The evolution of geocaching

[+emmett]

.

 

There is no disputing the fact that quality has deteriorated and the fault lies both with GC.com which has demonstrated it does not care, and a large portion of the geocaching community who do not treat a well designed and/or well stocked cache with respect.

I dispute this. Saying that something cannot be disputed does not make it so.

 

For example, the relatively recent implementation of a "Favorite Caches" feature is designed in part to recognize quality caches. It also makes it much easier for those interested in seeking quality caches to do so. I believe that Groundspeak as a company and a listing service is very interested in encouraging quality cache placements.

 

I think the evidence is pretty clear but I guess it can be disputed. Would be interesting to see how many archived caches have favorites ratings even though they are gone. I do agree the favorites function is a great add to the site. Apart from that I can't see what Groundspeak does that promotes quality but I have certainly seen the opposite.

 

Arguably the best cache in this area was shut down by Groundspeak last year. I could not begin to estimate the amount of hours and hard work the owner put into it. The manner in which it was handled was both disrespectful and disgraceful. A paying customer who was also a quality cache owner was basically given the middle finger for his efforts. Everyone I know personally who is aware of the details feels the same way about it. Easier for Groundspeak to shut it down than to have a conversation with one of its best members, first to understand the situation, then to come to a reasonable resolutiom. By the way, before it was archived it was hailed by almost every finder as one of the best they had ever logged.

 

.

[+sbell111]

... I guess in this community, when someone takes the time to publish 75 caches with more than 200 stages and maintain them diligently over a period of several years but then decides it's time to move on, the appropriate response is, "Good riddance." Then when others do the same, you say, "Who cares?" Maybe you should read the find logs of the caches that are now gone before passing judgment. ...

You know, prior to posting in this thread, I glanced at your profile. I noted that you had hidden many multis and unknowns and that they were all archived. I glanced at the cache pages of the last and first on the list. My read of the last cache's page told me that you had archived many of your caches all at once. You left them in place even though they are not listed anywhere and invited people to find and log them if they are still there. You further stated that you will not be further maintaining them until such time as you relist them somewhere else. Many would not call this a good maintenance practice. They would say that you are just leaving unmaintained geojunk in the woods on the off chance that you might possibly get around to listing them somewhere else. <edited to add that this geojunk has now apparently been unmaintained for two years since the OP's last geocide in April 2009.>

 

My glance at the first cache on the list found that it was archived by a reviewer after being disabled for six months during which time you failed to be responsive to your reviewer inquiries about the issue.

 

Given your history, perhaps you shouldnt wrap yourself in the ultimate cache owner/maintainer flag.

Edited May 11, 2011 by sbell111

[+sbell111]

.

 

There is no disputing the fact that quality has deteriorated and the fault lies both with GC.com which has demonstrated it does not care, and a large portion of the geocaching community who do not treat a well designed and/or well stocked cache with respect.

I dispute this. Saying that something cannot be disputed does not make it so.

 

For example, the relatively recent implementation of a "Favorite Caches" feature is designed in part to recognize quality caches. It also makes it much easier for those interested in seeking quality caches to do so. I believe that Groundspeak as a company and a listing service is very interested in encouraging quality cache placements.

 

I think the evidence is pretty clear but I guess it can be disputed. Would be interesting to see how many archived caches have favorites ratings even though they are gone. I do agree the favorites function is a great add to the site. Apart from that I can't see what Groundspeak does that promotes quality but I have certainly seen the opposite.

 

Arguably the best cache in this area was shut down by Groundspeak last year. I could not begin to estimate the amount of hours and hard work the owner put into it. The manner in which it was handled was both disrespectful and disgraceful. A paying customer who was also a quality cache owner was basically given the middle finger for his efforts. Everyone I know personally who is aware of the details feels the same way about it. Easier for Groundspeak to shut it down than to have a conversation with one of its best members, first to understand the situation, then to come to a reasonable resolutiom. By the way, before it was archived it was hailed by almost every finder as one of the best they had ever logged.

 

.

There is no doubt that there is far more (or less) to that issue than you stated. If you are going to give an example of why your position is correct, you need to do a better job of fleshing out the example or identify the cache in question. Otherwise, it's just blah-blah. If for no other reason than because when you give little other info beyond 'he was a paying customer' and 'one of their best customers' and had his cache archived, everyone who reads the post is just going to give it an eyeroll, at best.

[+emmett]

.

 

... I guess in this community, when someone takes the time to publish 75 caches with more than 200 stages and maintain them diligently over a period of several years but then decides it's time to move on, the appropriate response is, "Good riddance." Then when others do the same, you say, "Who cares?" Maybe you should read the find logs of the caches that are now gone before passing judgment. ...

You know, prior to posting in this thread, I glanced at your profile. I noted that you had hidden many multis and unknowns and that they were all archived. I glanced at the cache pages of the last and first on the list. My read of the last cache's page told me that you had archived many of your caches all at once. You left them in place even though they are not listed anywhere and invited people to find and log them ‘if they are still there’. You further stated that you will not be further maintaining them until such time as you relist them somewhere else. Many would not call this a good maintenance practice. They would say that you are just leaving unmaintained geojunk in the woods on the off chance that you might possibly get around to listing them somewhere else.

 

My glance at the first cache on the list found that it was archived by a reviewer after being disabled for six months during which time you failed to be responsive to your reviewer inquiries about the issue.

 

Given your history, perhaps you shouldn’t wrap yourself in the ultimate cache owner/maintainer flag.

 

Half true is not accurate. Once again, no interest in the discussion just shoot the messenger.

 

I was aware at the time I archived my caches that many people were in the midst of completing one or more of my series and I was asked by many to keep them alive. Seemed the considerate thing to do was to allow cachers a chance to finish what they started. You disagree?

 

However, it made no sense to me to wait until those cachers were done before archiving my collection, and see others begin along the way. So I either archived caches or disabled them (depending on the situation) and invited those interested to finish if they wanted to but to seach at their own risk since I was done with maintenance. You disagree?

 

Actually, because of the complexity and effort required to find some, I did privately, in some cases, check on caches for the benefit of those who were completing a series, even though they were disabled. You disagree?

 

Eventually, those in progress with one or more of my series were done, and so was I. As for why I allowed time to lapse for some caches that were disabled, withoit taking time to archive them later, I had already posted a note that I was shutting them all down and was done with maintenance. The reviewer was well aware of the situation.

 

.

[Mr.Yuck]

It's taken us almost 2 years to figure it out, but we finally come up with a set of personal "rules" that allow us to have fun every time we go out:

 

1. Not every cache has to be found.

 

2. Look for caches that interest you... at that moment. Ignore the rest.

 

3. Hide caches that you like to find.

 

4. Everyone plays by their own rules, fair or unfair, and can change them on the fly. Deal with it.

 

5. Not every cache has to be found.

 

I'm somehow remided of the 5 D's of Dodgeball; Dodge, Duck, Dip, Dive and Dodge.

[+DadOf6Furrballs]

I'm somehow remided of the 5 D's of Dodgeball; Dodge, Duck, Dip, Dive and Dodge.

