Power Trail in Essex

[+Amberel]

But you can probably tell from my logs the ones I have enjoyed most and those I have least . I do tend to ramble a bit about my experience but try to always ensure my gratitude comes across in some way, without praising it if its not really worthy

But that means I can only interpret your log in the context of your other logs - I have to be familiar with your logging style before I know what your logs actually mean. I will pretty much always say thanks for setting a cache, but if it's a bad cache I will also explain why I think that. If everybody concealed their true feelings, a new cache setter may never learn that nobody actually likes his poor quality cache!

 

I appreciate the effort people had put into even the most mundane of hides

Unfortunately not all hides do have much effort put into them. A 35mm film can stuck behind a green telephone switch box, or just dropped at the base of a post, involves very little effort indeed (unless the post was at the top of a moutain ). A bit of effort in preparing the container, searching out a good hiding place, etc., almost invariably results in a better cache. I'm of the view that if someone is not prepared to put in a bit of effort on a cache hide, it's usually better that they don't place the cache at all.

 

I have had some nice emails from CO's whose caches I have really enjoyed

Me too, lots of them. I've also had several from cache owners who have been pleased to understand how they can improve the quality of their caches.

 

And also, interestingly a lot of mel-rays caches have several favourite points which suggest (I know not proof) that they are also a proponent of 'quality' caches too

Indeed they are - on their profile they quote Brian from Groundspeak "When you go to hide a geocache, think of the reason you are bringing people to that spot. If the only reason is for the geocache, then find a better spot.", which is one contributor to quality. I have had an email dialogue with them and while I very rarely get to Essex, if I do get there I plan to look up one of their better quality hides.

 

Off topic, looking at the map of the walk, theres an awful lot of puzzles down there and mel-ray how do you manage to set a series in a smiley face

The caches are not at the listed co-ordinates.

 

Rgds, Andy

Edited December 14, 2011 by Amberel

[+simplysup]

I hope the series gets re-activated without too many problems, as it's certainly a challenge I'd enjoy doing in the summer months.

[+The Real Boudica.]

I agree I would like to attempt at least part of it. Back to the quality over quantity debate though, it would be really frustrating if they were all sneaky hides. It took us 5 hours (inc lunch stop) to to a 5 mile walk once and if these caches were harder to find we would be there all day and night. Some caches are a challenge, some caching walks are.

[+Amberel]

I agree I would like to attempt at least part of it. Back to the quality over quantity debate though, it would be really frustrating if they were all sneaky hides. It took us 5 hours (inc lunch stop) to to a 5 mile walk once and if these caches were harder to find we would be there all day and night. Some caches are a challenge, some caching walks are.

But we are cachers, not simply walkers. If all the "hides" on a route are in bland, totally obvious locations, do you never get the feeling that you might just as well have done the walk and not bothered with the caches?

 

Rgds, Andy

[+The Real Boudica.]

Well no because I went walking before I heard of caching, this just adds another dimension to a walk. If I thought I was going to find amazing caches I might be disappointed, but if the caches take me on a walk I probably wouldn't have done otherwise then I wont feel cheated because without the caches I wouldn't have done it, as I have said before thats one of my favourite things about this game, you have other priorities and thats fine, for you. To me and many others a walk along a canal with an incentive to walk that little bit further than we might do otherwise sounds a good way to spend a few hours.

[+drsolly]

 

So I'm told just to ignore this series. The trouble is, they drag down the overall quality of the game. In the long term they affect me even if I ignore them, by changing the expectations of other cachers.

 

It's for this reason that I was very disappointed to see the series published. I would far rather have seen the equivalent effort being put into a score of high quality caches.

 

Rgds, Andy

 

Whereas I feel quite differently.

 

I think that this series improves the overall quality of the game, because I enjoy the challenge of walking 30% further than I think that I can, of getting up two hours earlier than my usual early-rising time to do it, and of suffering the pain in my legs for the next few days afterward. I've already told ladysolly that I want a wheelchair for Christmas. Or at least, an office chair with wheels.

