Jump to content

future of geocaching


kruegers
Followers 4

Recommended Posts

I am a little bit worried about the future of our common hobby. the exploding number of geocaches seems to aim more at enlarging quantity but not quality of caches. the approach of ranking caches by favourite points is a good one, but - I am afraid - not enough to lead the community to a "turnaround". what can we do to initiate a change? Would everything become better if all "micros" are archived? I don't think that this "easy" solution would be good. What do you think - how will geocaching develop in the future?

Edited by kruegers
Link to comment

Hide what you like to find will encourage others to do the same.

Help others hide containers that are in good spots.

Host an event, make it a community.

Host or attend a CITO.

 

I imagine caching will eventually hit a saturation point and everyone will have heard of it, even if they don't know the specifics. eg. Dungeons and Dragons

Link to comment

Hide what you like to find will encourage others to do the same.

Help others hide containers that are in good spots.

Host an event, make it a community.

Host or attend a CITO.

 

I imagine caching will eventually hit a saturation point and everyone will have heard of it, even if they don't know the specifics. eg. Dungeons and Dragons

 

You have that on Copy & Paste, don't you? That was quick!

Link to comment

I am a little bit worried about the future of our common hobby. the exploding number of geocaches seems to aim more at enlarging quantity but not quality of caches. the approach of ranking caches by favourite points is a good one, but - I am afraid - not enough to lead the community to a "turnaround". what can we do to initiate a change? Would everything become better if all "micros" are archived? I don't think that this "easy" solution would be good. What do you think - how will geocaching develop in the future?

 

What you can do is to create/find quality caches and let the lame ones unfound.

Link to comment

Hide what you like to find will encourage others to do the same.

Help others hide containers that are in good spots.

Host an event, make it a community.

Host or attend a CITO.

 

I imagine caching will eventually hit a saturation point and everyone will have heard of it, even if they don't know the specifics. eg. Dungeons and Dragons

 

You have that on Copy & Paste, don't you? That was quick!

Nope, but I should.

Link to comment

what can we do to initiate a change?

"Be the change you want to see in the world." -- Gandhi

 

Hide caches that are the kind you would like to find.

 

Find caches that you like, and leave good logs on them.

 

I'm here to say, that sadly, doesn't seem to help.

Link to comment

what can we do to initiate a change?

"Be the change you want to see in the world." -- Gandhi

 

Hide caches that are the kind you would like to find.

 

Find caches that you like, and leave good logs on them.

 

I'm here to say, that sadly, doesn't seem to help.

I agree. :sad: You're right, it doesn't seem to help.

Link to comment

what can we do to initiate a change?

"Be the change you want to see in the world." -- Gandhi

 

Hide caches that are the kind you would like to find.

 

Find caches that you like, and leave good logs on them.

 

I'm here to say, that sadly, doesn't seem to help.

How can it not help?

 

If you don't find the kinds of caches that you don't like, and hunt for caches that you do like, then you'll be happier. And if you don't search for, let's just say, micros in lamp posts, then it doesn't matter how many of them there are. There are still plenty of good caches that aren't micros in lamp posts.

Link to comment

what can we do to initiate a change?

"Be the change you want to see in the world." -- Gandhi

 

Hide caches that are the kind you would like to find.

 

Find caches that you like, and leave good logs on them.

 

I'm here to say, that sadly, doesn't seem to help.

How can it not help?

 

If you don't find the kinds of caches that you don't like, and hunt for caches that you do like, then you'll be happier. And if you don't search for, let's just say, micros in lamp posts, then it doesn't matter how many of them there are. There are still plenty of good caches that aren't micros in lamp posts.

 

Good post.

 

This is it! My geoworld is full of ammo and and lock n locks! I forgot that LPC even existed!

Link to comment

Would everything become better if all "micros" are archived? I don't think that this "easy" solution would be good. What do you think - how will geocaching develop in the future?

 

Ah. Hmm... I've missed the point as to why ALL micros are bad. I have a number of micros hidden. Most of them are there to you what I think if an interesting or beautiful spot (depending on whether you think a spectacular view of the New York skyline is interesting). None of these spots would work for anything other than a micro cache. Therefore, they should all be archived because you dislike ALL micros???