 

I was a master at Dodgeball...

[+emmett]

.

 

... I guess in this community, when someone takes the time to publish 75 caches with more than 200 stages and maintain them diligently over a period of several years but then decides it's time to move on, the appropriate response is, "Good riddance." Then when others do the same, you say, "Who cares?" Maybe you should read the find logs of the caches that are now gone before passing judgment. ...

You know, prior to posting in this thread, I glanced at your profile. I noted that you had hidden many multis and unknowns and that they were all archived. I glanced at the cache pages of the last and first on the list. My read of the last cache's page told me that you had archived many of your caches all at once. You left them in place even though they are not listed anywhere and invited people to find and log them ‘if they are still there’. You further stated that you will not be further maintaining them until such time as you relist them somewhere else. Many would not call this a good maintenance practice. They would say that you are just leaving unmaintained geojunk in the woods on the off chance that you might possibly get around to listing them somewhere else. <edited to add that this geojunk has now apparently been unmaintained for two years since the OP's last geocide in April 2009.>

 

My glance at the first cache on the list found that it was archived by a reviewer after being disabled for six months during which time you failed to be responsive to your reviewer inquiries about the issue.

 

Given your history, perhaps you shouldn’t wrap yourself in the ultimate cache owner/maintainer flag.

 

You have been active for ten years, and have nearly 1,700 finds and you have ONE active physical cache. One? One!

 

And still, YOU throw stones.

 

How about you just stick to the discussion.

[knowschad]

There has been a park and grab attribute for a while now.

 

"For a while"? You still think there is a difference between being 13 years old and being 15 years old. "For a while" to you could be as little as six weeks.

There you go again. He's young so his opinion isn't worth much, right?

 

I have the right to have a laugh with my friends without you sticking your nose in, thank you. Go back to tossing your happiness around.

[+Kameharem]

I don't understand the point of the OP. Is there something that geo.com could do to change the evolution of geocaching? If so, what exactly is it? I don't see how making complicated caches easier to publish or not publishing easy caches is going to solve the changing landscape of the average cacher. Geocachers have different reasons for playing the game and they don't all match that of the OP.

 

For instance I think of my one and only hide; it's a puzzle with the cache located in a nice park with miles of trails that has been out for 2 months and has 3 find logs. Of the 3 two were father and son, and the third solved the puzzle with the father but was unable to make the find on the same day so did so a month latter. In contrast I look at a LP posted not long ago in a parking lot with 2 other micros in the same parking lot and find within an hour of posting there 10+ finds and they are all meeting at the cache for chat while watching the others arrive. So it appears there are a lot more cachers interested in the social aspect of caching rather than the challenging aspect and nothing in the OP would change that.

[+Gan Dalf]

This is a slight tangent but this post illustrates a point that I have tried to make for quite a while. When you first start caching, you look for caches that are closest to the places that you drive by everyday. Excpet for the very earliest cachers, no one buys a GPS and then drives 100 miles to get a cache the day that bought it, you find the things that are close to where you live. Typically, those are in Urban areas of strip malls, gaurd rails, rck walls and park benches.

 

So after you find the two or three dozen that are within a couple of miles from your house and/or work you think you have a pretty good idea how these things are supposed to be hidden, which of course is in lamp posts, gaurd rails and rock walls. So the newbie cacher goes out and hides the type of caches that they have "enjoyed" finding. Consequently what happens? They hide more LPC's, gaurdrails and rock wall nides hear where they live or work, and the problem of crappy cache proiliferation continues.

 

It isn't until you've really found an awesome hide that you "discover" how incredible some hides can be but becasue there have been such an exploding number of new entries (starting about the time that I took up the sport) into the sport in the last few years, you are going to continue to see a higher percentage of not very well thought out hides as new cachers continue to place the types of caches they have found...

If they are hiding caches like those that they enjoyed finding, then how can it be called 'crappy cache proliferation'? They are hiding caches that pretty certainly will be enjoyed by others.

 

Because much like a two year old that thinks macaroni and cheese and hotdogs is the greatest meal in the world they don't realize that there are far better ways to nourish themselves then eating starch covered with powdered cheese and ground up pig guts.

 

I think this log sums up my thoughts on this. I'm not saying they didn't enjoy looking for the caches they found or hiding ones that were similar, I'm saying they don't realize that there are much better ways to hide a cache in a way that will be an even better experience for old as well as new cachers.

 

BTW, I still like to eat macaroni and cheese and hot dogs once in a while, especially when I need a quick meal to keep me going and there is nothing else in the house to eat. I just prefer a broader choice and more variety most of the time...

Edited May 11, 2011 by FobesMan

[Mr.Yuck]

I'm somehow remided of the 5 D's of Dodgeball; Dodge, Duck, Dip, Dive and Dodge.

 

I was a master at Dodgeball...

 

Ironically enough, I recently dropped that Dodgeball advice on my daughter, who is in a charity tournament this weekend. She's like "the first one and the last one are the same".

 

I agree with your #1 and #5 by the way. I ignore almost 500 caches in my 50 mile notification range. Surprised I'm saying that, seeing as I was once accused of bragging how many caches I ignore.

[+tozainamboku]

It's taken us almost 2 years to figure it out, but we finally come up with a set of personal "rules" that allow us to have fun every time we go out:

 

1. Not every cache has to be found.

 

2. Look for caches that interest you... at that moment. Ignore the rest.

 

3. Hide caches that you like to find.

 

4. Everyone plays by their own rules, fair or unfair, and can change them on the fly. Deal with it.

 

5. Not every cache has to be found.

Excellent set of "rules". Much better than the ones some people make up.

 

That said, I feel like giving a little sympathy to the OP.

 

Back in the day when there were fewer geocachers it seems as if a higher percentage of hiders were willing to push the limits and create creative, elaborate, geocaching adventures. These often were elaborate multi-part puzzles that took days or weeks to complete. (And for all that work you got one smiley). There were many geocachers who looked forward to these adventures and would start working on them the moment they came out. First To Find really meant something when you spent every free minute for a period of one or two weeks finding the each stage and working the puzzles till you got to the final cache. Groups were often formed just for the purpose of tackling these caches.

 

When I started there was a well known master of such hides here in southern California. He eventually geocided and archived all of his caches too. (Later he hid one or two more, and at least one is still active).

 

The growth of geoaching has attracted a different sort of person that we had among the early adopters (as I mentioned in a previous post). The proportion of cachers who want to spend time on these complicated adventures is much smaller and similarly the proportion of hiders who will take the time to set these up has fallen. Simple traditional finds, which always dominated (at least in the US), dominate even more. Finding puzzles or multis that are designed to require multi days to complete is getting harder.

 

But that isn't all. There have been guidelines changes. These adventures often pushed limits in the past. Some required downloading software or contacting the cache owner to complete the adventure. A few may have involved elaborate construction or markings at a cache stage that appear to run afoul of the burying rules or the defacing of property. When these issues got reported, months of effort setting up an adventure would go for naught. Certainly some of the hiders of these caches see guidelines as limiting their creativity, leading to attitudes like that of the OP that guidelines favor simple caches at the expense of creative ones. The guidelines of course have a certain rationale behind them. Truly creative hiders should be able to create unique and elaborate caches without violating the placement guidelines. The changes do mean that some caches allowed in the past could not be replicated today. However, if you need to make special arrangements for a novel idea, you can contact Groundspeak before placing and reporting the geocache on Geocaching.com.

