Jump to content

Stop! Search before you hide a cache!


Recommended Posts

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?

 

Like I said, I'm biased because I enjoy exploring those structures. The actual cache was NOT handicap accessible in the least - you still had to climb up an embankment and sort through some stickers and thorns to get to it. I believe terrain was set at a 2. The abandoned structure may have warranted a 2.5 to 3 terrain. It would have been plenty accessible by MOST, even folks with kids.

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?

 

Like I said, I'm biased because I enjoy exploring those structures. The actual cache was NOT handicap accessible in the least - you still had to climb up an embankment and sort through some stickers and thorns to get to it. I believe terrain was set at a 2. The abandoned structure may have warranted a 2.5 to 3 terrain. It would have been plenty accessible by MOST, even folks with kids.

  1. Every cache doesn't need to be accessible to all cachers. This caches ratings showed that it wasn't ADA compliant.
  2. The cache owner gets to choose where the cache is hidden. If you wanted a cache hidden in teh structure, you should have placed one there previously.

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

Isn't there a name for what happens when someone brings in a Dictionary Definition as evidence, similar to how Godwin's Law applies to those that bring up Nazis?

 

You said it yourself, definitions change, so why would you spring the definition of Cache on us as evidence that a geocache must be large enough to hold goods?

 

It would be more appropriate if you'd refer to the definition of a geocache instead of a cache. And a geocache need only contain a logbook to meet the guidelines.

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?

 

Like I said, I'm biased because I enjoy exploring those structures. The actual cache was NOT handicap accessible in the least - you still had to climb up an embankment and sort through some stickers and thorns to get to it. I believe terrain was set at a 2. The abandoned structure may have warranted a 2.5 to 3 terrain. It would have been plenty accessible by MOST, even folks with kids.

  1. Every cache doesn't need to be accessible to all cachers. This caches ratings showed that it wasn't ADA compliant.
  2. The cache owner gets to choose where the cache is hidden. If you wanted a cache hidden in teh structure, you should have placed one there previously.

 

I can't win them all - the existing cache was placed 4 years prior to the date I got into geocaching.

 

I can always count off .10 miles from the cache to another nearby abandoned structure and place an evil micro (much to the OP's chagrin!)

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

Isn't there a name for what happens when someone brings in a Dictionary Definition as evidence, similar to how Godwin's Law applies to those that bring up Nazis?

 

You said it yourself, definitions change, so why would you spring the definition of Cache on us as evidence that a geocache must be large enough to hold goods?

 

It would be more appropriate if you'd refer to the definition of a geocache instead of a cache. And a geocache need only contain a logbook to meet the guidelines.

Which proves we need to complain about calling geocaches "caches". What we need are some threads complaining about shortening the name to something that doesn't describe what we hide/find. <_<:D

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

Isn't there a name for what happens when someone brings in a Dictionary Definition as evidence, similar to how Godwin's Law applies to those that bring up Nazis?

 

I was thinking that same thing when the handicap/wheelchair argument came up. :lol:

 

But I do think the original intent of the game was a stash or a cache of stuff in the box besides the logbook. Things evolve though. But as soon as log-only caches were created there were complaints in the forums about them, especially about them not being planted as intended, in a place where a larger size cache won't fit.

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.

That is not the point I was trying to make. I am pointing out a trend in hiding styles that I consider unfortunate.
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.

That is not the point I was trying to make. I am pointing out a trend in hiding styles that I consider unfortunate.

I'm pretty sure that there's an easy peasy method that would solve your problem.
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

Isn't there a name for what happens when someone brings in a Dictionary Definition as evidence, similar to how Godwin's Law applies to those that bring up Nazis?

 

I was thinking that same thing when the handicap/wheelchair argument came up. :lol:

 

But I do think the original intent of the game was a stash or a cache of stuff in the box besides the logbook. Things evolve though. But as soon as log-only caches were created there were complaints in the forums about them, especially about them not being planted as intended, in a place where a larger size cache won't fit.

The person who gets to determine who a particular cache is 'intended' is teh cache owner. If I wish to go hide a small cache in a particular spot, it's fine as long as it meets the guidelines. Whether a larger cache could possibly be hidden nearby doesn't matter.
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?
Another consideration is that there may have been a larger cache in the park, until it was discovered by the local kids, repeatedly muggled, and archived. Over time, I've found multiple caches in some of the local parks. Some of them are busy enough that even most micros won't survive long. Others seem to invite small or regular size caches, but they just don't last long. Eventually, someone places a puzzle cache, and the reduced traffic and micro container allow the cache to survive.