Nope. There is a major flaw in your perspective.

Link to comment

Hide what you like to find will encourage others to do the same.

Help others hide containers that are in good spots.

Host an event, make it a community.

Host or attend a CITO.

 

I imagine caching will eventually hit a saturation point and everyone will have heard of it, even if they don't know the specifics. eg. Dungeons and Dragons

 

You have that on Copy & Paste, don't you? That was quick!

Some topics come up so often, and the OP doesn't bother to search first to find them, that we have a whole set of canned responses ready to go. Same 'ol topics, same 'ol answers.

Link to comment

Hide what you like to find will encourage others to do the same.

Help others hide containers that are in good spots.

Host an event, make it a community.

Host or attend a CITO.

 

I imagine caching will eventually hit a saturation point and everyone will have heard of it, even if they don't know the specifics. eg. Dungeons and Dragons

 

You have that on Copy & Paste, don't you? That was quick!

Some topics come up so often, and the OP doesn't bother to search first to find them, that we have a whole set of canned responses ready to go. Same 'ol topics, same 'ol answers.

 

Great idea!

Link to comment

I think the future of geocaching will include devices like this one so that you will have a heads up display of your GPS screen info. At least I hope it does. B)

 

Much too cumbersome. I would be looking forward to Michio Kaku's prediction that we will have gps-enabled contact lenses that will give us access to a wealth of information and a virtual tools. But I also looked forward to my personal jetpack, when I was promised that. So it does not pay to get too excited about these things.

Link to comment

I am a little bit worried about the future of our common hobby. the exploding number of geocaches seems to aim more at enlarging quantity but not quality of caches. the approach of ranking caches by favourite points is a good one, but - I am afraid - not enough to lead the community to a "turnaround". what can we do to initiate a change? Would everything become better if all "micros" are archived? I don't think that this "easy" solution would be good. What do you think - how will geocaching develop in the future?

 

It would be bad form to archive all micros.

Link to comment

I think the future of geocaching will include devices like this one so that you will have a heads up display of your GPS screen info. At least I hope it does. B)

 

vuzix-920av-600.jpg

The app, Basic GPS, for windows mobile, has audable directions so that you can navigate to GZ with earbuds in and no need to look at your phone (GPS). Doesn't help avoid muggles though, as once at GZ you still have to search.

Link to comment

what can we do to initiate a change?

"Be the change you want to see in the world." -- Gandhi

 

Hide caches that are the kind you would like to find.

 

Find caches that you like, and leave good logs on them.

 

I'm here to say, that sadly, doesn't seem to help.

I agree. :sad: You're right, it doesn't seem to help.

 

I used to bemoan caches that were placed with no forethought to bringing the seeker to a new location.

 

Let's say that I'm EXTREMELY picky on the types of caches I want. I only want to find traditional style caches with a difficulty rating between 1 and 3 and a terrain rating between 1.5 and 3.5 that have containers that are regular and large. That's only 13.7% of the caches in my area. One of the joys of having an offline version of my area is that I have dates for placement and archives of archived caches in the area, so I can get data on the Chicago region. Using that criteria above (traditional, large/reg, D 1-3, T 1.5-3.5) I can produce this chart that shows the fact that in 2006, these caches represented over 25% of the caches in my area. Now they only represent 13.7%. I used to get really irritable that these caches were being thrown down without regard to location or style.

154b4da2-07a4-4c84-a458-0b709e2b70a4.jpg

 

But a wise cacher pointed out to me that I don't HAVE to visit every cache. The second column is the one to focus on - not the fourth. In 2006 there were only 514 caches in my area that fit that criteria (traditional, large/reg, D 1-3, T 1.5-3.5). Now there's over 1500. That's almost three times as many caches to find.

 

My suggestions:

*Place what you like to find.

*Limit your criteria to search for caches that you'll have a high probability of liking.

*If you can't do the first two steps, the problem is in you, not the caches.

Edited by Markwell
Link to comment

Why are we not keeping this a serious discussion? Let me be the first to.