 

Recently, I went to an area where there were a number of caches that could only be accessed by boat. I was very disappointed to see the series published. So I'm told just to ignore this series. The trouble is, they drag down the overall quality of the game, because I don't have a boat (well, I do, but it's small, inflatable and well dodgy, and I'm guessing that most cachers don't have a boat) and would far rather have seen the equivalent effort being put into a series of caches, possibly even 35mm, along the tow path.

 

I do hope that this doesn't become more common and therefore affect me by changing the expectations of others.

 

We all play the game differently.

[+castagnari]

I have seen many threads about "power trails" over the last year or so

and the one thing I have learned from them is that some people love them, some people hate them,

and never the twain shall meet.

 

Everyone plays the game to for their own reasons and has their own goals and expectations

In my opinion that is exactly how it should be.

 

Any chance we could all agree to disagree on this one ?

 

.......................Castagnari, (UK & Ireland forum mod)

Edited December 15, 2011 by castagnari

[+The Real Boudica.]

And everyone stop castigating others for playing the game the way they want to.

[+Amberel]

Any chance we could all agree to disagree on this one ?

 

.......................Castagnari, (UK & Ireland forum mod)

With respect, if the forums aren't there for us to discuss our different views, what exactly are they for?

 

Rgds, Andy

[+Unobtainium]

what exactly are they for?

Discussing slugs

[+abanazar]

I haven't seen much in the way of castigation. I see a forum thread hosting a decent debate; indeed, I find it one of the more interesting threads on this forum because of the debate. I happen to agree with Amberel's points, which I find to be reasoned and non-castigatory. Just because one doesn't agree with him, doesn't mean that one has to take offence; surely that's rule #1 of posting on a forum. I have often seen the quote "When you go to hide a geocache, think of the reason you are bringing people to that spot. If the only reason is for the geocache, then find a better spot." It is frequently brought up on the forums, and I don't think I've ever seen anyone disagree with it (which is a rare thing in itself). Should I be jealous that the people of Essex are blessed with a canal that boasts so many points of interest at such frequent intervals? Anyway, whatever floats your boat I suppose (of course, not everyone has a boat, but that's a different subject).

[+castagnari]

what exactly are they for?

 

Rgds, Andy

 

It just seemed to me like we were going round in circles.................

 

Feel free to carry on

[+The Blorenges]

what exactly are they for?

 

Rgds, Andy

 

It just seemed to me like we were going round in circles.................

 

Feel free to carry on

 

Quite tricky if you're going along a canal, I believe.

 

MrsB

[+Amberel]

Recently, I went to an area where there were a number of caches that could only be accessed by boat. I was very disappointed to see the series published. So I'm told just to ignore this series. The trouble is, they drag down the overall quality of the game, because I don't have a boat

If I thought there was the slightest risk that boat only caches might influence the game to the extent that they crowded out non-boating caches then I might have agreed with your analogy.

 

Rgds, Andy

[+helennbrian]

We climb mountains to cache. We paddle down rivers to cache. We cross beaches and head out to sea to cache. We like traditionals, multis, puzzles, vituals, earthcaches…. We like church micros and the churches that go with them. We set caches – individuals, trails, bonuses. We attend events. We host events – both home and abroad. We will try to go caching wherever we are and wherever we go. The kids are delighted to go caching – they love caches they can find! This is after all a family game. And when they tire we carry them. Long walks, short walks, straightforward caches, difficult caches… all are fun but if all the caches were 5/5 then it would surely make it hard on the kids. If there is competition, we will compete. If not, then we take up a challenge for our own pleasure. Yep, we are addicted We like caching. We like easy caches. We like hard caches. We like trails. We like individual caches. and we all enjoy it together and have great fun whatever we do and whoever we meet. It’s a big world out there and in geocaching terms it gets bigger and more and more varied every day. Out there are more than enough caches to cater for all tastes. Why then so many negative comments on this forum? I haven’t seen a single good reason for the negativity in any of the words written on this forum page. This trail of caches is well set. A delightful walk enhanced by the caches. It is not a trail that can be driven. These are not cache and dashes. It has to be walked, all fourteen miles. And if you want to walk it this time of year then you have to consider the daylight hours and also how you will get back to your start. If this is not your preferred choice of caching then so be it - don’t do the caches. Why though is it necessary to constantly try to belittle others attempts to provide a good caching experience for the majority? It really doesn’t make sense.

