines, it's a "cache"

Link to comment

There is the consideration that a few nano's in select locations can exclued much larger caches from being placed in areas that are appropriate for them, as far as the rules go, they all take the same space, 1/10th mile. Go to the center of a city park, place a micro and the entire park is locked down. Larry

 

I think this is a big part of the problem and ties into the OP's lament.

Link to comment

There is the consideration that a few nano's in select locations can exclued much larger caches from being placed in areas that are appropriate for them, as far as the rules go, they all take the same space, 1/10th mile. Go to the center of a city park, place a micro and the entire park is locked down. Larry

 

I think this is a big part of the problem and ties into the OP's lament.

 

I could care less about the size of container that was hidden in the area - I get aggravated when I see a poorly constructed hide of any size container in an area with opportunities for great, possibly higher terrain/difficulty hides.

 

Case in point - yesterday I found a cache along a trail. The cache was your typical lock and lock under some rocks. This hide can be very good, but in this case there was part of an abandoned structure just across the trail with plenty of nooks and crannies to hide the cache. Plus, the structure is part of the trail system - it's not off limits or private property. There are a lot of well-done caches in our area that utilize bits and pieces of history and abandoned structures. I try to place my caches in the same manner.

Link to comment

Nevertheless, my area, at least, is being flooded recently with caches that state right on the cache page, "It is what it is. Just a quick P&G for those that need to keep a streak going or need to fill in their grid". When did geocaching become all about "streaks" and "grids"? :(

 

Our area is not being flooded. There are three places in the region that have winter friendly, "It is what it is", types of caches; St. Paul bus stops, Hudson fire hydrants, and rural gravel roads, and perhaps Rochester bus stops. I would not consider that a flood when considering the size of the mtro and the outlying areas.

 

That being said, the recent "flood" is a function of our record snows this season and cachers are demanding to get out of the house. It is what it is, ignore them if you don't like. But some of us NEED to get back outside... without wading through 4' of snow.

Off the top of my head, that's maybe 250-300 or more recently placed caches (I haven't checked Rochester). I'd call that a flood. And I think it creates an unfortunate precidence for new cachers, as well.

 

250-300 new caches in an area that has over 5000, or more, caches within an 80 mile or greater radius?

 

Let's use St. Paul as the center of our circle here.. Hudson, about 10 miles away. Cannon Falls and the surrounding rural areas, minimum 35 miles out. Rochester, about 75 miles out. Doesn't sound like much of a flood to me.

 

Besides, if you look at MY involvement in some of those caches, you have to admit that some of your cool, but lonely, caches have gotten more visits than ever because of those hides. Just saying..

Using the 5000 cache count that you used, 250-300 caches would be 5%-6%. Sounds small until you consider that the ones that you and I are thinking of have all been placed in just the last couple of months. You certainly have a right to your own opinion, but my opinion stands.

Does it matter when they were placed? A cache that you're not interested in can sit on your ignore list indefinitely. It matters not if it was placed last week or last year. Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

There is the consideration that a few nano's in select locations can exclued much larger caches from being placed in areas that are appropriate for them, as far as the rules go, they all take the same space, 1/10th mile. Go to the center of a city park, place a micro and the entire park is locked down. Larry

That argument would have been stronger a decade ago than it is today. If that park wass so awesome for a regular cache, how come there isn't already one there?

 

Either way, if a person wishes to hide a cache that meets the guidelines, he should feel free to do so regardless of whether anyone else would prefer it to be hidden differently.

Link to comment

I could care less about the size of container that was hidden in the area - I get aggravated when I see a poorly constructed hide of any size container in an area with opportunities for great, possibly higher terrain/difficulty hides.

 

Case in point - yesterday I found a cache along a trail. The cache was your typical lock and lock under some rocks. This hide can be very good, but in this case there was part of an abandoned structure just across the trail with plenty of nooks and crannies to hide the cache. Plus, the structure is part of the trail system - it's not off limits or private property. There are a lot of well-done caches in our area that utilize bits and pieces of history and abandoned structures. I try to place my caches in the same manner.

 

And there are a lot of cachers who CAN'T go off the trail. The guy caching in his wheelchair is going to be plenty glad to have that cache planted where he can get to it. And the cache still brought your attention to that structure, didn't it?

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...