 

The only lame micro's are in parking lots, such, this cache will not interfere any of the woods caches. Therefore, the only type of micro's left are those in the woods. Now, according to my hypothesis, the only difference between a micro in the woods and an ammo can in the exact spot is size, also according to my hypothesis, nobody gives two feces about the McToys, and golfballs, and you got to enjoy the same spot. Therefore, the only way this could negatively affect geocaching is if you force yourself to go to every parking lot, but it is so easily avoidable that the issue is virtually non-existent. In conclusion, micro's are a positive thing, those that enjoy parking lot caches can do them, those that enjoy woods caches can do them, and those that can do both can do them, this is no different then a handicapped cacher saying that all regular caches should be archived because the most of them are in the woods. It is a very biased, and misinformed opinion.

Link to comment

I am a little bit worried about the future of our common hobby. the exploding number of geocaches seems to aim more at enlarging quantity but not quality of caches. the approach of ranking caches by favourite points is a good one, but - I am afraid - not enough to lead the community to a "turnaround". what can we do to initiate a change? Would everything become better if all "micros" are archived? I don't think that this "easy" solution would be good. What do you think - how will geocaching develop in the future?

 

In the future, Caches will find YOU!!! :ph34r:

 

Seriously, I understand where you're coming from, but Micro Happens!!! :anibad:

Just enjoy the fact that you can still get out and cache :grin: .

Link to comment

Instead of predicting the end times of geocaching and giving up how about fight back! Leave detailed logs with constructive criticism. Sure some owners will not take kindly to it, but others will learn. Place great caches that show the locals that a park and grab does not have to be a micro in a lamp skirt. Inspire great caches. Build a community at events. Have contests for containers, or a theme contest for cache placement.

 

A year ago I felt like there were only one or two new caches that were really good. Now I've got together with a few people in my local organization and we're promoting cool caches through a theme contest. And it's working! Sure there may still be a lot of boring park and grabs but all it takes is one really cool cache to change the mindset in a community.

Link to comment

what can we do to initiate a change?

"Be the change you want to see in the world." -- Gandhi

 

Hide caches that are the kind you would like to find.

 

Find caches that you like, and leave good logs on them.

 

I'm here to say, that sadly, doesn't seem to help.

I agree. :sad: You're right, it doesn't seem to help.

 

I used to bemoan caches that were placed with no forethought to bringing the seeker to a new location.

 

Let's say that I'm EXTREMELY picky on the types of caches I want. I only want to find traditional style caches with a difficulty rating between 1 and 3 and a terrain rating between 1.5 and 3.5 that have containers that are regular and large. That's only 13.7% of the caches in my area. One of the joys of having an offline version of my area is that I have dates for placement and archives of archived caches in the area, so I can get data on the Chicago region. Using that criteria above (traditional, large/reg, D 1-3, T 1.5-3.5) I can produce this chart that shows the fact that in 2006, these caches represented over 25% of the caches in my area. Now they only represent 13.7%. I used to get really irritable that these caches were being thrown down without regard to location or style.

154b4da2-07a4-4c84-a458-0b709e2b70a4.jpg

 

But a wise cacher pointed out to me that I don't HAVE to visit every cache. The second column is the one to focus on - not the fourth. In 2006 there were only 514 caches in my area that fit that criteria (traditional, large/reg, D 1-3, T 1.5-3.5). Now there's over 1500. That's almost three times as many caches to find.

 

My suggestions:

*Place what you like to find.

*Limit your criteria to search for caches that you'll have a high probability of liking.

*If you can't do the first two steps, the problem is in you, not the caches.

 

Gotta say, this was a great post. Really enjoyed reading this!

Link to comment

Why are we not keeping this a serious discussion? Let me be the first to.

 

The only lame micro's are in parking lots, such, this cache will not interfere any of the woods caches. Therefore, the only type of micro's left are those in the woods. Now, according to my hypothesis, the only difference between a micro in the woods and an ammo can in the exact spot is size, also according to my hypothesis, nobody gives two feces about the McToys, and golfballs, and you got to enjoy the same spot. Therefore, the only way this could negatively affect geocaching is if you force yourself to go to every parking lot, but it is so easily avoidable that the issue is virtually non-existent. In conclusion, micro's are a positive thing, those that enjoy parking lot caches can do them, those that enjoy woods caches can do them, and those that can do both can do them, this is no different then a handicapped cacher saying that all regular caches should be archived because the most of them are in the woods. It is a very biased, and misinformed opinion.

