Jump to content

When did geocaching become like this?


Stroover

Recommended Posts

It's been a few years since I've last geocached. Back then, caches were no closer then about a kilometer each, and the cache sites had something significant there to see, whether it was natural beauty, some neat geological site, of historic significance, or some neat site only the locals know about. The year I stopped, caches were becoming too close together and with nothing significant at the site. Nowadays, caches seem to be only a few douzen yards apart, and for the most part there is nothing there interesting to see, just a micro stuck in a tree in the woods. What's the point of that? Now I see why I stopped. It's a shame too, because back then caches had real significance and geocaching itself was a lot of fun to do. :(

Link to comment

skip the LPCs and go out in the woods. Do some Challenge puzzles. Solve some mystery caches. Do some night caches. Do caches with lots of favorite points. Just because there are a lot of relatively lame LPCs does not mean there are not more nicer caches out now than when you did them....you just have to find the ones that appeal to you. Sounds like you should stay away from power trails too.

Link to comment
There are favourite points, descriptions and logs of other caches that will help you find caches that are really worth doing.

I'd also suggest checking out bookmarks of notable caches, and getting recommendations from locals. If the OP requires excellence in caches (and why not), each cache is worth a little research.

Link to comment

It's all a matter of preference really. Sure we enjoy caches that bring us to great destinations well worth seeing, but we also enjoy the simple act of getting out as a family and the thrill of the hunt (no matter how small it may be). We enjoy the small & micros "stuck in a tree" (as you put it) because often times they give us yet another cache to hunt in between interesting locations. Also, keep in mind that caches many might consider simple or not worth it (example: LPC's) gives certain people the chance to enjoy the game who otherwise aren't able to access some of the more difficult and off the beaten path caches. Like others have said, there's many to choose from, especially if you're in or around a highly populated area. There's something for everyone.

Link to comment

Geocaching is still lots of fun to do. If it wasn't I wouldn't be here. Sure there are some that are just there for the numbers, but trust me there are plenty of great caches out there. I know a couple old school cachers who talk about what it used to be like and it sounds like it was more about the spot and the journey. Now those spots still exist but instead of one cache you can grab many in that same area. And in many areas there are cachers who put out cool unique hides.

 

I did a search around your last find here's a good place to start: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.aspx?lat=45.450983&lng=-65.833950&sortdir=desc&sort=fav

Link to comment

Not sure if I count as a veteran or not...but...

 

The caches you speak of are still out there...as others have said, it just takes a bit of prior looking. I like those out of the way caches and hikes...but the quick grabs alos serve there purpose from time to time (like, needing a break from work...or being able to step out of the house quick).

 

I am more than happy spending a day hiking and only nabbing a cache or two...but, some of what you see (I would offer as an opinion and nothing more) is the effect of Geocaching being more main-stream then when it started...but, also the effect of many just wanting to place a hide and gain the "full experience". Some cachers stay and their hide style evolves...and some leave almost as fast as they arrived.

 

Yes, it takes a little more work now prior to stepping out the door...but it is worth it.

Link to comment

Yes, there are a lot more caches out there that you aren't interested in. You aren't the first to notice that.

 

But you don't need to find them all. Actually, you can't find them all. There are enough geocaches out there that no one can find them all.

 

And as Markwell explained last year, even though there are a lot more caches that you aren't interested in, and even though the caches you enjoy are a smaller percentage of the total cache population, there are still more caches of the type you enjoy than there were before, because there are more caches of all types than there were before.

 

You just need to search for the types of caches you enjoy, and ignore the rest.

Link to comment

It's been a few years since I've last geocached. Back then, caches were no closer then about a kilometer each, and the cache sites had something significant there to see, whether it was natural beauty, some neat geological site, of historic significance, or some neat site only the locals know about. The year I stopped, caches were becoming too close together and with nothing significant at the site. Nowadays, caches seem to be only a few douzen yards apart, and for the most part there is nothing there interesting to see, just a micro stuck in a tree in the woods. What's the point of that? Now I see why I stopped. It's a shame too, because back then caches had real significance and geocaching itself was a lot of fun to do. :(

Gee, I've been caching for almost 11 years and don't remember ever when all "cache sites had something significant there to see". My fifth cache was under a freeway overpass, my 33d was in a big box parking lot (just a couple of examples) - what "something significant" is there to these spots? Of course, I remember them with fondness, not because the places were great, but the sport was new.

