The evolution of geocaching

[+Isonzo Karst]

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.

 

In the U.S., I think the effect of an explicit permission requirement would be to drive geocaching heavily into small business parking lots, where getting that permission is often possible. My expectation here is based on the shift in the permission language in the current guidelines. Explicit permission on private property would necessarily mean explicit permission on public property as well. Rather like the old Earthcache forms hosted on GSA, a place for name contact info of the person granting permission.

 

I agree that an explosion of purely numbers caches followed on the removal of the powertrail language from the listing guidelines.

I expected as much. That it did, suggests that there is a "market" for this. Why should Groundspeak refuse to allow what so many of their customers want?

 

Per Markwell's post, the absolute numbers of caches of all types is up. There are more multi-caches now then there were when I started (I prefer them, or if I'm chasing a trad, I'd like to spend some time doing it)(get OUT of the car and walk or paddle somewhere).

As a percentage, fewer, but in sheer numbers, more. Takes some doing to find the stuff I want to find, but somehow, I manage.

[Clan Riffster]

Also, you're assuming that a requirement for explicit permission would eliminate parking lot hides.

Not quite true. What I am assuming is that explicit permission would greatly reduce them, not eliminate them. I base this assumption on my own observations, which admittedly, might be skewed by geography, as my caching has been limited to only a few southern states. Things may indeed be different in other parts of the country/globe. My experience comes from asking specific cache owners at gobs of events, if they got explicit permission for their parking lot cache. So far, I haven't had a single cache owner answer "Yes". The "No" answers I did receive were of two types: Those who never gave it a moments thought, and those that felt a parking lot was public domain, and therefor did not require any permission.

 

So yeah, my thoughts are admitted speculative, and based entirely on my highly biased caching aesthetics, but I can dream, can't I?

[jholly]

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)

But when we implement your ideas the number of caches will level off. Then we will find new and wonderful areas to impose the written, signed and notarized permission requirements the number of GC caches will decrease and then everyone will go over to opencaching.com to hide the very caches you detest. I'm surprised you have not had a rant about power trail caches yet.

[+BlueDeuce]

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.

that remain.

 

So you think there are low quality caches. Or are you debating a premise you don't agree with in the first place.

Edited May 15, 2011 by BlueDeuce

[+tozainamboku]

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.

that remain.

 

So you think there are low quality caches. Or are you debating a premise you don't agree with in the first place.

I believe that I understand Clan Riffster's bias in caches. So I use the terms he would use because my point is that he may not like the actual consequences of his suggestion.

 

Clearly there are cachers who enjoy finding the easy parking lot type hides that CR wants to discourage. My guess is that people will find ways to continue to hide the caches they like to find. They will either comply with new permission requirements or they will find places where they don't have to ask for explicit permission.

 

I suspect that CR doesn't really mind that some people like caches he doesn't. He is probably concerned that with so many parking lot type caches placed without permission, some parking lot owner is going to get upset and make a big deal that Geocaching.com is publishing these caches. My guess is that if and when this happens, we will see some guidelines changes to clarify the meaning of adequate permission. It won't be because someone thinks certain caches are low quality.

[+emmett]

.

 

Been away and could not follow up. Nice to see the posts have finally evolved into focusing on the intended topic – quality. A few follow up points …

 

First, an apology – I recalled that the percentage of caches in my area that were multis was about on third at one time in the past but it looks like my recall as off. The number may be more like 15-20% but it is now down to 5% or under. Still, that is a big drop.

 

Though it cannot be computed, I’d bet that during the same time multis have declined, caches that most/many might call lame have increased. I think it is pretty clear that quality and effort by owners is down.

 

Someone asked what would I propose Groundspeak do to promote quality. I’ll get to that, but let me first ask, what has Groundspeak done other than add a rating system recently? Even that does not actively promote quality per se, the system merely makes it easier to identify better caches.

 

We have seen no action by Groundspeak to curtail or discourage lame caches but we have seen action to discourage those who invest extra to create more interesting caches.

 

Someone else essentially said, all we need do is follow the guidelines and we can create quality caches whenever we choose. Actually not so true. Caches that were originally published in conformance to guidelines have been later shut down and with Groundspeak showing no regard for the investment of the owners of those caches.