 

My guess is that while few cachers today will take the time to do an elaborate cache, those that do are likely to award these caches with favorites points. These caches may be more likely to end up in the Geocaching blog as a geocache of the week. I would think there is still a place in geocaching for these adventures and geocachers are creative bunch who will likely find ways to continue to hide these (and stay within the current guidelines).

[+sbell111]

.

 

... I guess in this community, when someone takes the time to publish 75 caches with more than 200 stages and maintain them diligently over a period of several years but then decides it's time to move on, the appropriate response is, "Good riddance." Then when others do the same, you say, "Who cares?" Maybe you should read the find logs of the caches that are now gone before passing judgment. ...

You know, prior to posting in this thread, I glanced at your profile. I noted that you had hidden many multis and unknowns and that they were all archived. I glanced at the cache pages of the last and first on the list. My read of the last cache's page told me that you had archived many of your caches all at once. You left them in place even though they are not listed anywhere and invited people to find and log them ‘if they are still there’. You further stated that you will not be further maintaining them until such time as you relist them somewhere else. Many would not call this a good maintenance practice. They would say that you are just leaving unmaintained geojunk in the woods on the off chance that you might possibly get around to listing them somewhere else. <edited to add that this geojunk has now apparently been unmaintained for two years since the OP's last geocide in April 2009.>

 

My glance at the first cache on the list found that it was archived by a reviewer after being disabled for six months during which time you failed to be responsive to your reviewer inquiries about the issue.

 

Given your history, perhaps you shouldn’t wrap yourself in the ultimate cache owner/maintainer flag.

 

You have been active for ten years, and have nearly 1,700 finds and you have ONE active physical cache. One? One!

 

And still, YOU throw stones.

 

How about you just stick to the discussion.

Thanks for making that comparison. You see, after my accident, I felt that I could no longer give my caches the maintenance that they deserved, so I archived 28 of them, leaving my two multis, my virt, and my LC active. I then went out and retrieved all of the archived caches.

 

I archived these caches and retrieved them in order to be a good cache owner. I didn't archive my caches in a fit of angst nor did I leave them in place to rot.

[+sbell111]

This is a slight tangent but this post illustrates a point that I have tried to make for quite a while. When you first start caching, you look for caches that are closest to the places that you drive by everyday. Excpet for the very earliest cachers, no one buys a GPS and then drives 100 miles to get a cache the day that bought it, you find the things that are close to where you live. Typically, those are in Urban areas of strip malls, gaurd rails, rck walls and park benches.

 

So after you find the two or three dozen that are within a couple of miles from your house and/or work you think you have a pretty good idea how these things are supposed to be hidden, which of course is in lamp posts, gaurd rails and rock walls. So the newbie cacher goes out and hides the type of caches that they have "enjoyed" finding. Consequently what happens? They hide more LPC's, gaurdrails and rock wall nides hear where they live or work, and the problem of crappy cache proiliferation continues.

 

It isn't until you've really found an awesome hide that you "discover" how incredible some hides can be but becasue there have been such an exploding number of new entries (starting about the time that I took up the sport) into the sport in the last few years, you are going to continue to see a higher percentage of not very well thought out hides as new cachers continue to place the types of caches they have found...

If they are hiding caches like those that they enjoyed finding, then how can it be called 'crappy cache proliferation'? They are hiding caches that pretty certainly will be enjoyed by others.

 

Because much like a two year old that thinks macaroni and cheese and hotdogs is the greatest meal in the world they don't realize that there are far better ways to nourish themselves then eating starch covered with powdered cheese and ground up pig guts.

 

I think this log sums up my thoughts on this. I'm not saying they didn't enjoy looking for the caches they found or hiding ones that were similar, I'm saying they don't realize that there are much better ways to hide a cache in a way that will be an even better experience for old as well as new cachers.

 

BTW, I still like to eat macaroni and cheese and hot dogs once in a while, especially when I need a quick meal to keep me going and there is nothing else in the house to eat. I just prefer a broader choice and more variety most of the time...

Just like hot dogs and mac & cheese hits the spot on occasion (lots of occasions, Nom Nom), so do these LPCs and guard rail caches. Many people like them even knowing that there are other caches out there that they could be looking for.

 

Personally, one of my favorite caching experiences was running an errand at lunch and noting that there wwas an LPC in the parking lot. Just a simple film can in a lamp pole base in your run of the mill strip mall made me smile for just a minute before jumping back into my hectic life.

[jholly]

I would like to thank the OP for a very entertaining read today. Is it legal to geocide twice? But that aside, while lamenting the past days of glory and how wonderful all these caches of yesterday were, I have to reflect on the first cache hidden. A 5 gallon bucket buried in the ground not 10 feet from the road. I guess this would be considered an un-inspired cruddy hide by today's high standards, but yet, there is a plaque commemorating this long archived cache.

[+DadOf6Furrballs]

I would like to thank the OP for a very entertaining read today. Is it legal to geocide twice? But that aside, while lamenting the past days of glory and how wonderful all these caches of yesterday were, I have to reflect on the first cache hidden. A 5 gallon bucket buried in the ground not 10 feet from the road. I guess this would be considered an un-inspired cruddy hide by today's high standards, but yet, there is a plaque commemorating this long archived cache.

 

Not only that, but the cache had FOOD in it! *gasp*. And the next guy traded with some cigs!! *another gasp*

 

Oh the humanity!!

[+A & J Tooling]

Don't like the way we play so you're taking your toys and going home? Either adapt/adjust or get out of the way. Change is the only constant in life.

[+Markwell]

I have an offline database of the Chicago area that shows the archived caches as well as the current (I keep it to answer these questions).

 

Here's the raw data for Chicago:

At the end of 2001, there were 0008 caches - 000 of which were multi-caches. The percentage was 00.0%

At the end of 2002, there were 0073 caches - 005 of which were multi-caches. The percentage was 06.8%

At the end of 2003, there were 0311 caches - 039 of which were multi-caches. The percentage was 12.5%

At the end of 2004, there were 0822 caches - 113 of which were multi-caches. The percentage was 13.7%

At the end of 2005, there were 1391 caches - 187 of which were multi-caches. The percentage was 13.4%

At the end of 2006, there were 1974 caches - 257 of which were multi-caches. The percentage was 13.0%

At the end of 2007, there were 2556 caches - 255 of which were multi-caches. The percentage was 10.0%

At the end of 2008, there were 3293 caches - 306 of which were multi-caches. The percentage was 09.3%

At the end of 2009, there were 4821 caches - 350 of which were multi-caches. The percentage was 07.3%

At the end of 2010, there were 6486 caches - 392 of which were multi-caches. The percentage was 06.0%

At the end of 2011, there were 9073 caches - 434 of which were multi-caches. The percentage was 04.8%

 

Multi-caches as a type peaked in ratio in 2004, and then have steadily declined ever since - but only as a ratio to the other types. But in looking at the red column above...