 

Good post, ColdGears.

Link to comment
I am a little bit worried about the future of our common hobby. the exploding number of geocaches seems to aim more at enlarging quantity but not quality of caches.

Did you see my recent post? There is no sudden explosion. The trends (along with repeated opinions that geocaching is about to die) have been going on for some time now.

Link to comment

what can we do to initiate a change?

"Be the change you want to see in the world." -- Gandhi

 

Hide caches that are the kind you would like to find.

 

Find caches that you like, and leave good logs on them.

 

I'm here to say, that sadly, doesn't seem to help.

I agree. :sad: You're right, it doesn't seem to help.

 

I used to bemoan caches that were placed with no forethought to bringing the seeker to a new location.

 

Let's say that I'm EXTREMELY picky on the types of caches I want. I only want to find traditional style caches with a difficulty rating between 1 and 3 and a terrain rating between 1.5 and 3.5 that have containers that are regular and large. That's only 13.7% of the caches in my area. One of the joys of having an offline version of my area is that I have dates for placement and archives of archived caches in the area, so I can get data on the Chicago region. Using that criteria above (traditional, large/reg, D 1-3, T 1.5-3.5) I can produce this chart that shows the fact that in 2006, these caches represented over 25% of the caches in my area. Now they only represent 13.7%. I used to get really irritable that these caches were being thrown down without regard to location or style.

154b4da2-07a4-4c84-a458-0b709e2b70a4.jpg

 

But a wise cacher pointed out to me that I don't HAVE to visit every cache. The second column is the one to focus on - not the fourth. In 2006 there were only 514 caches in my area that fit that criteria (traditional, large/reg, D 1-3, T 1.5-3.5). Now there's over 1500. That's almost three times as many caches to find.

 

My suggestions:

*Place what you like to find.

*Limit your criteria to search for caches that you'll have a high probability of liking.

*If you can't do the first two steps, the problem is in you, not the caches.

 

Nice analysis. I wish I had access to an offline copy of the data to do similar kinds of number crunching. Your analysis certainly shows that you suggestions limiting your criteria for caches can still provide more than enough caches of ones liking to find except for one rather significant caveat. You're basing your results on a region that has over 11,000 total caches to be found. To put that number into perspective, of the 249 Groundspeak recognized countries, only 16 have 11,000 or more geocaches in the entire country. Try running your calculations on an area that only has 1000 (or fewer) caches in the region, and I suspect that a limiting filter could effectively reduce the number of caches which meet that criteria to a number of caches which could be found in a few weekends. Of course, less saturated areas may have a different percentage of micros, but when suggesting an approach to finding caches that one likes, I think it's worth noting that geocaching environments around the world vary significantly and a one size fits all approach just isn't going to work everywhere.

 

Out of curiosity, what did you use as a search radius for "your area", because when I run the same D/T, cache size criteria that you use and set the search radius for 30 miles, I only get 141 caches that I have not yet found.

Link to comment

I used to bemoan caches that were placed with no forethought to bringing the seeker to a new location.

 

Let's say that I'm EXTREMELY picky on the types of caches I want. I only want to find traditional style caches with a difficulty rating between 1 and 3 and a terrain rating between 1.5 and 3.5 that have containers that are regular and large. That's only 13.7% of the caches in my area. One of the joys of having an offline version of my area is that I have dates for placement and archives of archived caches in the area, so I can get data on the Chicago region. Using that criteria above (traditional, large/reg, D 1-3, T 1.5-3.5) I can produce this chart that shows the fact that in 2006, these caches represented over 25% of the caches in my area. Now they only represent 13.7%. I used to get really irritable that these caches were being thrown down without regard to location or style.

154b4da2-07a4-4c84-a458-0b709e2b70a4.jpg

 

But a wise cacher pointed out to me that I don't HAVE to visit every cache. The second column is the one to focus on - not the fourth. In 2006 there were only 514 caches in my area that fit that criteria (traditional, large/reg, D 1-3, T 1.5-3.5). Now there's over 1500. That's almost three times as many caches to find.