 

Hey, look, the company can do whatever it wants. I’d rather see a company that was proactive in seeking to set a high standard for the game, to cultivate within its customer base owners who placed better caches, and finders who actually treated all caches with better care. If that was the face of the company, I'd bet many of the retired quality cache owners might still be active.

 

.

[+niraD]

we have seen action to discourage those who invest extra to create more interesting caches.

Things must be very different back east. I haven't seen anything like that out here.

[jholly]

I guess the real question is just what is a low quality cache and who gets to determine this? Perhaps I don't think a cache that requires me to wade through an alligator and snake infested swap nipple deep in water is a quality cache. Now what? Perhaps I don't think a long multicache is a quality cache. Now what? Maybe I only like traditionals in a dryer environment. Should I be able to declare multicaches low quality and therefore should be banned? Should I be able to declare caches hidden in swaps low quality and therefore banned? Sorry your definitions and my definitions may not be the same, but both fit the guidelines so both should be able to exist. And if the rules are changed to only allow long multis in swaps then opencaching.com is going to have some real performance problems. I hide the type of caches I like to find and I get visitors. Not as many as a LPC in a Home Depot or China Mart parking lot, but that is okay. I've hidden guardrail caches for very specific purposes, but they have a nice view that folks always seem to comment about. So I'm happy with those. You guys hide the ones you like and I'll hide the ones I like. I won't complain about your caches and if you complain about mine I'll just ignore your comments and go do another LPC.

[+tozainamboku]

Should Groundspeak even be in the position of promoting the caches a particular cacher likes or discourage those he thinks are lame? Sounds like a "Wow" requirement to me.

 

The fact is the caches you call lame are enjoyed by a large number of geocachers. These caches seem to be found more often; it's no wonder that they also get hidden more often. There are clearly some cachers who have a preference for simple easy caches and some with a preference for urban micros. Time, gasoline prices, and just a preference to avoid any difficult physical activity means there are always going to be cachers who will have a preference for these kinds of caches.

 

Perhaps you can blame it on numbers; maybe these cachers find that quantity outstrips quality. But should Groundspeak dictate what is a legitimate motivation to geocache? Seem like finding many caches is as good a reasons as is finding a few caches that seem to have has more thought put into them. What needs to be done here is simply provide a way for those whose motivation is quality to find these caches without being overwhelm by the large number of caches they would prefer to avoid.

 

Perhaps the change to saturation guidelines removing the explicit mention of power trails has had some effect. Some hiders have discovered that placing a series of easy caches that can be found quickly attracts a lot finders. So with the change is seems that cachers are more likely to create such series and reviewers can no longer suggest that a multi cache would be a "better" choice.

 

Among the guidelines changes over the years some restrict the options we had in the past. Virtuals have been grandfathered, puzzle that require installing or downloading of additional software are no longer published. But I don't believe any changes were made with the intent of discouraging creativity or the hiding of creative caches. Interesting and often challenging puzzle and multis get published every day. Why there seems to be fewer than there were in the past, I can't say.

 

There are some creative caches that have been archived because the owner did not remain active, and when the cache needed maintenance (as all caches eventually do) there was nobody doing maintenance. Asking for Groundspeak or reviewers to give these caches special treatment because of their creativity seems elitist. If the guidelines say the owner must maintain the cache, they should maintain the cache. However it doesn't surprise me that people who think they deserve special treatment end up geociding and archiving their caches on their own most of the time when they don't get the special treatment.

Edited May 15, 2011 by tozainamboku

[+NYPaddleCacher]

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.

 

To me, ratio matters because the favorites system is trying to apply a universal metric that is allegedly meaningful in significantly diverse geocaching environments. If a geocacher were to draw a circle with a 50 mile radius centered by their home coordinates which defined the area where they did most of their geocaching the number of geocaches within that area as well as the number of other geocacher placing and hiding caches with that region are going to be significantly different. In some places there may be thousands of geocaches and hundreds of others in the geocaching community. For others, geocaches may number in the hundreds with only a handful of active geocachers in the area. I did some country stat gathering a couple of weeks ago and discovered that there are 249 unique countries (which includes several small islands) in the Countries select list. 178 of those countries have fewer than 100 caches.