 

From 2002 to 2003 there was a 680% increase in the number of multis

From 2003 to 2004 there was a 190% increase in the number of multis

From 2004 to 2005 there was a 65% increase in the number of multis

From 2005 to 2006 there was a 37% increase in the number of multis

From 2006 to 2007 there was a 1% decrease in the number of multis

From 2007 to 2008 there was a 20% increase in the number of multis

From 2008 to 2009 there was a 14% increase in the number of multis

From 2009 to 2010 there was a 12% increase in the number of multis

From 2010 to 2011 there was a 11% increase in the number of multis

 

Only in the change from the end of 2006 to the end of 2007 was there an actual decrease in the number of multi-caches.

 

Your data does not support your conclusion (if Chicago is representative of other areas).

Edited May 11, 2011 by Markwell

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

There has been a park and grab attribute for a while now.

 

"For a while"? You still think there is a difference between being 13 years old and being 15 years old. "For a while" to you could be as little as six weeks.

There you go again. He's young so his opinion isn't worth much, right?

His opinion is valued, I wish we had more young people in the game. I invite everyone to share their opinion as it informs and helps shape mine.

 

But when a young teen waxes nostalgic about the way things used to be a year ago when he got started (Joined: 05-March 10) you have to understand that some folks will see that as funny.

Edited May 11, 2011 by TheAlabamaRambler

[+Ike 13]

My opinion: I don't know what else Groundspeak can do to encourage 'quality caches'. They set up the guidelines and any cache that meets those guidelines is published. Recently they have added favorite points and the cache of the week on the blog and this has promoted quality.

 

Also I want to point out that you're logic is flawed. Even if I did agree that GS was not promoting quality that does NOT mean that they are promoting park and grabs.

 

I'm going to ignore all the other stuff in the thread about your personal situation and ask one simple question: How do you propose GS promote quality caches better?

 

Oh and remember GS has over 1 million active users and not all of them like the same flavor of ice cream.

[+sbell111]

There has been a park and grab attribute for a while now.

 

"For a while"? You still think there is a difference between being 13 years old and being 15 years old. "For a while" to you could be as little as six weeks.

There you go again. He's young so his opinion isn't worth much, right?

His opinion is valued, I wish we had more young people in the game. I invite everyone to share their opinion as it informs and helps shape mine.

 

But when a young teen waxes nostalgic about the way things used to be a year ago when he got started (Joined: 05-March 10) you have to understand that some folks will see that as funny.

Noting that the very thing that the OP is requesting already exists isn't 'waxing nostalgic', it's 'being on-topic'.

[Clan Riffster]

How do you propose GS promote quality caches better?

With the caveat that any answer from me is going to be highly biased toward my personal caching aesthetic:

If Groundspeak would require explicit permission for caches on private property, I believe the end result would be an increase in quality caches. Naturally, the other side of that coin is, this would significantly decrease the number of parking lot hides, which would have a serious negative impact on the caching of those folks who enjoy that aspect of the game. Would it work? Who knows. But I'd like to see them give it a shot.

[+AlohaBra and MaksMom]

I remember being a young cop and having the old guys look at me (us) and say how much the job had changed over the years and as I got older it continued to change. What we have here is evolution. Every activity that I have participated in over the decades changes over time. It is just the way it is. There will always be those that are ready to curmudgeonly comment about how the change is for the worst. You have choices one of them being after looking at a pq for an area don't go there or don't cache when you get there.

 

Think about this. If the current caching community didn't like these kind of caches they wouldn't go find them and they would be phased out by themselves. The fact that they continue to exist shows they are welcome.

 

Things change and people have to change with it or find something else to do that will not cause them angst when they find that it has moved on.

 

Like..[as per FB]..

[+niraD]

How do you propose GS promote quality caches better?

With the caveat that any answer from me is going to be highly biased toward my personal caching aesthetic:

If Groundspeak would require explicit permission for caches on private property, I believe the end result would be an increase in quality caches. Naturally, the other side of that coin is, this would significantly decrease the number of parking lot hides, which would have a serious negative impact on the caching of those folks who enjoy that aspect of the game. Would it work? Who knows. But I'd like to see them give it a shot.

I can't see how this would yield an increase in "quality" caches. I can see how it would discourage particular kinds of caches that some consider "low quality", but that isn't the same thing as promoting "quality" caches.

[cezanne]

 

From my experience, multis have never been a large percentage of total caches. Certainly, they have never been as high as a third of total caches as you state.

 

That depends on the area. Vienna has still 24.7% multi caches and had almost 50% years ago. Austria on the whole has about 20% and had more than 1/3 some years ago.

Like emmett I am very unhappy with the fact that multi caches and in particular longer ones get less and less frequent. In my area I observe that very often instead of placing one nice multi caches 15 short traditionals are hidden and that this is appreciated by the majority since they get 15 found logs instead of one. (5 years ago such series would not have been published.)

Like emmett I observe that many of the cache hiders from the old times retired due to frustration.

 

Cezanne

Edited May 13, 2011 by cezanne

[cezanne]

I don't understand the point of the OP. Is there something that geo.com could do to change the evolution of geocaching? If so, what exactly is it?

 

Just one example:

By allowing powertrails they contributed a lot to the evolution. For example, a few years ago the Swiss reviewers did not even accept a series of say 6 traditionals hidden by the same cacher and published at the same time if the caches were at a distance of 500 m to the next one. They asked for 1 km minimum, and suggested to come up with one or two multicaches.

 

Cezanne

[+sbell111]

 

From my experience, multis have never been a large percentage of total caches. Certainly, they have never been as high as a third of total caches as you state.

 

That depends on the area. Vienna has still 24.7% multi caches and had almost 50% years ago. Austria on the whole has about 20% and had more than 1/3 some years ago.

Like emmett I am very unhappy with the fact that multi caches and in particular longer ones get less and less frequent. In my area I observe that very often instead of placing one nice multi caches 15 short traditionals are hidden and that this is appreciated by the majority since they get 15 found logs instead of one. (5 years ago such series would not have been published.)

Like emmett I observe that many of the cache hiders from the old times retired due to frustration.

 

Cezanne

The bolded bit is but your opinion. Another is that by hiding 15 traditional caches instead of one 15-stage multi, more people are able and willing to look for it. Personally, I have no time in my life for a 15-stage multi. I do, however, occasionally have time to look for a traditional or two..

[+bflentje]

If Groundspeak would require explicit permission for caches on private property, I believe the end result would be an increase in quality caches.

 

Sorry, I have no faith. I do not believe this one bit.

[+StarBrand]

 

From my experience, multis have never been a large percentage of total caches. Certainly, they have never been as high as a third of total caches as you state.

 

That depends on the area. Vienna has still 24.7% multi caches and had almost 50% years ago. Austria on the whole has about 20% and had more than 1/3 some years ago.