Link to comment

It's been a few years since I've last geocached. Back then, caches were no closer then about a kilometer each, and the cache sites had something significant there to see, whether it was natural beauty, some neat geological site, of historic significance, or some neat site only the locals know about. The year I stopped, caches were becoming too close together and with nothing significant at the site. Nowadays, caches seem to be only a few douzen yards apart, and for the most part there is nothing there interesting to see, just a micro stuck in a tree in the woods. What's the point of that? Now I see why I stopped. It's a shame too, because back then caches had real significance and geocaching itself was a lot of fun to do. :(

 

For the millionth time please stop exaggerating. :rolleyes:

Yes there are more caches, there are more of all kinds of caches.

I found several hundred PnG's before you even started caching.

And I took some really nice hikes in beautiful forests, saw creative hides, and local oddities.

 

I also enjoyed the same variety of finds last month.

 

Last I checked, the Cache Saturation guideline has always been set at .1 mile from the beginning of the guidelines. Not kilometers or miles, not dozens of yards.

 

I'll agree that you do need to do a bit of planning to find what you really like if you are being particular, but sometimes that planning can be fun too.

Edited by wimseyguy
Link to comment

skip the LPCs and go out in the woods.

Sadly, even caches in the woods are starting to become micros stuck to trees for no apparent reason than "It's far enough away from any other cache on this trail."

 

I still love caching, it's just there is more chaff to remove from the wheat now.

Link to comment

At one time "power trails", as they were commomly called back then, were not approved by the powers to be. Now they are called "series" caches, as I guess somebody figured out that more people searching out caches only .10 apart to pump up their numbers meant more premium members in the fold. I wonder how many of these number hounds would make the trip out to a rural area to see some great scenery, (as well as getting a few caches) if there was only 3 or 4 hides to find instead of thirty, forty,fifty, or more. Actually, I wonder how many folks would still be caching if there was no "find" count. Just because someone has 10K finds doesn't mean that he or she is a "better" cacher than someone who has 1K finds. It just means that the cacher with 10K has most likely spent more time and gas money seeking out areas with higher hide counts. When I see someone with extremely high find numbers, I don't respect these people any more than somebody with low find numbers. It just verifies the fact that these people are OCD positive and don't have much of a life besides geocaching. A lot of folks use geocaching as a social network and prefer to attend as many events as possible, for socializing,I would guess. Hey, have at it. I would much prefer spending that time riding the backroads checking out the country and grabbing a few caches. When geocaching was in it's infancy we had fun with the local competition, but at some point decided the numbers thing was secondary and really didn't matter that much to us. I know a few old time cachers who dropped out of the game just because of the direction GC was heading. Some of them still grab a cache now and then, but for the most part can drive by an area with a buttload of caches and not have the need or desire to find each and every one of them. Even though we don't care much for the numbers thing, anymore, everybody has their own way of playing this goofy game. That's just the way it is..........

Link to comment

Actually, you can't find them all. There are enough geocaches out there that no one can find them all.

 

That's however only true in areas with a huge cache density or for people being able and willing to travel a lot.

 

And as Markwell explained last year, even though there are a lot more caches that you aren't interested in, and even though the caches you enjoy are a smaller percentage of the total cache population, there are still more caches of the type you enjoy than there were before, because there are more caches of all types than there were before.

 

What Markwell wrote is not true in general. There are types of caches that became less frequent in certain areas also with respect to absolute numbers than they have been in previous years. These cache types cannot simply be characterized by a few attributes and then filtered out. So I cannot come up with a table like Markwell's as it would cost too much time to prepare it manually. I know my area however well enoough to know for sure that it is not true that more caches to enjoy for everyone regardless of his/her preferences than say in 2005 or 2006.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

skip the LPCs and go out in the woods.