Happy caching to you all, whatever your choices.

[+mel-ray]

On behalf of my daughter Monique, grandson Jadon, Ray and myself.

We would like to Thank those who supported us while the CBN series was being reviewed by Groundspeak.

A big thank you goes to the Essex reviewer, Andy for all his hard work in having this series back up and running.

Hope you all will have a great experience on the trail, enjoy the mud challenge path..Walking sticks are advisable.

Hope to meet up with you all the Breakfast meeting (Flash mob) on wednesday at Heybridge Basin..

Kind regards

Mel (mel-ray)

[+FantasyRaider]

To me and many others a walk along a canal with an incentive to walk that little bit further than we might do otherwise sounds a good way to spend a few hours.

 

These are my thoughts exactly!

 

I have never been a walker (not till I found Geocaching almost 3 years ago) and now regret all the years wasted NOT walking.

What a great way to spend a few hours now, getting out there in all weathers and walking till I can’t walk any more (or until all the caches within reach are found)

 

I really don’t care about the quality of the caches (although I love finding something big or unusual) I just love the walk and yes .... the numbers!

But it’s the number of caches I find that encourage me to walk further, not the ‘style’ of caches.

 

As I've already said: I would never have dreamt of walking anywhere before ..... I just didn't 'get' this walking malarky.

(Bow my head in disgust at myself)

 

I ‘do’ understand the debate about Geocaching bringing you to walk in beautiful surroundings V's micro's dumped on every urban corner, but I will never understand the debate about the quality of caches on walks.

[+martlakes]

And if you want to walk it this time of year then you have to consider the daylight hours and also how you will get back to your start

 

How about returning by boat ... then you could have another 'boat only' series for the return!

 

(sorry, I'll get me coat!)

[+The Real Boudica.]

And if you want to walk it this time of year then you have to consider the daylight hours and also how you will get back to your start

 

How about returning by boat ... then you could have another 'boat only' series for the return!

 

(sorry, I'll get me coat!)

 

Ooh now you are talking, I was chatting to my hubby last night and he got quite excited about the idea of doing this by canoe. I pointed out that we would have to get in and out 100 times, but walk there canoe back. Oh but 14 mile walk then 14 mile paddle, possibly a little too much of a challenge, unless its windy and we can get out the umbrella 'sail'

[+Amberel]

I haven’t seen a single good reason for the negativity in any of the words written on this forum page.

While I disagree with your views on this, I do see where you are coming from (and I always have done). Your comment suggests the reverse is not true. I will once again attempt to explain the reasons, with my apologies for the repetition to those who already understand them.

 

Despite drsolly's analogy, I think there is not the slightest risk that "boat only" caches will come to predominate the listings to the detriment of other caches, or that new cachers will come to believe that "boat only" caching is the norm. But I do think there is a very real risk that this will happen with power trails (and however you describe a power trail I think that there can be no dispute that this is one).

 

There are several things that contribute to it being a power trail.

 

.. One is the cache placement. This is predominantly determined not by an interesting feature or a good hiding place, but by the minimum separation from the adjacent caches.

 

.. One is the repetition and extreme lack of difficulty of many or most of the hides. I admit this one is guesswork - if the caches are all hidden in ingenious and varied locations I'd be pleased to withdraw it.

 

.. One is the use of identical containers (35mm film cans) throughout.

 

.. Another is the invitation on the cache page to leave another 35mm film can whenever you cannot find one, in order to retain 100% success - I can only assume this means you expect people to log DNFs as finds provided they drop another film can near GZ.

 

.. Another is that the cache page says it's for the numbers.

 

Now, while I don't much care for attributes of this nature, if that was as far as it went I could simply ignore it and say nothing. I speak up because I think there is a strong possibility that this will influence the way caching develops, in a way that is detrimental to what I like about caching.

 

I'm not being negative - I'm being very positive about improving the quality of caching. When you enthuse about caching to a non-cacher, do you describe a power trail, or do you describe a quality cache? Why should the emphasis change to numbers once we start caching?

 

And also I should mention, despite several claims, everyone has remained entirely polite throughout the thread, and I've several times made the point that there is nothing personal about this. I'm not an ogre, and I'm sure we would get on fine if we met, provided you don't wish to meet only those whose views align directly with yours.