 

My suggestions:

*Place what you like to find.

*Limit your criteria to search for caches that you'll have a high probability of liking.

*If you can't do the first two steps, the problem is in you, not the caches.

Excellent post! Anytime we get distraught over one cache type or another we should keep those second-column stats in mind.

Link to comment

I am a little bit worried about the future of our common hobby. the exploding number of geocaches seems to aim more at enlarging quantity but not quality of caches. the approach of ranking caches by favourite points is a good one, but - I am afraid - not enough to lead the community to a "turnaround". what can we do to initiate a change? Would everything become better if all "micros" are archived? I don't think that this "easy" solution would be good. What do you think - how will geocaching develop in the future?

 

It would be bad form to archive all micros.

 

Yeah, it would serisouly give geocaching a black eye.

Link to comment

 

But a wise cacher pointed out to me that I don't HAVE to visit every cache. The second column is the one to focus on - not the fourth. In 2006 there were only 514 caches in my area that fit that criteria (traditional, large/reg, D 1-3, T 1.5-3.5). Now there's over 1500. That's almost three times as many caches to find.

 

I agree, but it depends on the development of the numbers in the second column. In your case it seems that the number of additional caches that fit your criteria that are added per year does not decrease significantly. I cannot provide such nice number tables for my area and my preferred type of cache, but I can tell you that the number of new caches that show up in my area and that fit my criteria are decreasing considerably (in absolute number per period - there has been an increase in the early years of course, but in particular in the last 2-3 years the numbers went down considerably). I am talking of multi caches in forest areas that involve a walk of more than one hour and are not too demanding terrain-wise.

 

*Limit your criteria to search for caches that you'll have a high probability of liking.

*If you can't do the first two steps, the problem is in you, not the caches.

 

I do not think that it is possible to separate the cacher and the caches in this scenario. It is not difficult for me to identify the list of caches that I would enjoy, but after having eliminated those I cannot do hardly any remain and this lack of caches indeed poses a problem for me in my personal situation. Deciding between visiting caches that I do not enjoy and not going caching at all is a bit like deciding between cholera and pest.

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment
It is not difficult for me to identify the list of caches that I would enjoy, but after having eliminated those I cannot do hardly any remain and this lack of caches indeed poses a problem for me in my personal situation. Deciding between visiting caches that I do not enjoy and not going caching at all is a bit like deciding between cholera and pest.

 

I can't imagine doing caches I know I won't like just because I have nothing else to do with that time. I do not understand your personal situation, but I have plenty of other hobbies/activities that could easily step in and occupy my time if I ran out of caches that I think I would enjoy.

Link to comment
Out of curiosity, what did you use as a search radius for "your area", because when I run the same D/T, cache size criteria that you use and set the search radius for 30 miles, I only get 141 caches that I have not yet found.
The region is actually a carefully crafted region to encompass the GONIL (Geocachers of Northern Illinois) area. It's not any one radial point, but rather a county-based sampling. I had an offline database that I collected and queries before Pocket Queries were instituted. Then I used the PQs to automatically update the data.

 

To put that number into perspective, of the 249 Groundspeak recognized countries, only 16 have 11,000 or more geocaches in the entire country. Try running your calculations on an area that only has 1000 (or fewer) caches in the region, and I suspect that a limiting filter could effectively reduce the number of caches which meet that criteria to a number of caches which could be found in a few weekends.
True. However, if you look at the GONIL region back in January of 2004, we had 824 caches in the whole area. When I started there were 16. The point is that while the caches as a percentage of the whole may be going down, there's still more caches to find. If this were my criteria and back in 2004 I had found all 291 of the limited caches from those 824, that would indeed be a problem. Then it might be time to start either expanding my very limiting criteria, expanding my territory to include farther locales, or expanding the number of hidden caches until the area populates with more of the caches I like to find. Back when we started caching in 2001, there were 16 caches in the entire area. I can point to some old threads where I bemoaned the fact that there were no more caches to find, but it's besides the point.