 

Those of us who like puzzle caches are happy, even if those who like regular size containers aren't.

 

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.
Amen.

 

As an cache owner, it's wise to ask yourself the OP's question: "Stop and think before you stash, can I do better?"

 

But as a cache seeker, it doesn't matter if you think you can "do better". The CO hid what the CO hid.

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.

I've been to quite a few "regular" caches that took me to uninteresting locations and/or have all the thoughtfulness of a litterbug tossing trash out of their car window. The size of the cache often has very little to do with the quality of the hide.

 

I think Mushtang really hit the nail on the head, though...

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.

So did you take the time to walk around that park and learn about the cool old church after finding the cache? Or did you just jump in the car and speed off to the next find? If you stopped to enjoy the site, then the cache did its job of bringing you there. If you didn't stick around, how would a larger container have made a difference?

 

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?

Are you new around here? :unsure:

 

I want to complain about people that complain about complainers? Anybody got a problem with that? :anibad:

 

There is always this solution. :laughing:

 

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.

 

Excellent response! I think you responded in the spirit of the original post and poster. I enjoy both types, but I'm always pleased to see a larger cache containing trackables with a history.

 

While I'm fairly new, I want to create a BIG cache. I'm trying to figure out where and how.

Link to comment

The problems some people have. I'm glad there are still fun caches in my area left for me to find :)

 

Generally, I actually agree with the OP. You can often AT least make a small work. That said, sometimes a micro works best and in those cases they should be used.

The first cache I made was a regular. It still sits in my bedroom waiting to be place (think I finally have good spot picked out) but I didn't NOT hide it ou of laziness or convenience... Sometimes the inverse of the OP becomes true. My original spot for the regular ended up being better served by a small after I gav it a second thought and look around.

Edited by d+n.s
Link to comment

This makes me think of a couple of caches I looked for this weekend. Micros in the woods.

 

I understand that is can be a challenge. I'm all for that. But when placing a micro in the woods, rating it a 1/1.5 without a proper hint is not good natured, in my opinion. The D/T ratings should reflect what the cache is and where it is placed. It helps to weed out the ones that you can/can't/will/won't look for for many reasons. (access, time, proper attire, preparation, etc)

 

If the description doesn't give a hint, or the hint is "tree" or "none" for a 1/2 micro in the woods, I expect to find it within a few minutes of being at GZ. (1-10min, for example). If not, the area suddenly gets torn apart and trampled to bits while searching every nook and cranny for a cache. Maybe or maybe not by me, but it happens.

 

"Who are we trying to hide these from?" is a question I ask myself. "Me," or "Muggles?" From me, up the difficulty for a nano in the woods. From muggles? Give a hint or description.

 

So, I'm all for nanos and mircos where a small/regular/large can go, as long as I know what I'm getting into. Some days I'm all for the challenge of a 3/1.5 micro in the woods. But if I see a 1/1.5, I should not have to spend 30 minutes searching for it and come up empty handed. In that case, if you wanted it to be a 1/1.5, hide something bigger, put it in a more obvious spot, or provide a clear hint or description.

 

JM2C...sorry for getting slightly off topic. :shocked:

Link to comment

You know the funny thing is that this issue just came up today.

 

I went out to find a FTF. There was a big group of people there who hadn't found it yet.

 

The cache owner showed up because after an hour people were posting asking if the coords were off. They had been looking for so long after I came up and grabbed the FTF the others showed the CO where a better place was to hide it. :laughing: they had had long enough to look for quite some time I guess. (I showed up the same time as the C.O. but asked her not to show us where it was until I had a chance to look first)

Link to comment

This makes me think of a couple of caches I looked for this weekend. Micros in the woods.

 

I understand that is can be a challenge. I'm all for that. But when placing a micro in the woods, rating it a 1/1.5 without a proper hint is not good natured, in my opinion. The D/T ratings should reflect what the cache is and where it is placed. It helps to weed out the ones that you can/can't/will/won't look for for many reasons. (access, time, proper attire, preparation, etc)

 

If the description doesn't give a hint, or the hint is "tree" or "none" for a 1/2 micro in the woods, I expect to find it within a few minutes of being at GZ. (1-10min, for example). If not, the area suddenly gets torn apart and trampled to bits while searching every nook and cranny for a cache. Maybe or maybe not by me, but it happens.