 

I'm not expecting to "convert" you to my way of thinking, but I hope you do now understand that my views are not without reason.

 

Rgds, Andy

[+redsox_mark]

I am similar to what "helennbrian" described - I like lots of different caches.

 

Broadly, I see caches fall into 3 categories:

 

- The special ones: Those memorable, favourite caches; great location, challenging, clever, etc.

- The bad ones: Poor containers, bad coordinates, poor locations.

- The rest: Let's call them the "ordinary" ones, for lack of a better term. Or standard... or even good.

 

I love the special caches. I've spent multiple days trying to find just one of abanazar's caches; and I've found some of the caches which have received the award from Amberel. Those are the most memorable caching experiences I have, and I'm glad we have caches like that. And more of them should be encouraged.

 

I don't like what I consider a bad cache; but I don't find many of those. I avoid the obvious locations I won't like.

 

That leaves the vast majority of caches that I find as "ordinary". E.g. a circular country walk in a nice area with a number of caches. Maybe the caches in themselves are nothing "special", but are good waterproof maintained containers, just off the trail. I enjoy these caches too. Before caching I would do these kind of walks anyway (and sometimes still do)... but with caching I enjoy combining the walks and finding caches. The caches take me to paths/trails which I would not have gone to otherwise.

 

So, a trail of caches along a canal sounds fine to me. And I do see a sort of challenge due to the length; e.g. trying to complete it in a day.

 

The only potential downside of such a series is: Does it reduce the number of - or the opportunity to place - more "special" caches? There are 2 aspects here:

 

1. Saturation (Finding places with the 10th of a mile guideline)

2. Expectations and Quality

 

The first point is clear. In this specific case; is blocking out 10th of a mile on each side of the trail likely to block out places where someone may want to hide a "special cache"?

 

By the second point, I mean that cachers are likely to place hides similar to those that they find. So the more "ordinary trails" there are; the more that becomes the norm. And does that mean fewer "special" cachers - or at least it being harder to identify their existence?

 

So I see both sides of the debate. It's not a simple one. I think most of us can agree we don't want bad caches (though the definition of what is bad will vary). And I think most of us appreciate those "special" caches. The debate comes down to (in my view): Do having more series of "ordinary" caches hurt the availability of "special" ones?

[+Betelgeuse]

The thing is, you cache for your own reasons - others cache for theirs. Both points of view are equally valid. Ignore the caches you don't like and respect other people's enjoyment of them whether it be for the fun of the hunt or increasing their find numbers. It's all valid game play after all and it is just a game.

[+helennbrian]

I think there is not the slightest risk that "boat only" caches will come to predominate the listings to the detriment of other caches, or that new cachers will come to believe that "boat only" caching is the norm.

 

Thats a shame. Helen has spent the last six months learning to paddle with the local canoe club specifically with the purpose of finding those 'interesting caches' accessible only by river.

[+helennbrian]

Ooh now you are talking, I was chatting to my hubby last night and he got quite excited about the idea of doing this by canoe. I pointed out that we would have to get in and out 100 times, but walk there canoe back. Oh but 14 mile walk then 14 mile paddle, possibly a little too much of a challenge, unless its windy and we can get out the umbrella 'sail'

 

Well strangely, at beginning of June, just before the fishing season, Chelmsford Canoe Club do indeed paddle the length from Heybridge Basin to Chelmsford. But with the existing locks/portages I can't imagine anyone wanting to get in and out of their boat 100 more times!!

[+The Real Boudica.]

Early July we canoed the Stour over two days, which was stunning (and I saw my first wild otter ) then shortly after I (re) discovered geocaching only to find there are a few hidden along the Stour, as hubby is keen to go back this year I am looking forward to getting them on the way, though not even close to a powertrail, I see there were a few more hidden for the event at Bures on Tuesday.

 

Its one of my bored time pastimes, looking at places we have been and seeing what caches are there, tucked away that we knew nothing about!

 

With the utmost respect Amberel, you say you are not trying to convert others to your way of thinking, but your posts, to me at least, do come across quite sermonizing, rather than simply a point of view we are allowed to disagree with, I too get what you are trying to say, but neither is anyone trying to convince you to change your mind, just to accept that there may be no right or wrong way.