Sadly, even caches in the woods are starting to become micros stuck to trees for no apparent reason than "It's far enough away from any other cache on this trail."

 

I still love caching, it's just there is more chaff to remove from the wheat now.

 

You know, I always said the day would come when micros are the majority cache size. Of course people like Wimseyguy would say "For the millionth time please stop exaggerating". :laughing: Power trails, which were not allowed until about 2 years ago, have really accelerated that process. And as Dan says, this is becoming evident for many PT's "in the woods" or along rail trails. Heck, there is an extremely remote PT in Eastern Ontario that you'd be lucky to hike in a 16 hour day, that is 100% micro.

 

There are some nice posts in this thread, and no angst, about seperating the wheat from the chaff. Me, I look at the caches in my 50 mile notification range as they are published. I can pick out the bison tube behind Wal-Mart in about 30 seconds. And believe me, I'll bet I've ignored over 1/2 of the caches published in my area since the new year. Sort of a winter spew fest going on in these here parts. :P

Edited by Mr.Yuck
Link to comment

More and more it is becoming a chore just to sort through all the crap to find the few gems. Oh well, that's what happens when the masses take over.

 

+1

 

I blame phone apps, and more so, people telling people about caching. Stop telling others!

It used to be like a secret society, and if you talked about it, people looked at you funny.

Now they say "Oh, I've heard of that". Every Tom, Dick, and Harry has a GPS now. Chances are they look for something to do with it, besides driving around.

Link to comment
You know, I always said the day would come when micros are the majority cache size.

 

Come to think of it, wouldn't that turn the micro into being the "regular" cache size? I see it now... Micros are regular, nanos would be small, and then you have large, extra large and supersize :lol:

Link to comment
You know, I always said the day would come when micros are the majority cache size.

 

Come to think of it, wouldn't that turn the micro into being the "regular" cache size? I see it now... Micros are regular, nanos would be small, and then you have large, extra large and supersize :lol:

Then what would be a micro? :unsure:

Link to comment

skip the LPCs and go out in the woods.

Sadly, even caches in the woods are starting to become micros stuck to trees for no apparent reason than "It's far enough away from any other cache on this trail."

 

I still love caching, it's just there is more chaff to remove from the wheat now.

 

What's wrong with a micro in the woods? It still gets you into the woods and hiking.

 

I understand why some people don't hide regular caches. They cost more up front. They are harder to hide. They are often re-hidden poorly. They are more likely to be "muggled" (I hate that word) or outright stolen if they are found by a non-cacher. The swag in a regular cache degenerates into bottle caps and broken trinkets in short order.

 

The only thing I dislike about a micro in the woods is that it can be difficult to find. As a result the surrounding area often sees more wear and tear than it would see with a regular sized cache.

Link to comment

It's been a few years since I've last geocached. Back then, caches were no closer then about a kilometer each, and the cache sites had something significant there to see, whether it was natural beauty, some neat geological site, of historic significance, or some neat site only the locals know about. The year I stopped, caches were becoming too close together and with nothing significant at the site. Nowadays, caches seem to be only a few douzen yards apart, and for the most part there is nothing there interesting to see, just a micro stuck in a tree in the woods. What's the point of that? Now I see why I stopped. It's a shame too, because back then caches had real significance and geocaching itself was a lot of fun to do. :(

 

Actually, if you don't care for a "cache in a tree in the woods " I don't think there is any hope....thats about as good as it gets and it really goes downhill from there. Every cache can't be next to Bridal Veil Falls or the Great Sand Dunes, etc.

Link to comment

every holiday I go on cant be as great as last time..

so what, I still go.

 

it is the same with any hobby, it is all about the small and the big things,

yesterday we had a alot of fun at a geocache site, it is winter here, ice and snow,

so birds like ducks starve alot. so the girls got this idea, lets bring bread and feed them,

and the funny thing they let us hand feed them all.

ok that is sometimes also possible during summer if you are calm and nice,

but yesterday they also let us pet them !! haha that was soo cool, we took alot of pictures and videos.