Like emmett I am very unhappy with the fact that multi caches and in particular longer ones get less and less frequent. In my area I observe that very often instead of placing one nice multi caches 15 short traditionals are hidden and that this is appreciated by the majority since they get 15 found logs instead of one. (5 years ago such series would not have been published.)

Like emmett I observe that many of the cache hiders from the old times retired due to frustration.

 

Cezanne

The bolded bit is but your opinion. Another is that by hiding 15 traditional caches instead of one 15-stage multi, more people are able and willing to look for it. Personally, I have no time in my life for a 15-stage multi. I do, however, occasionally have time to look for a traditional or two..

Funny - your stats indicate that you have had time in your life to find more than 15 traditional caches. If you really don't care about the smilies and that bolded bit is just opinion --- how is it that you have no time to locate all 15 stages of a multi??? Its just a string of 15 traditionals, one leading to the next..........

[cezanne]

 

From my experience, multis have never been a large percentage of total caches. Certainly, they have never been as high as a third of total caches as you state.

 

That depends on the area. Vienna has still 24.7% multi caches and had almost 50% years ago. Austria on the whole has about 20% and had more than 1/3 some years ago.

Like emmett I am very unhappy with the fact that multi caches and in particular longer ones get less and less frequent. In my area I observe that very often instead of placing one nice multi caches 15 short traditionals are hidden and that this is appreciated by the majority since they get 15 found logs instead of one. (5 years ago such series would not have been published.)

Like emmett I observe that many of the cache hiders from the old times retired due to frustration.

 

Cezanne

The bolded bit is but your opinion. Another is that by hiding 15 traditional caches instead of one 15-stage multi, more people are able and willing to look for it. Personally, I have no time in my life for a 15-stage multi. I do, however, occasionally have time to look for a traditional or two..

 

What I wrote is what I observe and what people around here tell me, and not my opinion. My subjectice point of view plays a role insofar that I am admit to prefer multi caches that keep me busy at least two hours. E.g. I did a very long hiking multi cache (I walked over 140km overall) and had tp split it up in eight legs and over more than four months. I know lots of cachers who will not go for this cache, but instantly would go for it if they would get 20 found it logs instead of 1.

 

As your situation is regarded:

If you do not have time for a 15 stage multi cache who certainly do not belong to those who decide to go on a hike of say length 8 km if each of the 15 stages is a separate cache and do not go for it if it is one single cache. The series I am talking about are not done in the way that people visit 2-3 of the caches, but all at once. These series certainly get more traffic, but not because they are visited in pieces, but because they attract people to come to the area from far apart. Moreover, there is of course no need to have 15 stages on a 8km hike - 3 or 4 at most suffice.

 

 

Cezanne

Edited May 13, 2011 by cezanne

[+sbell111]

 

From my experience, multis have never been a large percentage of total caches. Certainly, they have never been as high as a third of total caches as you state.

 

That depends on the area. Vienna has still 24.7% multi caches and had almost 50% years ago. Austria on the whole has about 20% and had more than 1/3 some years ago.

Like emmett I am very unhappy with the fact that multi caches and in particular longer ones get less and less frequent. In my area I observe that very often instead of placing one nice multi caches 15 short traditionals are hidden and that this is appreciated by the majority since they get 15 found logs instead of one. (5 years ago such series would not have been published.)

Like emmett I observe that many of the cache hiders from the old times retired due to frustration.

 

Cezanne

The bolded bit is but your opinion. Another is that by hiding 15 traditional caches instead of one 15-stage multi, more people are able and willing to look for it. Personally, I have no time in my life for a 15-stage multi. I do, however, occasionally have time to look for a traditional or two..

Funny - your stats indicate that you have had time in your life to find more than 15 traditional caches. If you really don't care about the smilies and that bolded bit is just opinion --- how is it that you have no time to locate all 15 stages of a multi??? Its just a string of 15 traditionals, one leading to the next..........

If I only have time to find a cache or two, then it will take me more than eight visits to finish a 15-stage multi. No thanks.

[knowschad]

From my experience, multis have never been a large percentage of total caches. Certainly, they have never been as high as a third of total caches as you state.

 

That depends on the area. Vienna has still 24.7% multi caches and had almost 50% years ago. Austria on the whole has about 20% and had more than 1/3 some years ago.

Like emmett I am very unhappy with the fact that multi caches and in particular longer ones get less and less frequent. In my area I observe that very often instead of placing one nice multi caches 15 short traditionals are hidden and that this is appreciated by the majority since they get 15 found logs instead of one. (5 years ago such series would not have been published.)

Like emmett I observe that many of the cache hiders from the old times retired due to frustration.

 

Cezanne

The bolded bit is but your opinion. Another is that by hiding 15 traditional caches instead of one 15-stage multi, more people are able and willing to look for it. Personally, I have no time in my life for a 15-stage multi. I do, however, occasionally have time to look for a traditional or two..

Funny - your stats indicate that you have had time in your life to find more than 15 traditional caches. If you really don't care about the smilies and that bolded bit is just opinion --- how is it that you have no time to locate all 15 stages of a multi??? Its just a string of 15 traditionals, one leading to the next..........

If I only have time to find a cache or two, then it will take me more than eight visits to finish a 15-stage multi. No thanks.

 

If, as you continually insist, you don't do this for the smilies, than the situation you just outlines would still take you eight trips to find 15 regular caches.

[+sbell111]

 

From my experience, multis have never been a large percentage of total caches. Certainly, they have never been as high as a third of total caches as you state.

 

That depends on the area. Vienna has still 24.7% multi caches and had almost 50% years ago. Austria on the whole has about 20% and had more than 1/3 some years ago.

Like emmett I am very unhappy with the fact that multi caches and in particular longer ones get less and less frequent. In my area I observe that very often instead of placing one nice multi caches 15 short traditionals are hidden and that this is appreciated by the majority since they get 15 found logs instead of one. (5 years ago such series would not have been published.)

Like emmett I observe that many of the cache hiders from the old times retired due to frustration.

 

Cezanne

The bolded bit is but your opinion. Another is that by hiding 15 traditional caches instead of one 15-stage multi, more people are able and willing to look for it. Personally, I have no time in my life for a 15-stage multi. I do, however, occasionally have time to look for a traditional or two..

 

What I wrote is what I observe and what people around here tell me, and not my opinion. My subjectice point of view plays a role insofar that I am admit to prefer multi caches that keep me busy at least two hours. E.g. I did a very long hiking multi cache (I walked over 140km overall) and had tp split it up in eight legs and over more than four months. I know lots of cachers who will not go for this cache, but instantly would go for it if they would get 20 found it logs instead of 1.

 

As your situation is regarded:

If you do not have time for a 15 stage multi cache who certainly do not belong to those who decide to go on a hike of say length 8 km if each of the 15 stages is a separate cache and do not go for it if it is one single cache. The series I am talking about are not done in the way that people visit 2-3 of the caches, but all at once. These series certainly get more traffic, but not because they are visited in pieces, but because they attract people to come to the area from far apart. Moreover, there is of course no need to have 15 stages on a 8km hike - 3 or 4 at most suffice.

A 15 stage multi that requires a 5 mile walk will certainly not bubble to the top of most cachers 'to find' list, but it's not because those cachers would necessarily prefer 15 smilies to one.