 

Mmm, I really mean the respect bit 'sermonizing' isn't quite the right phrase I'm not even sure it is a word, but I couldn't think of a better one, apologies.

 

For what my newbie 6p is worth, as long as there are people like you who do encourage quality caching, and there are plenty, I don't think there is a risk of caching in the UK becoming a Powertrail frenzy. Looking at the forums it seems it might beome more of an issue in other countries, but we don't really have the Alien Head type landscapes or the Route 66 style roads where this would really be practical or possible (I don't think). Any new cachers coming into the game starting off with what you describe as 'bland,totally obvious' locations and '35mm film cans dropped behind a post', will either drop out quite quickly, because you are right, if thats all caching was it would get boring, or they will stick with it, explore the community and get to know that there is more to it than that.

[Izzy and the Lizard King]

I totally understand what Andy is getting at (although I feel that we have similar caching preferences anyway )

 

We have several power trails nearby and we are getting so bored by them. In fact, of those with the minimum distance between caches, we have not completed one single series. The distance walked is not the issue - we have always been keen walkers - but if we have to stop for a cache every 0.1miles, it spoils the "flow" of our walk. Also how much can the scenery change in that short distance? The argument that with the price of fuel, a power trail is more economical does not wash with us - finding 4 or 5 caches with variety on a ten mile walk, having travelled 30 miles is a far bigger attraction to us.

 

We accept that most cachers love the numbers and they would be in heaven living so near a high saturation area. We regret that our preferred style of caching seems to be in decline but feel that we are just going to have to live with it. Our only solution if we should do a power trail would be to walk until we felt like hunting for a cache. This would mean that we would walk past several without searching. It would not be a case of unlogged DNFs (which we do log anyway) but as everyone keeps saying, you don't have to do a cache

 

......and as a slight "by the way" - I can recommend taking a look at Andy's "Top Cache Award" page. It's great encouragement to strive for a great cache placement

[+Amberel]

I am similar to what "helennbrian" described - I like lots of different caches.

Just to clarify that point, I too like lots of different caches. What I don't much like are lots and lots and lots of the same caches.

 

I like cache series, and you will see that I do quite a few. I don't expect every cache on a series to be of outstanding quality, but I like the hides, and preferably the caches themselves, to be varied. I like the hiding places to be chosen for their interest and appropriateness rather than their spacing. I prefer the caches to require some searching - if they are all in totally obvious places I find it hard to see what they add to the walk, unless you are only doing it for the numbers. My ideal frequency is approx 3 to a mile - if they are too close I find they disrupt the walk rather than augment it.

 

Rgds, Andy

[+Amberel]

With the utmost respect Amberel, you say you are not trying to convert others to your way of thinking, but your posts, to me at least, do come across quite sermonizing, rather than simply a point of view we are allowed to disagree with

That is not uncommon in any discussion - I can assure you it appears just the same in the other direction, even though you don't intend it to be .

 

Rgds, Andy

[+The Real Boudica.]

Fair enough, I'll stop preaching then.

[+redsox_mark]

I like cache series, and you will see that I do quite a few. I don't expect every cache on a series to be of outstanding quality, but I like the hides, and preferably the caches themselves, to be varied. I like the hiding places to be chosen for their interest and appropriateness rather than their spacing. I prefer the caches to require some searching - if they are all in totally obvious places I find it hard to see what they add to the walk, unless you are only doing it for the numbers. My ideal frequency is approx 3 to a mile - if they are too close I find they disrupt the walk rather than augment it.

 

I agree with this - especially the last point. I don't like it when the caches are too close together. I agree 3 per mile is about ideal. And when doing a series, I like the hides to be varied too.

[+metal-bijou]

Clearly it's not what you know it's who you know

Regardless of what is on the cache page, the owner is responsible for cache maintenance. If they go unmaintained I'll deal with them in the same way as I deal with all unmaintained caches.

Just to be absolutely clear, I will treat these caches as I would any other cache.

 

Are I see Andy has kept to his word of treating them like any other caches and has now disabled a good few of them....

 

And the series is live again.