 

When talking about he evolution of geocaching I think it's worth realizing that in over half of the countries in the world geocaching is probably very much like what it was like in 2002.

[Clan Riffster]

But when we implement your ideas the number of caches will level off.

I'm not sure this is true. Every time the Guidelines are changed, they exclude a certain number of caches, yet the total continues to grow.

While it's just one ole fat crippled guy's opinion, I think enacting my idea would have the same result.

Within a matter of weeks, maybe days, the number of caches would start climbing again, even without the dreaded parking lot hides.

Toz may have touched on the meat of the situation. Folks who are inclined to hide what I consider to be crappy hides, are going to continue to do so.

They just won't be hiding the majority of them in parking lots. Which begs the question; where will the crappy hides go?

Guardrails?

[+sbell111]

Also, you're assuming that a requirement for explicit permission would eliminate parking lot hides.

Not quite true. What I am assuming is that explicit permission would greatly reduce them, not eliminate them. I base this assumption on my own observations, which admittedly, might be skewed by geography, as my caching has been limited to only a few southern states. Things may indeed be different in other parts of the country/globe. My experience comes from asking specific cache owners at gobs of events, if they got explicit permission for their parking lot cache. So far, I haven't had a single cache owner answer "Yes". The "No" answers I did receive were of two types: Those who never gave it a moments thought, and those that felt a parking lot was public domain, and therefor did not require any permission.

 

So yeah, my thoughts are admitted speculative, and based entirely on my highly biased caching aesthetics, but I can dream, can't I?

Let's assume that you do have these bizarre conversations with every cacher you come into contact with. You are still making an unsupported logical leap. You are assuming that just because many people don't feel that these types of caches currently require explicit permission that people in your hypothetical future would not attempt to attain such permission if it was required.

[+sbell111]

Been away and could not follow up. Nice to see the posts have finally evolved into focusing on the intended topic – quality. A few follow up points …

 

First, an apology – I recalled that the percentage of caches in my area that were multis was about on third at one time in the past but it looks like my recall as off. The number may be more like 15-20% but it is now down to 5% or under. Still, that is a big drop.

 

Though it cannot be computed, I’d bet that during the same time multis have declined, caches that most/many might call lame have increased. I think it is pretty clear that quality and effort by owners is down.

The mere fact that there are fewer multis as a percentage of all caches does not mean that there are fewer multis to find.

[Mr.Yuck]

Also, you're assuming that a requirement for explicit permission would eliminate parking lot hides.

Not quite true. What I am assuming is that explicit permission would greatly reduce them, not eliminate them. I base this assumption on my own observations, which admittedly, might be skewed by geography, as my caching has been limited to only a few southern states. Things may indeed be different in other parts of the country/globe. My experience comes from asking specific cache owners at gobs of events, if they got explicit permission for their parking lot cache. So far, I haven't had a single cache owner answer "Yes". The "No" answers I did receive were of two types: Those who never gave it a moments thought, and those that felt a parking lot was public domain, and therefor did not require any permission.

 

So yeah, my thoughts are admitted speculative, and based entirely on my highly biased caching aesthetics, but I can dream, can't I?

 

There is one reviewer who often comments in these threads along the lines of "you'd be surprised how many parking lot micro submissions state explicit permission". There may have been more than one reviewer who has said this, but I've never seen it here. I am of the opinion this is a regional thing for his territory, and an absolutely miniscule percentage of parking lot hides in the U.S. and Canada have explicit permission. So I share your dream, CR. No one can take that away from us. Or our Birthdays.

 

By the way, you do realize these are "bizarre conversations" you're having with these cachers, don't you? Or so it's been said.

[Tahosa and Sons]

Very well said. I definately agree with this one. Caches have gone up in quantity and down in overall quality. I'll be an old fuddy duddy and stick with my caching roots. Quality over quantity.

[+geocat_]

I'm probably dating myself, but did that OP remind anyone else of Highline magazine? Goofus and Galant?