 

"Who are we trying to hide these from?" is a question I ask myself. "Me," or "Muggles?" From me, up the difficulty for a nano in the woods. From muggles? Give a hint or description.

 

So, I'm all for nanos and mircos where a small/regular/large can go, as long as I know what I'm getting into. Some days I'm all for the challenge of a 3/1.5 micro in the woods. But if I see a 1/1.5, I should not have to spend 30 minutes searching for it and come up empty handed. In that case, if you wanted it to be a 1/1.5, hide something bigger, put it in a more obvious spot, or provide a clear hint or description.

 

JM2C...sorry for getting slightly off topic. :shocked:

Good point!

This is a question people should ask themselves too.

 

Maybe something along the lines of:

1. Why would I bring someone here?

2. Can I get permissions?

3. What is the best spot in this location to hide a cache?

4. What is the best container for that spot?

5. Who am I hiding it from?

6. What will this area look like in 6 months?

7. Can the cache last at least 3 months without being detected by muggles?

8. When it IS detected by muggles, do they have good reason to suspect it's a bomb?

 

After answering these questions, go get permissions, make your cache to suit the spot (instead of using a cache you already have out of convenience) and make a good cache page.

Come back and ask your self all these question again and add 2 more:

9. Can I easily do a little better?

10. Is this ready to be published?

 

I think thats a pretty conservative guide to placing a decent cache. Nothing too crazy.

Edited by d+n.s
Link to comment

 

Good point!

This is a question people should ask themselves too.

 

Maybe something along the lines of:

1. Why would I bring someone here?

2. Can I get permissions?

3. What is the best spot in this location to hide a cache?

4. What is the best container for that spot?

5. Who am I hiding it from?

6. What will this area look like in 6 months?

7. Can the cache last at least 3 months without being detected by muggles?

8. When it IS detected by muggles, do they have good reason to suspect it's a bomb or trash?

 

 

After answering these questions, go get permissions, make your cache to suit the spot (instead of using a cache you already have out of convenience) and make a good cache page.

Come back and ask your self all these question again and add 2 more:

 

9. Have I accurately rated the difficulty of this cache for a "novice" cacher, while in the worst seasonal situation it will be hunted?

10. Have I accurately rated the terrain for the worst-case scenario seasonally, or otherwise?

11. Have I chosen applicable attributes to guide seekers in planning for their hunt?

 

12. Can I easily do a little better?

13. Is this ready to be published?

 

I think thats a pretty conservative guide to placing a decent cache. Nothing too crazy.

This is an interesting thought. This set of questions can certainly help with placement and cache type. I do often wonder "Who is this cache being hidden FROM?" when I place or even seek caches. But to ask yourself (and myself) these important questions--some more or less so than others--would be a good idea.

 

Edit to add a few questions to the list

Edited by NeverSummer
Link to comment

 

10. Have I accurately rated the terrain for the worst-case scenario seasonally, or otherwise?

 

 

I don't really agree with this. It depends on how long the worst case scenario lasts. The cache should be rated for what the terrain will be the majority of the time. If the good weather is longer than the bad weather, then the terrain should be rated easier. It's not like rock climbing. :P

Link to comment

This subject reminds me of an area near me that is peppered by a person whom I will refer to only as the "pill bottle pimp". This person clearly loves guardrails and lampposts, and like a prostitute in a metro area...they're on every corner. LOL

 

There are many instances where this person has placed a bottle where there was clearly more to see and explore in the surrounding area. However, since it was placed in a guardrail along a busy street..a person would more than likely only leave the car to grab the bottle, sign the log and drive the next 1\10th of a mile to get the next one. In my book it's boring but I understand that there are people who get a rush out of things like that...and that's ok.

 

After doing a cache run of the same ole..same ole..I'm frantically cooking up a few caches to claim the little bit of area that hasn't died a micro death yet. That's the only way to deal with the situation..plant more of your own decent caches for the benefit of others...and place the ones you don't like on ignore.

Link to comment

 

10. Have I accurately rated the terrain for the worst-case scenario seasonally, or otherwise?

 

 

I don't really agree with this. It depends on how long the worst case scenario lasts. The cache should be rated for what the terrain will be the majority of the time. If the good weather is longer than the bad weather, then the terrain should be rated easier. It's not like rock climbing. :P

We can pick nits, but it does say "or otherwise" in the quote. The D/T of cache listings can be changed at will, and it may be good practice to maintain your cache listing with the most accurate and up-to-date ratings to aid in preparing for a cache hunt.