[+Happy Humphrey]

I must be unique as I enjoy a challenging series one day, then the next day I like a series with every cache easy to find straight away, then the next a single cache that's really hard to find, then a hard puzzle cache, then an easy but interesting one. Then I'm stuck in town with an hour to wait and I enjoy an urban micro or two. So these are all top quality caches, but using differing criteria. Some might be a micro at the foot of a fence post, but still A1 quality if a quick find is all you're after.

 

I'm too far from Essex to have a go at this series, but if I was in the mood for a walk with a bit of a caching dimension I'd probably consider it if in the area. If it's obvious that every cache is going to be uniformly simple, then that's a plus point if I need a bit of motivation to get going early because I can take on the challenge of racking up a good number for the day. Some days the numbers count because that's the challenge; some days I couldn't care less.

 

I did take on a "power trail" type series a few weeks ago that was a bit disappointing because the hides varied a lot and many were very difficult to spot (in fact I DNF'd a lot). I felt that it was a missed opportunity as the trail itself was superb (ten miles and hardly a road to cross) but there was little chance of logging all the caches, and the pauses for searching were just too long. So the series got me motivated to take the trouble to get outdoors all day, but the final result was that the walk on its own would have been better as the caching took too long and caused frustration. I wouldn't say that it was a poor series, but I'm of the opinion that it LOOKS like it's going to be a walk-with-caches when it's actually just a set of caches which happen to be along an obvious trail. If you realise this then the caches themselves are OK, if not then you're likely to find them too frustrating. But in the end, you can't walk the whole trail in a day and have a chance of finding all the caches beside it, so it seems like the wrong design to me as this is an obvious plan.

[patdhill]

I've done the same "power trail" as Happy Humphrey and came out feeling the same way. I don't mind cunning and hard to find caches but on a long series that has few access points if you DNF a lot then if becomes frustrating. There is then little to drive me to go back and have another look as it's a long way away from home, hard to get to the path with the DNFs on without doing a lot of the walk again. To be honest that walk down a dead straight railway line in the flat of Lincolnshire wasn't too inspiring anyway not a lot to see beyond the undergrowth by the side of the old track bed.

 

If I was in Essex and the walk was down a canal with lots of wildlife and boats to see I'd definitely put it on my to do list. The kids would enjoy it more as they get bored with all the standing around searching on a long walk if you have to do it all the time.

[+metal-bijou]

Having walked the trail on Wednesday I have a better understanding of the experience. And first of all I'd like to say that I would happily do it again.

 

The trail is very different to an individually placed high calibre cache however it is a very well put together power trail where you are left with a great satisfaction upon completion. You are in no doubt if you have found the hidey hole of the cache if it is missing and then it is up to you if you feel that you would like to help the CO with their maintenance and then it’s further up to you if you wish to log that as a find, DNF or needs maintenance saying you’ve replaced. Each were quick finds which is exactly what you want when you nearly add 2 hours on to the walk with only a minute per cache.

 

For me, the simple hides do not detract from a great overall experience when completed as a power trail. Would I have set this differently? Only very slightly and probably not as well as the CO have.

 

I could see that new cachers only attempting a couple might then not grasp the true concept of the trail or of geocaching. However there were a couple of lads on the trail who had completed a couple of hundred finds before this trail and they certainly appreciated the difference between these and other small trails of innovative hides. They even dragged us off course for a wonderfully hidden cache requiring team work.

 

Overall, I found this trail adds another dimension to caching. Would I have done this as one long multi? I doubt it and yet it really isn’t about the numbers for me as anyone can tell from my stats.

[+drsolly]

the trail itself was superb (ten miles and hardly a road to cross) but there was little chance of logging all the caches, and the pauses for searching were just too long.

 

Ten miles is really my limit; the 14 miles of the Chelmer Nav was really four miles more than I can really do. Which is why I did it.

 

But when I do a long series, singlehanded or with a buddy, the pauses for searching are good, because they're a chance for me to catch my breath and give my legs and back a chance to recover. Without those stops, I'd be stopping en route anyway.

 

The Essex 104-cache trail was really good, and I'm hoping that other such trails will be set in the South East, because I, for one, would be delighted to do another Death March. I've learned a few things from this one - 1) I shouldn't have put heel gels into that particular pair of boots, because they made the toe end too cramped which I was really feeling from mile 10 onwards, 2) I was carrying far too much food, 3) two bottles of water, in winter, for 7 hours wasn't quite enough, I should have had three and 4) two days later I'm still suffering.