[+sbell111]

From my experience, multis have never been a large percentage of total caches. Certainly, they have never been as high as a third of total caches as you state.

 

That depends on the area. Vienna has still 24.7% multi caches and had almost 50% years ago. Austria on the whole has about 20% and had more than 1/3 some years ago.

Like emmett I am very unhappy with the fact that multi caches and in particular longer ones get less and less frequent. In my area I observe that very often instead of placing one nice multi caches 15 short traditionals are hidden and that this is appreciated by the majority since they get 15 found logs instead of one. (5 years ago such series would not have been published.)

Like emmett I observe that many of the cache hiders from the old times retired due to frustration.

 

Cezanne

The bolded bit is but your opinion. Another is that by hiding 15 traditional caches instead of one 15-stage multi, more people are able and willing to look for it. Personally, I have no time in my life for a 15-stage multi. I do, however, occasionally have time to look for a traditional or two..

Funny - your stats indicate that you have had time in your life to find more than 15 traditional caches. If you really don't care about the smilies and that bolded bit is just opinion --- how is it that you have no time to locate all 15 stages of a multi??? Its just a string of 15 traditionals, one leading to the next..........

If I only have time to find a cache or two, then it will take me more than eight visits to finish a 15-stage multi. No thanks.

 

If, as you continually insist, you don't do this for the smilies, than the situation you just outlines would still take you eight trips to find 15 regular caches.

First, I'm not sure that I have ever commented on whether I cache for the smilies, but whatever.

 

Second, it is unlikely that I would make the initial investment in finding a 15-stage multi if I knew that it might take me months to finish. This is true for several reasons not the least of which being that I have no idea if the cache will even still be listed by the time I was able to finish it. Further, instead of coming back to the same area over and over and over and over to finish that multi, I could be caching in many different areas. That seems a better plan, for me.

[cezanne]

A 15 stage multi that requires a 5 mile walk will certainly not bubble to the top of most cachers 'to find' list, but it's not because those cachers would necessarily prefer 15 smilies to one.

 

I am not talking about those who do not visit such caches at all (for whichever reason). The 21 caches of the Eckwirtrunde

series http://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.aspx?u=harrylime

got more than 100 logs which is incredibly many for that area and the fact that the hike is about 20km. Even much shorter hikes (some of them in a more scenic landscape and about the same area) got much less visitors. There are lots of cachers who travelled 200 km and more just to visit these 21 caches in a one tour. A single cache or two along the route would have led to about 10-15 visitors - there are many examples around that demonstrate this. The numbers aspect has tremendously changed geocaching in my area.

 

Cezanne

Edited May 13, 2011 by cezanne

[+sbell111]

A 15 stage multi that requires a 5 mile walk will certainly not bubble to the top of most cachers 'to find' list, but it's not because those cachers would necessarily prefer 15 smilies to one.

 

I am not talking about those who do not visit such caches at all (for whichever reason). The 21 caches of the Eckwirtrunde

series http://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.aspx?u=harrylime

got more than 100 logs which is incredibly many for that area and the fact that the hike is about 20km. Even much shorter hikes (some of them in a more scenic landscape and about the same area) got much less visitors. There are lots of cachers who travelled 200 km and more just to visit these 21 caches in a one tour. A single cache or two along the route would have led to about 10-15 visitors - there are many examples around that demonstrate this. The numbers aspect has tremendously changed geocaching in my area.

 

Cezanne

I'm still not seeing the big deal. 100 people enjoyed some caches that were apparently placed in a scenic area. It is likely that a 20-stage multi would not have been similarly enjoyed. What exactly is the problem? Could someone who would have enjoyed that 20-stage multi not have gotten the same enjoyment from the 20 traditional caches?

[jholly]

A 15 stage multi that requires a 5 mile walk will certainly not bubble to the top of most cachers 'to find' list, but it's not because those cachers would necessarily prefer 15 smilies to one.

 

I am not talking about those who do not visit such caches at all (for whichever reason). The 21 caches of the Eckwirtrunde

series http://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.aspx?u=harrylime

got more than 100 logs which is incredibly many for that area and the fact that the hike is about 20km. Even much shorter hikes (some of them in a more scenic landscape and about the same area) got much less visitors. There are lots of cachers who travelled 200 km and more just to visit these 21 caches in a one tour. A single cache or two along the route would have led to about 10-15 visitors - there are many examples around that demonstrate this. The numbers aspect has tremendously changed geocaching in my area.

 

Cezanne

I'm still not seeing the big deal. 100 people enjoyed some caches that were apparently placed in a scenic area. It is likely that a 20-stage multi would not have been similarly enjoyed. What exactly is the problem? Could someone who would have enjoyed that 20-stage multi not have gotten the same enjoyment from the 20 traditional caches?

But if they enjoyed the 20 traditionals in the same environment as a 20 stage multi then clearly they are number whores and doing it only for the numbers. It is much better to do the work for a 20 stage multi and get only one smile than to do 20 traditionals and get 20 smiles. Reminds me of religion.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

From my experience, multis have never been a large percentage of total caches. Certainly, they have never been as high as a third of total caches as you state.

 

That depends on the area. Vienna has still 24.7% multi caches and had almost 50% years ago. Austria on the whole has about 20% and had more than 1/3 some years ago.

Like emmett I am very unhappy with the fact that multi caches and in particular longer ones get less and less frequent. In my area I observe that very often instead of placing one nice multi caches 15 short traditionals are hidden and that this is appreciated by the majority since they get 15 found logs instead of one. (5 years ago such series would not have been published.)

Like emmett I observe that many of the cache hiders from the old times retired due to frustration.

 

Cezanne

The bolded bit is but your opinion. Another is that by hiding 15 traditional caches instead of one 15-stage multi, more people are able and willing to look for it. Personally, I have no time in my life for a 15-stage multi. I do, however, occasionally have time to look for a traditional or two..

Funny - your stats indicate that you have had time in your life to find more than 15 traditional caches. If you really don't care about the smilies and that bolded bit is just opinion --- how is it that you have no time to locate all 15 stages of a multi??? Its just a string of 15 traditionals, one leading to the next..........

If I only have time to find a cache or two, then it will take me more than eight visits to finish a 15-stage multi. No thanks.

 

If, as you continually insist, you don't do this for the smilies, than the situation you just outlines would still take you eight trips to find 15 regular caches.

First, I'm not sure that I have ever commented on whether I cache for the smilies, but whatever.

 

Second, it is unlikely that I would make the initial investment in finding a 15-stage multi if I knew that it might take me months to finish. This is true for several reasons not the least of which being that I have no idea if the cache will even still be listed by the time I was able to finish it. Further, instead of coming back to the same area over and over and over and over to finish that multi, I could be caching in many different areas. That seems a better plan, for me.

 

I gotta agree with sbell on this. You just can't equate 15 individual traditional caches with a multi with 15 stages. Fifteen traditional caches can be found in any order. In order to complete a 15 stage multi, one has to find each waypoint in a specific order (you can't find the 8th stages until you've found the 7th).