 

I think you mean "Highlights" magazine and, yes, I remember them quite fondly. Your reference cracked me up! Oh, to the OP, why complain? EIther yo ulive in a really crappy geo-area or you are quite particular. I have no problem finding quality hides. Found one today that was a bison tube suspended inside an empty fire extinguisher. Another today was a magnatic box on a two foot long screw out in the woods. Might not be hard to find but gave me a smile

 

 

[cezanne]

The mere fact that there are fewer multis as a percentage of all caches does not mean that there are fewer multis to find.

 

Of course not. The fact that so many cachers do care about the number of their finds coupled with the change of the guidelines

have, however, resulted into a decreasing number of longer multi (longer than say 30-45 minutes at most) caches in my area (I am talking about the absolute number and not about percentages).

 

Cezanne

Edited May 17, 2011 by cezanne

[cezanne]

I have no problem finding quality hides. Found one today that was a bison tube suspended inside an empty fire extinguisher. Another today was a magnatic box on a two foot long screw out in the woods.

 

I would not enjoy going for such caches at all. I am not at all interested into how the cache is hidden as long as it is easy to find. I am interested into what I am experiencing on the way to the cache and what is shown to me.

 

Cezanne

[+Chokecherry]

The mere fact that there are fewer multis as a percentage of all caches does not mean that there are fewer multis to find.

 

Of course not. The fact that so many cachers do care about the number of their finds coupled with the change of the guidelines

have, however, resulted into a decreasing number of longer multi (longer than say 30-45 minutes at most) caches in my area (I am talking about the absolute number and not about percentages).

 

Cezanne

 

Problem with multis here and why some folks (like me) don't do them is that they're not maintained well a bunch of the time. It's not about the smiley for me but I personally hate when I find a stage or two and then find the subsequent stages missing or messed up or whatever.

[cezanne]

Problem with multis here and why some folks (like me) don't do them is that they're not maintained well a bunch of the time. It's not about the smiley for me but I personally hate when I find a stage or two and then find the subsequent stages missing or messed up or whatever.

 

My preferred multi caches, both in cities and on mountains, do have virtual stages as intermediary stages. Problems with such stages are much less frequent than with any type of container.

For an example see this cache of myself

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=0dd78c02-432e-4812-8e59-4f1206770c08

There are better examples, but they are not provided in English.

 

In my area, it is definitely the case that the change in the guidelines really had an effect on the hiding practice. Certainly those who hide drive in guardrail caches would not hide hiking multi caches instead if the guidelines were changed again, but those who hide 20 single caches along a hiking trail in order to attract more visitors, would decide to hide a single multi cache instead if the guidelines were different and they have no other option.

 

Cezanne

[+kpanko]

In my area, it is definitely the case that the change in the guidelines really had an effect on the hiding practice.

Could you explain what change it was, and what the effect was?

 

I think I understand that the effect was that there are now fewer multi-stage caches, and there are more series of single stage caches along trails instead. But I do not understand why this would be due to the guidelines changing. Were series prohibited in the past?

 

but those who hide 20 single caches along a hiking trail in order to attract more visitors, would decide to hide a single multi cache instead if the guidelines were different and they have no other option.

Those visitors would no longer be attracted if that was the case. I heard somewhere that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

[cezanne]

In my area, it is definitely the case that the change in the guidelines really had an effect on the hiding practice.

Could you explain what change it was, and what the effect was?

 

I think I understand that the effect was that there are now fewer multi-stage caches, and there are more series of single stage caches along trails instead. But I do not understand why this would be due to the guidelines changing. Were series prohibited in the past?

 

Series of traditionals caches which were all hidden at the same time by one account have not been published in German speaking countries. In Switzerland the reviewers have been the most strict and required about 1km distance from cache to cache in such a setting. In Austria and Germany the minimum requirement was less, but the development which started after the removal of the powertrail rule and triggered by the example of powertrails in neighbouring countries (Czech republic) and the US would not have taken place without these changes.

I still can vividly recall how a declined series of about 50 caches in Germany that should be doable in one day caused a big debate back then. Nowadays such series are routinely published.

 

but those who hide 20 single caches along a hiking trail in order to attract more visitors' date=' would decide to hide a single multi cache instead if the guidelines were different and they have no other option.