 

So just get out there, see some stuff with an open mind.

sure you see alot of crap.. and you see some good stuff too :-)

I dont hate P&G I take them too for fun, or even my kids race to see who get it first,

after alot of P&G a day in florida, we changed the game a bit,

we said ok now it is only legal to take the cache from the car !!

you can not leave the car or open the door, but you can open the window, or walk on the car,

what ever you like.. HAHA imagine I got alot og cool pictures that day,

it was a rental :-)

 

I think it is great there is so much different.

what I hate the most is CO's who neglect maintenence.

and cachers who forgets to log trackables correctly,

or fast enought, they sure know how to log the cache as found 5 mins later,

but 2-3 weeks later still no log of the TB, that is bad !!

 

why dont you get the diff/terr matrix filled up ?

then you try alot of new and different stuff.

Edited by OZ2CPU
Link to comment
You know, I always said the day would come when micros are the majority cache size.

 

Come to think of it, wouldn't that turn the micro into being the "regular" cache size? I see it now... Micros are regular, nanos would be small, and then you have large, extra large and supersize :lol:

Then what would be a micro? :unsure:

 

1a46cc64-8039-49ae-9f2f-d40844a5d665.jpg

Link to comment

I am a beginner and talentless geocacher. I am also a single parent with mobility difficulties and a very low income. It must be wonderful to be able to afford to travel the globe then engage in a 30 mile hike with maybe some wild camping thrown in to find a geocache with a spectacular view. For some of us for a huge number of reasons that is not possible. For others it is simply not desirable. Seems to me that any hobby has its snobs, but when it comes to this one the 'snobbery' evident in the OP makes me very sad. Despite my pathetic success rate, I love spending time with my daughter, doing something together outdoors where we have a common goal and spend virtually no money at all, since we tend to combine our fruitless searches with journeys we were already taking. Given that this hobby is born out of 21st century technology enabling a treasure hunt to be played on a global scale, should it not also be accompanied by more modern day egalitarianism that moves away from the notion that there are superior and inferior ways of engaging in the same hobby? There is not necessarily a better or a worse way of geocaching, surely, just individuals choosing how they wish to enjoy something? It would be really nice if we could all just be happy about that! :D

Link to comment
You know, I always said the day would come when micros are the majority cache size.

 

Come to think of it, wouldn't that turn the micro into being the "regular" cache size? I see it now... Micros are regular, nanos would be small, and then you have large, extra large and supersize :lol:

Then what would be a micro? :unsure:

 

1a46cc64-8039-49ae-9f2f-d40844a5d665.jpg

No, no, no. That's a small, silly.

Link to comment

 

I blame phone apps, and more so, people telling people about caching. Stop telling others!

It used to be like a secret society, and if you talked about it, people looked at you funny.

Now they say "Oh, I've heard of that". Every Tom, Dick, and Harry has a GPS now. Chances are they look for something to do with it, besides driving around.

 

Boy isn't that true. Twice while caching I've been asked by hikers if I'm geocaching. Both times the people who were asking didn't geocache themselves but they knew about it. While at a letterboxing event, a group of us were searching for a box in the woods and a family stopped to ask if we were geocaching - we said 'Yes we are". :)

Link to comment

There has always been a variety of answers from the geocaching community as to why you cache or what is the most fun thing about geocaching. Perhaps no place is this seen more than in the dichotomy between those who say "I like finding hidden containers, the location is not important" and those who say "I like that it takes me to interesting places".

 

Those in the second group will always have a problem if they don't understand that there are people who cache for different reasons. From the very first geocache, which was hidden by the side of a road in a not very interesting location, there has never been a requirement for physical caches to be in "interesting" places. Virtual cache were subject to the so-called "wow" requirement, and that alone shows how difficult it is to decide what is special or interesting enough to merit a cache.