 

I get what sbell means by "I have no time in my life for a 15 stage multi". For example, I was out caching one day and had to be back home by 5:00pm for something else going on in my life (a birthday party if I recall). I found the first stage of a multi at around 4:00pm and if the final would have been in the direction I was traveling I would have had "time in my life" to find the final stage along the way. Instead, I discovered it was a couple of miles in the opposite direction (and in an area I had passed by a bit earlier) so I continued toward my destination and was able to find a traditional along the way. If I would have ignored the multi (in this case the first stages was a "read the numbers off a sign" type of way point, I could have had two complete cache experiences instead of one traditional and one sign reading episode. That was almost two years ago and since I haven't cached in that area since I never did complete that multi.

 

I've also started several multi caches that were never completed because one or more stages went missing from the time I found the first stage until I could get back to the area the find the remaining stages.

 

It's not always about the numbers.

[+kpanko]

I'm still not seeing the big deal. 100 people enjoyed some caches that were apparently placed in a scenic area. It is likely that a 20-stage multi would not have been similarly enjoyed.

Earlier this year, I found the final stage of a 14 stage cache which took me three visits to the area. It also included several field puzzles. I would say what makes that different than 14 separate traditionals is that finding the final stage provides a bigger sense of accomplishment. With a multi-stage, you must find each stage, in the order given. If one is missing or too hard to find, that's the end of the trip for that day. With a series, you can just move on to the next closest one and try again there.

 

Therefore, reaching the end is an accomplishment, representing a big time commitment. I congratulate those who complete the challenge.

 

My preference after that experience, is to avoid these long multi stage adventures, unless I am feeling like I want to spend the entire day working on one cache, which is a rare thing. On those rare days, it's nice to have that option, but usually I want to search for something that I can log as either found or not found. It's just not as fun to go home early and log "found stage 5 but got stuck on stage 6, will hopefully try again in a few weeks."

[cezanne]

I'm still not seeing the big deal. 100 people enjoyed some caches that were apparently placed in a scenic area. It is likely that a 20-stage multi would not have been similarly enjoyed. What exactly is the problem? Could someone who would have enjoyed that 20-stage multi not have gotten the same enjoyment from the 20 traditional caches?

 

It was clear to me right from the beginning that I will not understand what's the difference. I did not say that it is a big deal, just gave one example how geocaching changed in my area in a way that I do not like from the point of view of my personal preferences. Of course there are cachers for whom the two experiences are equivalent, but that's not the case for the typical fans of multi caches in my area.

 

As your specific question is regarded: First, 20 stages are too much in my opinion as the hiking experience is disrupted too often even in the case of virtual stages. 5 or 6 stages at most would be reasonable for the same trail. 21 caches end up to having to search 21 times instead of just once in case of a multi cache.

I like to report my exprience in a detailed log. In case of a 21 separate caches I cannot even remember at the end what happened where and typically people then write cut and paste logs for all caches. In case they like the series, they typically award one of the caches which they arbitrarily select a favourite point (having the whol series in mind) and this somehow ends up in caches that do not deserve the special attention they get.

 

A single multi cache is also much more convenient for paper cachers who produce print outs of the description - only one is needed and at most one spoiler picture if only one cache is hidden. I did the series with the 21 caches and preparing the tour and logging was an annoying experience to me. Already at the evening of the day I did the hike, I could not recall all of the caches any longer - this happens very rarely to me.

If there is just one multi cache, then I associate it with the hiking experience and the scenery as some overall experience. In the case of 21 indivual boxes on the way, none of them is anything special and none of them is associated with the hike. Of course, the essential aspect is one's caching philosophy. Mine is very different from yours.

 

Cezanne

[cezanne]

I gotta agree with sbell on this. You just can't equate 15 individual traditional caches with a multi with 15 stages. Fifteen traditional caches can be found in any order. In order to complete a 15 stage multi, one has to find each waypoint in a specific order (you can't find the 8th stages until you've found the 7th).

 

No, none of what you claim is necessarily true. I know many multi caches where all stages except the last one are known in advance.

The examples I mentioned in this thread are set up along hiking trails where not many different orders make sense. If you want to do the fifth cache, you have in many cases to take all the way through the first four anyway and that's the way 99% of the visitors are visiting these caches.

Of course this is not true for any type of multi cache in any area. For many hiking caches in my area it is true however. The main reason is that access by car is often impossible or not allowed.

 

 

For example, I was out caching one day and had to be back home by 5:00pm for something else going on in my life (a birthday party if I recall). I found the first stage of a multi at around 4:00pm and if the final would have been in the direction I was traveling I would have had "time in my life" to find the final stage along the way. Instead, I discovered it was a couple of miles in the opposite direction (and in an area I had passed by a bit earlier) so I continued toward my destination and was able to find a traditional along the way. If I would have ignored the multi (in this case the first stages was a "read the numbers off a sign" type of way point, I could have had two complete cache experiences instead of one traditional and one sign reading episode. That was almost two years ago and since I haven't cached in that area since I never did complete that multi.

 

I agree, but my focus is on a completely different type of caching.

 

It's not always about the numbers.

 

Of course not. In the examples, I mentioned however examples where the essential aspect is on numbers. Those who are visiting all say 15 caches along a hiking trail

on a single day do invest even more time than those who walk along the same trail and just visit one multi cache with a few virtual stages (so only one

search at the end). In both cases the trail is known in advance - so also the argument that the cachers prefer the series of traditionals because they wish to know what to expect is not appropriate in the case I have in mind.

 

Cezanne

[knowschad]

From my experience, multis have never been a large percentage of total caches. Certainly, they have never been as high as a third of total caches as you state.

 

That depends on the area. Vienna has still 24.7% multi caches and had almost 50% years ago. Austria on the whole has about 20% and had more than 1/3 some years ago.

Like emmett I am very unhappy with the fact that multi caches and in particular longer ones get less and less frequent. In my area I observe that very often instead of placing one nice multi caches 15 short traditionals are hidden and that this is appreciated by the majority since they get 15 found logs instead of one. (5 years ago such series would not have been published.)

Like emmett I observe that many of the cache hiders from the old times retired due to frustration.

 

Cezanne

The bolded bit is but your opinion. Another is that by hiding 15 traditional caches instead of one 15-stage multi, more people are able and willing to look for it. Personally, I have no time in my life for a 15-stage multi. I do, however, occasionally have time to look for a traditional or two..

Funny - your stats indicate that you have had time in your life to find more than 15 traditional caches. If you really don't care about the smilies and that bolded bit is just opinion --- how is it that you have no time to locate all 15 stages of a multi??? Its just a string of 15 traditionals, one leading to the next..........

If I only have time to find a cache or two, then it will take me more than eight visits to finish a 15-stage multi. No thanks.

 

If, as you continually insist, you don't do this for the smilies, than the situation you just outlines would still take you eight trips to find 15 regular caches.

First, I'm not sure that I have ever commented on whether I cache for the smilies, but whatever.