[/quote']

Those visitors would no longer be attracted if that was the case. I heard somewhere that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

 

While your last statement is certainly true in this setting, I noticed that many cachers just changed their previous behaviour and want to catch up with their fellow cachers. I am not talking about cachers who prefer drive ins or easy traditionals doable on a business travel as those are not the typical audience for a longer hikes combined with geocaching. I am talking about those who would visit hiking multi caches (and have done so for several years) where they earn only 1-2 two logs per hike if there were not an abundance of series of traditionals were lots of found it logs could be earned. The same cachers who have been happy with a single cache per hike are now almost expecting lots of caches along a trail in order to catch up with thier colleagues. I also noticed that such series serve as incentive for caching in larger groups than in previous years.

 

Cezanne

[+tozainamboku]

The mere fact that there are fewer multis as a percentage of all caches does not mean that there are fewer multis to find.

 

Of course not. The fact that so many cachers do care about the number of their finds coupled with the change of the guidelines

have, however, resulted into a decreasing number of longer multi (longer than say 30-45 minutes at most) caches in my area (I am talking about the absolute number and not about percentages).

 

Cezanne

 

Certainly when there were a limited number of caches to find, a certain percentage of cachers would spend time looking for a multi (or any other cache) that took 30 to 45 minutes to complete. With more caches. there are those cachers (who might be motivated by numbers) who prefer to spend time seeking caches that only take a few minutes to complete. They may spend the same 30 to 45 minutes and find 10 caches. Further - suppose they have only 30 minutes to go geocaching. They could find a few easy traditional or they could spend 30 minutes and only get part way through the multi. Which do you think more people would select?

 

Of course, there are still many cachers who - when they have the time - will spend it on a long multi or go after a more remote cache. Many of these people will find these more enjoyable than a day of finding 20 or 30 easy park and grabs. Many such caches are likely to get picked as favorites. Even more interesting are the few caches that take several days and more than one trip to complete. These can be real adventures. These likely candidates for the Cache of the Week.

 

It seem silly, however, to complain than most caches today are the simple traditional and most of these are quite easy to find. It is only logical that these would be the most popular caches. I see no sign that the guidelines favor these caches. The old power trail rule probably served to favor multis at the expense of the caches that would be more popular. The new rule puts these on a more even footing. People are making a decision based on the caches they prefer and which caches are most likely to be found. If you truly enjoy the longer multis that had you explore an area more thuroughly, then continue to hide this type. Get together with others to promote these caches. I think you will find there are still plenty of cachers out there who appreciate these kinds of hides. If you have some examples of guidelines changes (besides power trail) that make hiding such caches more difficult than it used to be, I would like to know what they are.

[cezanne]

The mere fact that there are fewer multis as a percentage of all caches does not mean that there are fewer multis to find.

 

Of course not. The fact that so many cachers do care about the number of their finds coupled with the change of the guidelines

have, however, resulted into a decreasing number of longer multi (longer than say 30-45 minutes at most) caches in my area (I am talking about the absolute number and not about percentages).

 

Cezanne

 

Certainly when there were a limited number of caches to find, a certain percentage of cachers would spend time looking for a multi (or any other cache) that took 30 to 45 minutes to complete. With more caches. there are those cachers (who might be motivated by numbers) who prefer to spend time seeking caches that only take a few minutes to complete. They may spend the same 30 to 45 minutes and find 10 caches. Further - suppose they have only 30 minutes to go geocaching. They could find a few easy traditional or they could spend 30 minutes and only get part way through the multi. Which do you think more people would select?

 

I am not comparing the scenarios to each other you mention above.

I am comparing the following two scenarios:

 

Scenario A

 

20 single stage caches along hiking trail X - 20 boxes to search for, overall time taken at least 30 minutes more

than for scenario A due to searching and logging, typically at least an hour more

 

Scenario B

 

1 multi cache along the same trail - 1 box to search for

 

It seem silly, however, to complain than most caches today are the simple traditional and most of these are quite easy to find.

 

First of all, I am not complaining about something. I just explained what changed and that I do not like that change.

Second, I have nothing against caches that are easy to find - I do not like to search myself.

 

Third, I have no problem with the existence of many simple traditionals. I just do not like that in my area many typical hiking caches are now set up as a series of many traditionals instead of a single multi cache due to the numbers argument. What I am writing about are certainly not park and grab caches.