 

Many parking lot caches I have found were placed because there was something special about these places as far as the hider was concerned. Of course many are placed "just to add another cache" to the area. The thing is you can't tell them apart. My favorite example is these two caches: GCPV78 and GC1HF2V. Pretty much the same cache hide in the same location but see the difference in the write up.

 

It may well be that as the popularity of geocaching has grown, the number of people who just want to find caches has grown faster than the number of people who want to find interesting places. It may also be that alternatives now exists for those who are more interested in finding interesting places - not just Waymarking but other location based websites and applications like FourSquare and Google Latitude. However, it is clear that many people still hide cache in places they find interesting, and caches in interesting places tend to gather more favorite points. So, with a little work, you can still find caches in interesting spots and avoid most of those placed "just to have another cache in the area". Some people have had luck looking at the photo galleries for interesting picture and then visiting those caches. Premium members can preview a pocket query and then click a link to see the gallery pictures for all the caches in that query. Others run a GSAK macro to find caches with longer than average logs.

Link to comment

I am a beginner and talentless geocacher. I am also a single parent with mobility difficulties and a very low income. It must be wonderful to be able to afford to travel the globe then engage in a 30 mile hike with maybe some wild camping thrown in to find a geocache with a spectacular view. For some of us for a huge number of reasons that is not possible. For others it is simply not desirable. Seems to me that any hobby has its snobs, but when it comes to this one the 'snobbery' evident in the OP makes me very sad. Despite my pathetic success rate, I love spending time with my daughter, doing something together outdoors where we have a common goal and spend virtually no money at all, since we tend to combine our fruitless searches with journeys we were already taking. Given that this hobby is born out of 21st century technology enabling a treasure hunt to be played on a global scale, should it not also be accompanied by more modern day egalitarianism that moves away from the notion that there are superior and inferior ways of engaging in the same hobby? There is not necessarily a better or a worse way of geocaching, surely, just individuals choosing how they wish to enjoy something? It would be really nice if we could all just be happy about that! :D

 

I appreciate your perspective. But there is no doubt Geocaching has changed from the perspective of the Original Poster, who joined in 2004, has been out of it for a while, and is looking at it again. There were less than 300,000 registered Geocachers world-wide when he joined. There are now over 5,400,000, meaning he's been doing this longer than 95% of account holders. Pretty crazy growth, eh?

 

The community was much smaller, the caches were fewer and further between, and no one will ever convince me the caches weren't generally "better". You can try, but you won't do it. :lol: Some of us that have been around a long time are just not going to accept film cans in every store parking lots as "egalitarianism". And I see you're from The UK, you don't have that the way we do here in North America. :P

Link to comment

Everything looks better from the perspective of time passing.

 

"The good ole days." Yep.

 

My grandmother used to always talk about how much better everything was in the past. I'm sure glad to have dishwashers and computers myself.

 

If things had progressed backwards (lots of caches back then, and few now) we'd all be complaining about our lack of options.

 

I prefer lots of caches and lots of options.

 

Man, I just don't know how they got by "in the old days" of caching with so few to choose from!!

Link to comment
You know, I always said the day would come when micros are the majority cache size.

 

Come to think of it, wouldn't that turn the micro into being the "regular" cache size? I see it now... Micros are regular, nanos would be small, and then you have large, extra large and supersize :lol:

Then what would be a micro? :unsure:

 

1a46cc64-8039-49ae-9f2f-d40844a5d665.jpg

No, no, no. That's a small, silly.

 

Sorry, you're right. I meant to post this one:

ced529c6-ccdc-4d03-8ab9-b6e82af0e32f.jpg

Link to comment

Everything looks better from the perspective of time passing.

 

"The good ole days." Yep.

 

My grandmother used to always talk about how much better everything was in the past. I'm sure glad to have dishwashers and computers myself.

 

If things had progressed backwards (lots of caches back then, and few now) we'd all be complaining about our lack of options.

 

I prefer lots of caches and lots of options.

 

Man, I just don't know how they got by "in the old days" of caching with so few to choose from!!