 

I do not think that it is possible to separate the cacher and the caches in this scenario. It is not difficult for me to identify the list of caches that I would enjoy, but after having eliminated those I cannot do hardly any remain and this lack of caches indeed poses a problem for me in my personal situation. Deciding between visiting caches that I do not enjoy and not going caching at all is a bit like deciding between cholera and pest.
The point I was trying to make is one that I learned in psychology courses and management seminars: Trying to make people alter their behavior because it annoys you is a futile effort. The only thing you can really control are your own actions and the way you react to others. If there are no more caches placed that fit your criteria, you can expand your criteria, you can go out an place caches, or you can moan about it in the forums. I think the last would be the roughest option, because I really don't see people coming into the forums daily and seeing a thread about how there are too many lame caches around, and they then grab their coat and rush out to "mend their ways" by placing a boat-load of really cool caches.

 

It just seems that coming in here to complain, or to tout the end of civilization is not very productive. This always seems to remind me of

.
Link to comment

what can we do to initiate a change?

"Be the change you want to see in the world." -- Gandhi

 

Hide caches that are the kind you would like to find.

 

Find caches that you like, and leave good logs on them.

 

I'm here to say, that sadly, doesn't seem to help.

How can it not help?

Because some people cannot be happy if caches that they do not enjoy are allowed to exist. It doesn't matter that many, many other people enjoy these caches.

Link to comment

I am a little bit worried about the future of our common hobby. the exploding number of geocaches seems to aim more at enlarging quantity but not quality of caches. the approach of ranking caches by favourite points is a good one, but - I am afraid - not enough to lead the community to a "turnaround". what can we do to initiate a change? Would everything become better if all "micros" are archived? I don't think that this "easy" solution would be good. What do you think - how will geocaching develop in the future?

 

It would be bad form to archive all micros.

 

Yeah, it would serisouly give geocaching a black eye.

 

I don't know about that, but a couple of these recent threads are really giving a black eye to those of us aren't fans of the large quantity of "just for the numbers" micros. Store parking lots, along the side of the road, usually a 10 word or less cache page, often contain the phrase "quick grab" or "P & G", etc.. I look at my stats and see 24% micros. I remember I was just in a large, beautiful, busy City Park 2 weeks ago and found 3 micros (and it's open and busy enough that that's all it can support). I walked a mile for those 3 micros. You're killing me man, and perpetuating the "micro haters" myth. :P

Link to comment
It is not difficult for me to identify the list of caches that I would enjoy, but after having eliminated those I cannot do hardly any remain and this lack of caches indeed poses a problem for me in my personal situation. Deciding between visiting caches that I do not enjoy and not going caching at all is a bit like deciding between cholera and pest.

 

I can't imagine doing caches I know I won't like just because I have nothing else to do with that time. I do not understand your personal situation, but I have plenty of other hobbies/activities that could easily step in and occupy my time if I ran out of caches that I think I would enjoy.

 

I did not write that I have nothing else to do with that time. Apart from the fact that my work is such that I could spend an infinite amount of time if I would like to, there are lots of leisure activities I could do and which I enjoy, but they do not involve physical activity. As I am sitting already way too much in my work, I am in urgent need to get out for physical activities.

 

At the times when I felt fit and did not have to fight with various health problems, I had a lot more options. I really liked to go jogging to forget everything else and did even mind when the weather was bad. I got interested into orienteering. Moreover, I could gor for long hikes and cycling tours. In the meantime, my body sets me quite some limits what is possible and what not. Going for a cache helps me with motivating to go outside even though I cannot do what I would enjoy the most.

 

If I had someone suggesting activities and coming with me (and not getting frustrated about my slow speed), I would not geocaching. It is not the hunt itself that plays the major role for me.

 

My way to try to cope with the problem is just what Markwells refers to as "changing the criteria" which ends up by making me visit

caches that are not the ones I would like to visit.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment
I do not think that it is possible to separate the cacher and the caches in this scenario. It is not difficult for me to identify the list of caches that I would enjoy, but after having eliminated those I cannot do hardly any remain and this lack of caches indeed poses a problem for me in my personal situation. Deciding between visiting caches that I do not enjoy and not going caching at all is a bit like deciding between cholera and pest.
The point I was trying to make is one that I learned in psychology courses and management seminars: Trying to make people alter their behavior because it annoys you is a futile effort.