 

And surely what caching is about, is that different folks like different strokes? You can have your 5 mile trek with wonderful views and varied terrain to get a single cache (and I've done at least one of those), and I can have my Death Marches.

[+drsolly]

Content removed by mod

 

Spam. Moderator, do your duty!

Edited December 24, 2011 by castagnari
to remove reported content

[+Happy Humphrey]

the trail itself was superb (ten miles and hardly a road to cross) but there was little chance of logging all the caches, and the pauses for searching were just too long.

 

Ten miles is really my limit; the 14 miles of the Chelmer Nav was really four miles more than I can really do. Which is why I did it.

 

But when I do a long series, singlehanded or with a buddy, the pauses for searching are good, because they're a chance for me to catch my breath and give my legs and back a chance to recover. Without those stops, I'd be stopping en route anyway.

I can fully understand that. However, a 10-minute pause to search for a cache is a rest, whereas a half-hour stop becomes a frustrating delay. Particularly if you have to give up on the cache altogether in the interest of being able to finish the walk. I honestly can't see the point of hiding a cache so that it's really hard to find if it's part of a walking or cycling series. Hiding a cache in most cases is simply meant protect it from muggles anyway, not to make it difficult to find.

[+Amberel]

Hiding a cache in most cases is simply meant protect it from muggles anyway, not to make it difficult to find.

Do you never get any satisfaction from finding a cleverly hidden cache? I would rather have one find of an ingenious, different, interesting hide, plus one DNF, than two finds on bland, obvious, repetitive "hides".

 

Rgds, Andy

[+drsolly]

the trail itself was superb (ten miles and hardly a road to cross) but there was little chance of logging all the caches, and the pauses for searching were just too long.

 

Ten miles is really my limit; the 14 miles of the Chelmer Nav was really four miles more than I can really do. Which is why I did it.

 

But when I do a long series, singlehanded or with a buddy, the pauses for searching are good, because they're a chance for me to catch my breath and give my legs and back a chance to recover. Without those stops, I'd be stopping en route anyway.

I can fully understand that. However, a 10-minute pause to search for a cache is a rest, whereas a half-hour stop becomes a frustrating delay. Particularly if you have to give up on the cache altogether in the interest of being able to finish the walk. I honestly can't see the point of hiding a cache so that it's really hard to find if it's part of a walking or cycling series. Hiding a cache in most cases is simply meant protect it from muggles anyway, not to make it difficult to find.

 

It varies. Sometimes one, sometimes the other. I've been on many trails where the "hunt" for the cache takes about three seconds, and that's good, because I get to cover lots of ground, and if I need a rest, I'll sit on a stile. And I've been on many caches where I stand and wonder, hunt and delve, read the hint, read the past logs, and eventually, with a considerable sense of satisfaction, locate the cunningly hidden cache.

 

And I've racked up plenty of DNFs.

[+Happy Humphrey]

Hiding a cache in most cases is simply meant protect it from muggles anyway, not to make it difficult to find.

Do you never get any satisfaction from finding a cleverly hidden cache? I would rather have one find of an ingenious, different, interesting hide, plus one DNF, than two finds on bland, obvious, repetitive "hides".

 

Rgds, Andy

Absolutely, but not if I'm not expecting a challenge. There's always room for a good clever hide, but it has to be flagged up as such otherwise it's going to cause frustration. I'd hope that a cache that is likely to take half an hour to locate is at least 3* difficulty, and then I can make the decision as to whether it suits my plans for the day.

Generally the point of disguising the cache is just so it's not obvious to the passer by. Some caches have been made awkward for the sake of it, and require a dull, methodical search pattern. Not clever, particularly if it's likely to be one of a lengthy series.

[+Amberel]

Some caches have been made awkward for the sake of it, and require a dull, methodical search pattern. Not clever, particularly if it's likely to be one of a lengthy series.

I think a "dull, methodical search" isn't something I would expect from an "ingenious, different, interesting hide". I'm even less interested in caches that involve nothing more than boring repetition than I am in bland caches that don't require a search at all.