 

If you truly enjoy the longer multis that had you explore an area more thuroughly, then continue to hide this type. Get together with others to promote these caches. I think you will find there are still plenty of cachers out there who appreciate these kinds of hides.

 

Certainly not because the majority of cachers nowadays prefers if they get many smilies out of a caching day. So if they have the choice between a single multi cache and 20 traditionals along the same route, they opt for the latter.

 

If you have some examples of guidelines changes (besides power trail) that make hiding such caches more difficult than it used to be, I would like to know what they are.

 

No, it just makes creating lots of traditionals in the same area much easier, and this causes a big temptation for those for whom the number of found caches is important.

 

 

Cezanne

[+BlueDeuce]

Face it. Multies were the origin of the micro. The question now is what is the difference between multiple traditional and a multi.

[+sbell111]

Problem with multis here and why some folks (like me) don't do them is that they're not maintained well a bunch of the time. It's not about the smiley for me but I personally hate when I find a stage or two and then find the subsequent stages missing or messed up or whatever.

My preferred multi caches, both in cities and on mountains, do have virtual stages as intermediary stages. Problems with such stages are much less frequent than with any type of container.

For an example see this cache of myself

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=0dd78c02-432e-4812-8e59-4f1206770c08

There are better examples, but they are not provided in English.

I don’t believe that these virtual-stage multis were typically a result of the ‘power trail’ guideline forcing people to change a series of traditionals to a multi since the locations for each stage would already have been chosen to support a cache container and wouldn’t have an eye toward calculating coords from information found at the intermediary stage.

In my area, it is definitely the case that the change in the guidelines really had an effect on the hiding practice. Certainly those who hide drive in guardrail caches would not hide hiking multi caches instead if the guidelines were changed again, but those who hide 20 single caches along a hiking trail in order to attract more visitors, would decide to hide a single multi cache instead if the guidelines were different and they have no other option.

 

Cezanne

I am not of the belief that forcing someone to make a different kind of hide than they would prefer necessarily makes for a better caching experience.

[cezanne]

I am not of the belief that forcing someone to make a different kind of hide than they would prefer necessarily makes for a better caching experience.

 

Actually, in the special segment I am referring to up to the point where such series showed up no one ever got the idea to come up with such agglomerations of single stage caches while up from a certain point more and more people followed the example of what they saw elsewhere.

 

As the caching experience is regarded: I agree with you with regard to not necessarily. In the situation I have in mind it is however the case for me as an individual. My caching experience is improved. Those who enjoy many found it logs and do not care to write and read cut and paste logs for a cache series and do like to go caching in groups, the situation might be different. My postings only talked about myself and my caching experience.

 

Cezanne

[+sbell111]

I am not of the belief that forcing someone to make a different kind of hide than they would prefer necessarily makes for a better caching experience.

 

Actually, in the special segment I am referring to up to the point where such series showed up no one ever got the idea to come up with such agglomerations of single stage caches while up from a certain point more and more people followed the example of what they saw elsewhere.

 

As the caching experience is regarded: I agree with you with regard to not necessarily. In the situation I have in mind it is however the case for me as an individual. My caching experience is improved. Those who enjoy many found it logs and do not care to write and read cut and paste logs for a cache series and do like to go caching in groups, the situation might be different. My postings only talked about myself and my caching experience.

 

Cezanne

I was actually looking at it from the position of the cache owner.

[cezanne]

I don’t believe that these virtual-stage multis were typically a result of the ‘power trail’ guideline forcing people to change a series of traditionals to a multi since the locations for each stage would already have been chosen to support a cache container and wouldn’t have an eye toward calculating coords from information found at the intermediary stage.

 

You apparently misunderstood me. Of course these multis have not been the result of the power trail guideline.

Already back then, many cachers preferred to hide one or more traditionals to hiding a multi cache. That's fine - to each their own.

 

I am focussing on cache series that are not set up as multi caches because the idea is to attract more visitors by offering more found it logs per mile walked.

Typically, the individual caches of such series do not show interesting locations, but just arbitrary points somewhere in a forest. In the case of a multi cache with virtual stages, I rather regard them as points that somehow are used as a sort of guide along a route.