 

I fully agree with you. What I have written does not refer to a wish to change someone's else behaviour.

I just explained that when using my area and my criteria, the slope of the function in your second column behaves quite differently than in your case.

 

The only thing you can really control are your own actions and the way you react to others. If there are no more caches placed that fit your criteria, you can expand your criteria, you can go out an place caches, or you can moan about it in the forums. I think the last would be the roughest option, because I really don't see people coming into the forums daily and seeing a thread about how there are too many lame caches around, and they then grab their coat and rush out to "mend their ways" by placing a boat-load of really cool caches.

 

I have already mentioned that my approach is to expand my criteria in a way that I am also going for caches that I do not enjoy, but which at least get me out of the house. (Reasoning behind: I prefer spending me time outdoors being physically active and engaged in a cache I do not like to spending my whole free time physically inactive with activities I enjoy.)

 

I have never come to a forum as a replacement for going outdoors. As hiding own caches is regarded, I somehow feel that I am at the limits of my maintenance capacities given the fact that the expectations of the community with regard to speed have increase quite a lot and that my body has set me quite some limits in recent years. As my caches are typically made for a comparatively small target audience, I cannot expect many visits which means that I need to check the caches after longer periods of non-activity. I already have caches that I cannot reach except on good days. I do not want to add more of them. When visiting a cache of someone else, I can make the choice and select a good day for challenging caches. That's not the case when I need to go for a maintenance visit.

 

It just seems that coming in here to complain, or to tout the end of civilization is not very productive.

 

I agree, but I never come here with the goal to be productive. In the case of this thread, I just wanted to comment that the situation in your table is not true in general for every cacher. I wanted to make that point as the claim that the absolute number of suitable caches to find per cacher is increasing is a statement that is often brought forward as a general statement (yours was more careful - I know) while it is not true for everyone.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment
How can it not help?

 

And if you don't search for, let's just say, micros in lamp posts, then it doesn't matter how many of them there are.

Unfortunately, in my experience, simply avoiding them is not an entirely viable solution, though it's currently the best solution available. Those caches which my entirely biased caching aesthetic labels as "Lame", (specifically, a crappy container, usually a micro, in an uninspired location, with a copy/paste cache page), breed, virus like, at a far greater rate than caches which are not lame. It's the principle of micro-spew. The closer we get to the mainstream event horizon, the greater this percentage will be.

 

Fortunately, this isn't much of a problem now, as there are still plenty of lamp posts and dumpsters for the micro-spew hiders to slap crappy cache containers on, but if we project the rate of growth Groundspeak has experienced in the last two years into the future, that may cease to be the case. <Insert paranoid theme music...> I'm thinking that once the micro-spewers run out of guard rails and McDonalds shrubs, they won't simply stop hiding caches. I believe that the micro-spewers will be so driven to hide their plethora of crappy caches that they'll expand their range, plopping out their trache closer and closer to the areas I like to play in.

 

Still, even with my bias, I can't advocate the wholesale archiving of caches just because of their size. If you ask me again in a few years, I might change my mind. :lol:

 

That's almost three times as many caches to find.

It's this line of thought that keeps me playing. Right now, the types of caches I enjoy proliferate faster than I can find them. It is my sincere hope that this trend continues. I'm just not sure it will.

 

It is a very biased, and misinformed opinion.

You say "biased" like it's a bad thing. <_< Bias is nothing more than a persons preferences. Judging from your posts in the past, I think it's safe to say that our preferences differ greatly. And that's OK. There is absolutely nothing in this game which so much as hints that you have to like what I like. If you believe a soggy log film can shoved under a horribly smelly dumpster is the same as an ammo can, plump with high end swag, cleverly hidden at the base of a stunning waterfall, there is nothing wrong with that. It's your opinion. While I don't share it, I can respect your right to have it. Hopefully you'll eventually learn to accept that there are folks out there who don't wiggle like a puppy at the thought of rushing from parking lot to parking lot grabbing hide-a-keys, and when these folks express their opinions, you'll respect them enough to not call them misinformed. In this case, the OP perceives that there are too many micros out there. Simply telling him "Micros are awesome!" wont necessarily change his perception. So long as his perception remains, it is not misinformed. Because it is so subjective, only the OP can determine, for himself, how many is too many.