 

For instance, in the winter someone places a micro in the woods. No leaves, black on white with the snow on the ground...and so the D/T is "obviously" a 1.5/2. But then spring comes. Leaves on trees, tall undergrowth, and so on. The cache is now easily a 2/3.

 

Additionally, a cache listing can contain details about the cache. To place said micro in the woods, and only leave a seeker with an inaccurate D/T rating, can be frustrating. A listing can outline that in the winter it would be more of a 1.5/2, but in the summer as the tree cover increases, etc it becomes a 2/3.

 

What's not to agree with?

Link to comment

 

1. Why would I bring someone here?

2. Can I get permissions?

3. What is the best spot in this location to hide a cache?

4. What is the best container for that spot?

5. Who am I hiding it from?

6. What will this area look like in 6 months?

7. Can the cache last at least 3 months without being detected by muggles?

8. When it IS detected by muggles, do they have good reason to suspect it's a bomb?

 

After answering these questions, go get permissions, make your cache to suit the spot (instead of using a cache you already have out of convenience) and make a good cache page.

Come back and ask your self all these question again and add 2 more:

9. Can I easily do a little better?

10. Is this ready to be published?

 

I think thats a pretty conservative guide to placing a decent cache. Nothing too crazy.

 

Words well worth repeating! Thank you!!

Link to comment

 

10. Have I accurately rated the terrain for the worst-case scenario seasonally, or otherwise?

 

 

I don't really agree with this. It depends on how long the worst case scenario lasts. The cache should be rated for what the terrain will be the majority of the time. If the good weather is longer than the bad weather, then the terrain should be rated easier. It's not like rock climbing. :P

We can pick nits, but it does say "or otherwise" in the quote. The D/T of cache listings can be changed at will, and it may be good practice to maintain your cache listing with the most accurate and up-to-date ratings to aid in preparing for a cache hunt.

 

For instance, in the winter someone places a micro in the woods. No leaves, black on white with the snow on the ground...and so the D/T is "obviously" a 1.5/2. But then spring comes. Leaves on trees, tall undergrowth, and so on. The cache is now easily a 2/3.

 

Additionally, a cache listing can contain details about the cache. To place said micro in the woods, and only leave a seeker with an inaccurate D/T rating, can be frustrating. A listing can outline that in the winter it would be more of a 1.5/2, but in the summer as the tree cover increases, etc it becomes a 2/3.

 

What's not to agree with?

 

It's not how I do it. :lol:;)

Edited by Ambrosia
Link to comment

 

It's not how I do it. :lol:;)

LOL Oh...I see... :anibad:

 

I'd hope as a seeker that you might include that tidbit in your description that the cache might be more difficult during ___ time of year, etc. :anicute:

Yeah. Most of my caches are normal, the worst thing could be difficulty because of snow in the winter (which applies to all caches in our area). But I used to have a cache spot that sometimes partially flooded because it was on the banks of the Columbia and the dams can raise and lower the water level without warning. I said this in my description, and used the "May require wading" attribute. People seemed to take it well when they came upon the flooded cache site every so often.

Link to comment

 

It's not how I do it. :lol:;)

LOL Oh...I see... :anibad:

 

I'd hope as a seeker that you might include that tidbit in your description that the cache might be more difficult during ___ time of year, etc. :anicute:

Yeah. Most of my caches are normal, the worst thing could be difficulty because of snow in the winter (which applies to all caches in our area). But I used to have a cache spot that sometimes partially flooded because it was on the banks of the Columbia and the dams can raise and lower the water level without warning. I said this in my description, and used the "May require wading" attribute. People seemed to take it well when they came upon the flooded cache site every so often.

And there, folks, is a wonderful idea. :laughing::D

Link to comment

 

It's not how I do it. :lol:;)

LOL Oh...I see... :anibad:

 

I'd hope as a seeker that you might include that tidbit in your description that the cache might be more difficult during ___ time of year, etc. :anicute:

Yeah. Most of my caches are normal, the worst thing could be difficulty because of snow in the winter (which applies to all caches in our area). But I used to have a cache spot that sometimes partially flooded because it was on the banks of the Columbia and the dams can raise and lower the water level without warning. I said this in my description, and used the "May require wading" attribute. People seemed to take it well when they came upon the flooded cache site every so often.

And there, folks, is a wonderful idea. :laughing::D

 

:D

 

*sigh* I still miss that cache.

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...