 

I'm not your Grandmother, and I ain't talking about Hotcakes or Dungarees, or whatever. <_<

 

How do you equate fewer to choose from with not knowing how we got by?

 

How do you equate lame micros and more choices with advancements in technology such as dishwashers and Computers? Please try to be a little less snarky in the future.

Link to comment

What's wrong with a micro in the woods?

 

What's nicer then a micro in the woods? A swag-size, water-tight well-maintained cache in the woods. More geocachers get to enjoy a fuller caching experience.

 

If it's a micro in the woods I'm going to skip it. Why? Because it's been my experience over 10+ years of geocaching that the majority of COs plant micros because they are cheap (i.e. free), they are easier to hide, they don't need to be filled with swag, they require less maintenance. How does that make for a good caching experience? How is that an incentive to do the hike? Personally, I do not want to encourage the CO who plants micros in the woods by logging a find.

 

Yesterday I was on a forest trail. Found 2 swag size caches (traded 2 very cool personalized geotreasures, with 2 of my own handcrafted geoswag) and skipped the micro in the middle.

Edited by Solitario R
Link to comment

What's wrong with a micro in the woods?

 

What's nicer then a micro in the woods? A swag-size, water-tight well-maintained cache in the woods. More geocachers get to enjoy a fuller caching experience.

 

If it's a micro in the woods I'm going to skip it. Why? Because it's been my experience over 10+ years of geocaching that the majority of COs plant micros because they are cheap (i.e. free), they are easier to hide, they don't need to be filled with swag, they require less maintenance. How does that make for a good caching experience? How is that an incentive to do the hike? Personally, I do not want to encourage the CO who plants micros in the woods by logging a find.

 

Yesterday I was on a forest trail. Found 2 swag size caches (traded 2 very cool personalized geotreasures, with 2 of my own handcrafted geoswag) and skipped the micro in the middle.

 

+1

Link to comment

I prefer lots of caches and lots of options.

 

Man, I just don't know how they got by "in the old days" of caching with so few to choose from!!

 

That's pretty simple to explain in my case. The vast majority of caches available back then in my area were fitting my caching preferences nicely.

So I was happy with the situation and there is not much need to make any choice at all. My caching preferences are more of the narrow type and many hiders back then shared my preferences which has changed considerably. In the early days, most cachers in my area were fans of outdoor activities and enjoyed going for a walk.

 

Nowadays there are much more caches around to choose from, but very few in my area with which you can spend a whole afternoon or even a whole day.

So in order to spend several hours with caching one needs to combine several caches into a tour and this requires a lot more planning effort and

typically also time to go from location to location (that I regard as wasted time). In the old days, it sufficed to take the printout of a single

of my favourite multi caches and start off. The time spent was mainly spent outdoors and not indoors with selecting caches, planning the tour, readings

tons of descriptions, logs etc

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

When did geocaching become like this? 05-May 10. B)

 

Yeah, I can see from the older caches that it's changed a lot. Sorry about that. There are way more people caching now, so if caches were as sparse as they were back then, we'd have to have a hundred people visit each cache each day. Instead, there are a lot more caches, most much easier to reach.

 

In short: yes, it is now about the cache, not about where the cache is. Great location, inovative hide, or plenty of swag can make a cache better, but they are no longer critical.

 

Feel free to buck the trend: from what I've seen, old style caches are still much appreciated, although if they're more than a mile or two into the woods, they probably won't be visited very often. Just keep in mind that "not very often" is now probably more frequent than such caches were visited in your Golden Age.

Link to comment

What's wrong with a micro in the woods?

 

What's nicer then a micro in the woods? A swag-size, water-tight well-maintained cache in the woods. More geocachers get to enjoy a fuller caching experience.

 

If it's a micro in the woods I'm going to skip it. Why? Because it's been my experience over 10+ years of geocaching that the majority of COs plant micros because they are cheap (i.e. free), they are easier to hide, they don't need to be filled with swag, they require less maintenance. How does that make for a good caching experience? How is that an incentive to do the hike? Personally, I do not want to encourage the CO who plants micros in the woods by logging a find.