 

Inspire great caches

Best post in this thread!

(But then, I'm biased) :lol:

Link to comment

I think that it's pretty clear that you misread Coldgear's post. He was simply stating that the suggestion by someone who dislikes micros that they should all be archived is just as biased and misinformed as a hanicapped cacher wanting all hike-in-the-woods caches archived.

 

Further, in my opinion, your post attempts to twist his comparison between a micro and larger cache unfairly. He was comparing two caches where everything was equal except for size. You then took his position and changed it to him believing that a hypothetical soggy filmcan hidden underneath a dumpster has the same value as your equally hypothetical ammo can, plump with high end swag, cleverly hidden at the base of a stunning waterfall. While certainly neither of these hypothetical caches actually exist, your distilling of the topic to these two choices does it, and you, a disservice. A better comparison would be an ammo filled with ordinary trading items, hidden under a dumpster to a bison tube hidden under a dumpster OR an ammocan or a bison tube cleverly hidden near a waterfall.

 

I also find it ironic that in a rant against someone suggesting that some positions are 'misinformed', you not only show that you are 'misinformed' as to the point of the quoted post, but are also misinforming anyone who reads your post as to what 99.999% of the caches in question are and the attitudes/behavior of those who believe that those caches are just fine. For instance, has anyone ever actually found a soggy film can hidden beneath a dumpster? I bet not, I hold this position for the simple reason that dumpsters are moved very frequently. A container hidden beneath it would either be removed, scattered about, or crushed.

Link to comment

For instance, has anyone ever actually found a soggy film can hidden beneath a dumpster? I bet not, I hold this position for the simple reason that dumpsters are moved very frequently. A container hidden beneath it would either be removed, scattered about, or crushed.

 

Off-topic: I have found/respectively not found film cans (stopped looking for it) attached magnetically to dumpsters, but probably these dumpsters are different from the ones you talk of.

Some are permanent ones and others are hardly ever moved away.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

For instance, has anyone ever actually found a soggy film can hidden beneath a dumpster? I bet not, I hold this position for the simple reason that dumpsters are moved very frequently. A container hidden beneath it would either be removed, scattered about, or crushed.

 

Off-topic: I have found/respectively not found film cans (stopped looking for it) attached magnetically to dumpsters, but probably these dumpsters are different from the ones you talk of.

Some are permanent ones and others are hardly ever moved away.

 

Cezanne

Even permanent dumpsters are moved. The big truck picks it up to dump it. They don't pay much mind to whether it is sitting exactly the same as it was before.

Link to comment

Even permanent dumpsters are moved. The big truck picks it up to dump it. They don't pay much mind to whether it is sitting exactly the same as it was before.

 

I am not sure whether this applies to all of them (some appear really to be fixed to their position), but regardless of this issue:

Caches apparently still can survive at such locations. One of it has over 800 finds, has been hidden back in 2005 and still exists.

I think that the container is somehow placed at a position so that the dumping process does not cause any damage to the cache. (I do not know the exact position as I gave up at 2 minutes as I was not motivated to search at this muggled location, but I have been told lateron about the approximate position of the cache.)

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

what can we do to initiate a change?

"Be the change you want to see in the world." -- Gandhi

 

Hide caches that are the kind you would like to find.

 

Find caches that you like, and leave good logs on them.

 

I'm here to say, that sadly, doesn't seem to help.

How can it not help?

Because some people cannot be happy if caches that they do not enjoy are allowed to exist. It doesn't matter that many, many other people enjoy these caches.

 

You still roll with that ol' "people enjoy these caches" line? Just because they grab them and increase their score by a point? Now I know I'm a radical, with my 500 or so cache ignore list, and I never find LPC's in store parking lots. But the vast majority of Geocachers I know do. Believe me, most of them know lame. I've even discussed it with some of them. All their "enjoying" is an increment of the find count.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 4
×
×
  • Create New...