 

Second, it is unlikely that I would make the initial investment in finding a 15-stage multi if I knew that it might take me months to finish. This is true for several reasons not the least of which being that I have no idea if the cache will even still be listed by the time I was able to finish it. Further, instead of coming back to the same area over and over and over and over to finish that multi, I could be caching in many different areas. That seems a better plan, for me.

 

I gotta agree with sbell on this.

 

Actually (ouch! wince!! grimmace!), so do I.

[+JBnW]

I gotta agree with sbell on this.

 

Actually (ouch! wince!! grimmace!), so do I.

Bad dog! Bad!!!!

[+tozainamboku]

Of course there are cachers for whom the two experiences are equivalent, but that's not the case for the typical fans of multi caches in my area.

I doubt there are many geocachers who find the experience equivalent. Some prefer the multi for what ever reasons while others will prefer a series of traditional caches. What we are seeing here are some pointing out that the multi caches appear to be less and less likely to be created. Those who prefer them are lamenting that it is more difficult to find the sorts of caches they like. There also seems to be a desire on the part of a few to blame certain guidelines changes for this

 

In another thread (on spoilers) you pointed out to me that many European multis were created to provide a tour of an area. The virtual points that were visited to get the information for the final were often historic locations - some times off the regular tourist path. Many had a theme to make history come alive while finding the information. You didn't like spoilers because then people would miss the point of the cache - which was to visit these historic sites.

 

Earlier in this thread I speculated that the OP may be talking of a similar style of mult. These were designed to be a multi-day adventure collecting information and solving puzzles to ultimately get the coordinates for the final cache.

 

My guess is that many of the people replying that they agree with sbell are imagining a traditional multi (to coin a term) where you go from stage to stage finding coordinates for the next stage. They probably aren't considering these multi part adventures and these European-style historical tours that involve the finder a bit more in the hunt. (Think Wherigo without the need for special equipment). While the traditional caches are still likely to be more popular, I think that a few cachers putting together adventures and tours that engage the finder will find a reasonably active group of cachers who appreciate this. Rather than complain that fewer of these cache are being created (or more accurately that these caches are a smaller percentage of caches), those who find these caches fun should be hiding more of them and promoting the ones that are there with their favorite votes.

 

For those in the LA area (or visiting), here's one of my favorites Edendale in the Golden Age of Silent Film (GCGX16)

[Clan Riffster]

I can't see how this would yield an increase in "quality" caches.

Pretty simple math, once you accept that this hypothetical is entirely subjective to my highly biased caching aesthetics.

First, assume that parking lot micros make up <invented statistic alert> 42% of all caches.

When most of those went away, there would be 42% less caches that don't fit my quirky preferences.

Note: This would be an utter fail for those who do enjoy parking lot micros.

[+niraD]

I can't see how this would yield an increase in "quality" caches.

Pretty simple math, once you accept that this hypothetical is entirely subjective to my highly biased caching aesthetics.

First, assume that parking lot micros make up <invented statistic alert> 42% of all caches.

When most of those went away, there would be 42% less caches that don't fit my quirky preferences.

Note: This would be an utter fail for those who do enjoy parking lot micros.

For the purpose of this discussion, I'll accept any definition of "quality" that you like. Reducing the number of "low quality" caches doesn't increase the number of "quality" caches.

 

Let's assume that there are 100 caches, that 42 of them are "low quality" caches, and that 58 of them are "quality" caches. Let's further assume that we can selectively discourage the placement of "low quality" caches, such that 40 of them are never hidden in the first place. Only 2 "low quality" caches are hidden.

 

We still end up with only 58 "quality" caches. There is a decrease in "low quality" caches. There is a decrease in the total number of caches. But there is no increase in "quality" caches.

[+tozainamboku]

I can't see how this would yield an increase in "quality" caches.

Pretty simple math, once you accept that this hypothetical is entirely subjective to my highly biased caching aesthetics.

First, assume that parking lot micros make up <invented statistic alert> 42% of all caches.

When most of those went away, there would be 42% less caches that don't fit my quirky preferences.

Note: This would be an utter fail for those who do enjoy parking lot micros.

For the purpose of this discussion, I'll accept any definition of "quality" that you like. Reducing the number of "low quality" caches doesn't increase the number of "quality" caches.

 

Let's assume that there are 100 caches, that 42 of them are "low quality" caches, and that 58 of them are "quality" caches. Let's further assume that we can selectively discourage the placement of "low quality" caches, such that 40 of them are never hidden in the first place. Only 2 "low quality" caches are hidden.

 

We still end up with only 58 "quality" caches. There is a decrease in "low quality" caches. There is a decrease in the total number of caches. But there is no increase in "quality" caches.

I already know from the threads I started on the favorites system that people here like ratios better than absolute counts. For them it doesn't matter that discouraging low quality caches does nothing to increase the number of quality caches. It's the ratio that matters.

 

But I would argue that CRs proposal could have unforeseen consequences.

 

By insisting on explicit permission for certain areas you may end up driving more (low quality) cache to areas where you don't require explicit permission.

 

Further more, of those caches where someone would now have to get explicit permission there is no evidence that these caches will be higher quality. In fact it may be easier to get permission for a simple (and perhaps lower quality) cache that a more elaborate cache. You might reduce the number of urban caches, but you won't increase the quality of those that remain.

[Clan Riffster]

But there is no increase in "quality" caches.

You neglected to add the given. There is not a set number of caches. The number of caches is an ever increasing number. When crappy (by my highly biased standards) parking lot hides are no longer allowed, the number of caches will still increase. Only now, they won't be in parking lots. According to my quirky bias, a specific container hidden in a scenic forest setting is better than that exact same container hidden in a parking lot. In fact, I would have to think real hard to find a location type that is not better than a parking lot, dumpster, back lot of a big box store, etc. Take the parking lots, etc. out of the equation, and I get more quality caches, (according to my bias).

 

(Standard disclaimer: This would not help those folks who actually enjoy these types of hides)

[Clan Riffster]

You might reduce the number of urban caches, but you won't increase the quality of those that remain.

That's a compromise I could live with.

[+niraD]

But there is no increase in "quality" caches.

You neglected to add the given. There is not a set number of caches. The number of caches is an ever increasing number. When crappy (by my highly biased standards) parking lot hides are no longer allowed, the number of caches will still increase. Only now, they won't be in parking lots. According to my quirky bias, a specific container hidden in a scenic forest setting is better than that exact same container hidden in a parking lot. In fact, I would have to think real hard to find a location type that is not better than a parking lot, dumpster, back lot of a big box store, etc. Take the parking lots, etc. out of the equation, and I get more quality caches, (according to my bias).

Even assuming that caches were no longer hidden in parking lots, I'm not convinced that the cache owners who hide such caches would hide caches in scenic forests instead. It seems to me that people who want to hide caches in scenic forests have ample opportunity, and that those who hide caches in more urban/suburban settings are not interested in hiding/maintaining another cache in a scenic forest.

 

Also, you're assuming that a requirement for explicit permission would eliminate parking lot hides. My caches have explicit permission, and one could be considered a parking lot hide. Based on comments posted by volunteer reviewers in the forums, I'm not the only CO who has explicit permission for a cache in or near an urban/suburban parking lot.