 

If the old powertrail rule still existed, classical hiking multi caches still would get a decent number of visitors and the temptation to hide instead a series of many traditionals would be much lower. With the current situation and competion, many decide to set up a series of traditionals although they would have set up a multi cache a few years ago.

 

 

I am not of the belief that forcing someone to make a different kind of hide than they would prefer necessarily makes for a better caching experience.

 

Actually, in the special segment I am referring to up to the point where such series showed up no one ever got the idea to come up with such agglomerations of single stage caches while up from a certain point more and more people followed the example of what they saw elsewhere.

 

As the caching experience is regarded: I agree with you with regard to not necessarily. In the situation I have in mind it is however the case for me as an individual. My caching experience is improved. Those who enjoy many found it logs and do not care to write and read cut and paste logs for a cache series and do like to go caching in groups, the situation might be different. My postings only talked about myself and my caching experience.

 

Cezanne

Edited May 18, 2011 by cezanne

[cezanne]

I am not of the belief that forcing someone to make a different kind of hide than they would prefer necessarily makes for a better caching experience.

 

Actually, in the special segment I am referring to up to the point where such series showed up no one ever got the idea to come up with such agglomerations of single stage caches while up from a certain point more and more people followed the example of what they saw elsewhere.

 

As the caching experience is regarded: I agree with you with regard to not necessarily. In the situation I have in mind it is however the case for me as an individual. My caching experience is improved. Those who enjoy many found it logs and do not care to write and read cut and paste logs for a cache series and do like to go caching in groups, the situation might be different. My postings only talked about myself and my caching experience.

 

Cezanne

I was actually looking at it from the position of the cache owner.

 

I thought that the caching experience is something that is experienced by the finders of a cache and not by the hider, isn't it?

I tried to say that my caching experience would improve and not get worse if the certain caches series were set up as multi caches.

 

Ceazanne

[cezanne]

Multies were the origin of the micro.

 

Why? Most hiking multi caches have containers of size small or regular where many of the traditionals along

a hiking power trail are micros and 90% of the urban traditionals I encounter are micros.

 

The question now is what is the difference between multiple traditional and a multi.

 

I have already provided a list of differences above in this thread.

 

Cezanne

[+sbell111]

I thought that the caching experience is something that is experienced by the finders of a cache and not by the hider, isn't it?

I dare you to post that in one of the 'You are not logging my cache in a way that I find acceptable' threads.

[+niraD]

Multies were the origin of the micro.

Why? Most hiking multi caches have containers of size small or regular where many of the traditionals along

a hiking power trail are micros and 90% of the urban traditionals I encounter are micros.

I think the idea was that the micro-size stages of multi-caches (which had regular-size final caches) evolved into standalone micro-size caches.

[Mr.Yuck]

Multies were the origin of the micro.

Why? Most hiking multi caches have containers of size small or regular where many of the traditionals along

a hiking power trail are micros and 90% of the urban traditionals I encounter are micros.

I think the idea was that the micro-size stages of multi-caches (which had regular-size final caches) evolved into standalone micro-size caches.

 

Actually, Cache_Ninja invented Micro-caching in New York City. Probably not "invented", but an early pioneer. Also, in the US at least, I always kind of considered the Interstate Rest Stop micro to be the forerunner of the anywhere and everywhere micro-size cache. I got the point being made though.

 

I thought that the caching experience is something that is experienced by the finders of a cache and not by the hider, isn't it?

I dare you to post that in one of the 'You are not logging my cache in a way that I find acceptable' threads.

 

If anything, that would tend (to me) to reinforce the theory that there's more to "the caching experience" than thumbing out a "TFTC", a "Road Trip", or Emoticon-only log on a smart phone from the field.

[cezanne]

Multies were the origin of the micro.

Why? Most hiking multi caches have containers of size small or regular where many of the traditionals along

a hiking power trail are micros and 90% of the urban traditionals I encounter are micros.

I think the idea was that the micro-size stages of multi-caches (which had regular-size final caches) evolved into standalone micro-size caches.

 

Ah thanks, I have not had heard about that before.

 

Cezanne