 

I agree that whatever the cache type, the cache page should represent it reasonably faithfully.

 

We have all expressed our enjoyment of variety. I think that the difference is that for some people a lack of variety sometimes counts as a form of variety, whereas I can't recall a time when that worked for me.

 

Rgds, Andy

[+drsolly]

 

We have all expressed our enjoyment of variety. I think that the difference is that for some people a lack of variety sometimes counts as a form of variety, whereas I can't recall a time when that worked for me.

 

 

For me, not quite so.

 

One of the many varieties that I enjoy, is the variety that consists of a long series of 104 caches all of which are easy to find, but where the entire experience is a lot further than I can comfortably do, and which leaves me exhausted for days afterwards. That isn't, for me, a "lack of variety", it is one variety.

[+Amberel]

For me, not quite so.

 

One of the many varieties that I enjoy, is the variety that consists of a long series of 104 caches all of which are easy to find, but where the entire experience is a lot further than I can comfortably do, and which leaves me exhausted for days afterwards. That isn't, for me, a "lack of variety", it is one variety.

Apart from adding the bit about being left exhausted, that's exactly what I was saying.

 

Have a great Christmas everyone, whatever type of caching you enjoy .

 

I haven't got my Christmas present yet - it's hidden somewhere. My grandchildren have led me a merry dance. First they presented me with a difficult cipher to solve, that led me to look elsewhere in the house where I found some instructions and some co-ordinates. This led around a long and spectacularly difficult trail of "questions to answer" in the neigbourhood, and then to a bench in the local park where there was a magnetic micro with some more co-ords.

 

At that point we were called back for Christmas dinner, so I have to finish the trail this afternoon. They have, however, let slip that my oldest grandson has hidden my present at the top of a tall tree in the park, so I've obviously got a bit to do this afternoon once I've finished my coffee .

 

Rgds, Andy

Edited December 25, 2011 by Amberel

[+abanazar]

Have a great Christmas everyone, whatever type of caching you enjoy .

 

I haven't got my Christmas present yet - it's hidden somewhere. My grandchildren have led me a merry dance. First they presented me with a difficult cipher to solve, that led me to look elsewhere in the house where I found some instructions and some co-ordinates. This led around a long and spectacularly difficult trail of "questions to answer" in the neigbourhood, and then to a bench in the local park where there was a magnetic micro with some more co-ords.

 

At that point we were called back for Christmas dinner, so I have to finish the trail this afternoon. They have, however, let slip that my oldest grandson has hidden my present at the top of a tall tree in the park, so I've obviously got a bit to do this afternoon once I've finished my coffee .

 

Rgds, Andy

I hope you found your present, Andy. My own two sons had to find their Christmas caches this afternoon. They had each received an email containing a single clue word written in some form of rune, although you'd have no trouble solving it They soon located an ammo can each that had been well-hidden in the back garden by Santa last night. The caches contained a bunch of swag whose quality they rarely encounter in the real world. Merry Christmas

[+Amberel]

I hope you found your present, Andy.

It was nearly as hard as one of yours :laughing: The cipher was actually just a simple substitution cipher, but made tricky because there wasn't a great deal of ciphertext to work on.

 

The 10 "questions to answer" were difficult because they weren't at specific locations, i.e. there were 10 questions over a quarter mile walk, and I knew the answers would be found in sequence, but I didn't know exactly where to look for them. And they were mostly cryptic questions, e.g. a trembling tree was an Aspen estate agent's "house for sale" board.

 

The micro under the park bench that I found this morning with just my grand-daughter eventually turned out to be the first of 14 - yes, fourteen - physical stages over a couple of miles, 3 of which were tupperware boxes containing my presents, and the others just micros holding the next encrypted co-ordinates. Luckily my presents hadn't been muggled .

 

In the afternoon we all went out. They weren't easy stages. One was indeed 25 feet up a tree, another required crossing the river by stepping stones, where myself and 2 of my 3 grand-sons managed to fall into the river - luckily it was a very mild Christmas day. We didn't finish until well after dark.

 

I reckon it was a 4 / 4 cache, and I am considering turning parts of it into a permanent cache .

 

Rgds, Andy

Edited December 25, 2011 by Amberel