Jump to content

Finding "Not Logged For a While" Caches


Delons

Recommended Posts

If they're high difficulty or just out in the middle of nowhere and there are no DNFs I will go after them. If it's a park and grab that was usually found once week and now hasn't been found for 5 months and has some DNFs then I pass it up because odds are it isn't there.

Link to comment

Today I'm going out for 20 caches, but half of them have not been found for 5 months :S How do you guys normally deal with caches that have not been found? Go after them? Spend little time?

 

I went after a cache that hadn't been found for 17 months. It almost felt like getting the FTF! Rescued a travel bug that had been there all this time and got it circulating again. In my area, these caches are usually a bit harder to get to but can be fun if found. One was an altoids can that was hard to get out of a tree that was growing around it.

Link to comment

If a cache used to get quite a few finds on a regular basis, and then the logs suddenly stop, there's a good chance that the cache is actually missing and people just didn't log any DNFs. But in any case, you won't know for sure unless you try yourself!

Link to comment

I found a relatively easy to get to cache that hadn't been logged online as found in a couple years still intact and in good shape. Go to the cache and found a few people had found it and signed the log book since the last log online. Just because they're not being logged online doesn't necessarily mean they're not being found in general.

 

Occasionally I'll go look for caches that haven't been found in awhile. It's not that unusual here since after the local people find them a lot of day trippers don't want to go that far off the beaten path to find some of these caches.

Link to comment

I found a cache that hadn't been found in 5 months and had multiple DNFs on it. I just went looking for it like any other cache. Despite being placed in 2006, it still only has 71 finds. A trio of caches not far away, placed in 2010, all have at least 80 finds each. The difference, I think, is the fact that the 2006 cache happens to have the word "Swamp" in the name. :P

Link to comment

I live on the border between MN and WI. I don't know why but it seems like NO ONE caches behind the cheddar curtain. I went over there a few weeks ago and found 5 relatively easy caches that had not been found in 10 months to a year and there are still a few on my radar that are OVER a year without being found. The area is not necessarily "cache dense" but there are quite a few cool areas that (for whatever reason) don't get hit very often.

 

Back on topic: I really enjoy finding lonely caches and will usually give them a little extra attention when looking for them.

Link to comment

I live on the border between MN and WI. I don't know why but it seems like NO ONE caches behind the cheddar curtain. I went over there a few weeks ago and found 5 relatively easy caches that had not been found in 10 months to a year and there are still a few on my radar that are OVER a year without being found. The area is not necessarily "cache dense" but there are quite a few cool areas that (for whatever reason) don't get hit very often.

 

Back on topic: I really enjoy finding lonely caches and will usually give them a little extra attention when looking for them.

 

If the caches have been found before, just not in a long while, it could be that the local cachers have already done them and there haven't been a lot of traveling Geocachers in that area.

Link to comment

When I was trying to complete the Virginia Delorme Challenge, I saw that Page 64 only had three caches on it. Two get found quite frequently, but the third hadn't been found in four and a half years. It was about a three hour hike in to get it, which I guess most folks aren't willing to invest for just one cache. I hiked in, logged a cache that was closer to the car as insurance, then hiked on back. Found it after about a half hour; because it was wedged in tight, it was overpressurized and the contents were pristine.

 

It's been found twice since then, so a total of seven finds, less than one per year it's been around. And it's been a year since it was last found. I bet it's in mint condition, still waiting for cachers to hit the trails.

Link to comment

Back in 2005 I found a cache (traditional ammo can, hidden in a clearing about half a mile into the woods) that hadn't been found in more than 6 months. There had been only a single DNF during that time, and the person who logged the DNF mentioned that they thought the cache was gone. 4 months after the DNF I searched for the cache and located it in about 5 minutes.

 

That felt pretty good. :)

 

I don't know why the cache hadn't been found during that time, unless people were taking the "must be gone" DNF log too seriously. There must have been quite a few people keeping an eye on that particular cache page, because the cache saw a flurry of activity starting the day after I logged my find.

 

In May of this year I found a cache that hadn't been found since last October, but dry spells during the winter and early spring are not unusual for this particular cache due to its setting, deep in the woods and above 4K feet in elevation. The funny thing is that someone else found the cache later the same day, and they were surprised to see a brand new signature in the logbook.

 

Funny to me, anyway. Not so much for them! :P

Link to comment

Interesting statistic to add to GSAK, perhaps...

What was the loneliest cache you've found?

 

Maybe someone could create a GSAK script that would check the length of time between each of your found logs and the previous found log for each cache? That could be an intriguing graph to add to the stats list :)

 

It also somewhat relates to your caching style. People in cities or high activity areas will tend to have a much heavier weight to younger finds, while people out for challenges or bigger excursions will weigh more towards lonelier caches... hmm...

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment

Maybe someone could create a GSAK script that would check the length of time between each of your found logs and the previous found log for each cache? That could be an intriguing graph to add to the stats list :)

 

That is now possible since GSAK can use the API; it was not possible before because the "My Finds" query only includes your logs on the caches.

 

I agree that it would be a cool statistic. My hope is that it might inspire more people to do some of the more adventurous caches out there that are infrequently found.

 

(OBTW: I do keep this statistic for myself. I do it manually with a database I have set up. I think I presently have found about 20 caches that were previously unfound for a year or more. But I will bet there are lots of folks out there with way more!)

Edited by fizzymagic
Link to comment

Like other have said it depends on why the caches haven't been logged in awhile. I like to find the lonely caches because we have a couple that don't have very many visits. It's always nice to find that the caches are still there and waiting to be found.

 

Went out 2 weekends ago to finish up the D/T grid and found a cache that had been lonely for 2yrs 4mo. The cache also had a TB that I took to travel again. The container was in good shape and well hidden. Maybe the spiders had something to do with the preservation of this hide. :laughing:

Link to comment

I don't actively seek out caches that are infrequently found, it just sort of happens that way. The type of cache I like to find (high terrain ratings) just don't attract a lot of visitors. Unless there's been a string of DNF's, I just go into it realizing that it may very well be a difficult find.

Link to comment

In theory a statistic for the amount of time a cache has been idle since before you found it could be done, however there are some limitations. One is that, the more logs there are between your log and the most recent log, the slower the process would go for a specific cache. (It would have to go through each log made after yours in order to find your log.) Another limitation is that, at present, it could only be used for 6000 caches max if it uses the API directly. (That's the per day API cache data limit in GSAK v8 Beta.) That limit might go down. It would also not really be useable for non-premium members, but that's probably not a major issue.

 

Of course, the way GSAK is designed, it should be possible to store that info for future use via a custom field, and check that field before going through the logs, so each found cache would only need to have it's logs checked once. That might help with the 6000 cache daily API limit

Link to comment

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...