 

Yesterday I was on a forest trail. Found 2 swag size caches (traded 2 very cool personalized geotreasures, with 2 of my own handcrafted geoswag) and skipped the micro in the middle.

My point was that if the cache owners goal was to bring you to a particular park or hiking trail, the the size of the container wasn't necessarily important to them.

 

I prefer full sized caches too, but if the OP's lament is that caches no longer take us to cool places I don't see why the size of the container matters.

Link to comment
Nowadays there are much more caches around to choose from, but very few in my area with which you can spend a whole afternoon or even a whole day. So in order to spend several hours with caching one needs to combine several caches into a tour and this requires a lot more planning effort and typically also time to go from location to location (that I regard as wasted time). In the old days, it sufficed to take the printout of a single of my favourite multi caches and start off. The time spent was mainly spent outdoors and not indoors with selecting caches, planning the tour, readings tons of descriptions, logs etc
Interesting. I also vastly prefer going to one place and hiking for a while. I guess the difference is that I started after they invented paperless caching. I do pretty much what you describe, except I'm going from one cache to the next as presented by my GPSr instead of following a series of steps in a single multi I've printed out in advance. Because of all the caches, this is almost always way more caching than I have time for. The good news is that because I'm not always invested in a single multi, I can stop at the next cache and leave the rest for another day.

 

Seriously, it sounds to me like you'd have even more fun doing what you used to do if you just adjusted your approach a little, and maybe your equipment. I actually enjoy a little pre-planning, but I've also just dropped myself somewhere with a bunch of caches and starting walking without knowing what I was going to find.

Link to comment

I prefer full sized caches too, but if the OP's lament is that caches no longer take us to cool places I don't see why the size of the container matters.

 

Sometimes it does, but not automatically.

 

I know quite a number of caches with creative and tricky hideouts and the vast majority of them has a very tiny container where not even GCs fit into.

The camouflage object might be large, but the container itself is typically tiny.

 

Back when I started geocaching almost all of the caches into which the hider invested considerable effort were caches where the idea was to show a special place and not to show a special container or a special hiding style. Many of the most acclaimed caches in my area are of the type where the goal is not to show a special place - reading logs and looking at favourite points does not help that much to sort out this type of caches as it is often not evident why people like a certain cache.

 

For certain type of constructions with fake objects at some places where they do not really belong to, placing them at nice locations that attract also the attention of muggles would be counterproductive. I think that the wish to come up with special hideouts and to come up caches that are very hard to find and require a lot of serarching often collides with the idea to lead to nice locations and make the search for cachers easy (for most early time cachers in my area caching has not been about searching like in an Easter egg hunt).

 

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment
Nowadays there are much more caches around to choose from, but very few in my area with which you can spend a whole afternoon or even a whole day. So in order to spend several hours with caching one needs to combine several caches into a tour and this requires a lot more planning effort and typically also time to go from location to location (that I regard as wasted time). In the old days, it sufficed to take the printout of a single of my favourite multi caches and start off. The time spent was mainly spent outdoors and not indoors with selecting caches, planning the tour, readings tons of descriptions, logs etc
Interesting. I also vastly prefer going to one place and hiking for a while. I guess the difference is that I started after they invented paperless caching. I do pretty much what you describe, except I'm going from one cache to the next as presented by my GPSr instead of following a series of steps in a single multi I've printed out in advance. Because of all the caches, this is almost always way more caching than I have time for. The good news is that because I'm not always invested in a single multi, I can stop at the next cache and leave the rest for another day.

 

That might work well for you in your area. In my case it does not work out nicely in my home area as I have found many caches there. The situation is typically different for those who started much later as they experienced a large number of caches right from the beginning and never have used up all manageable ones in their area.

In my case if a new cache pops up, there is typically no other one around to be combined within a single walk except for urban caches and for series of traditional caches which all are published at the same day and which more and more replace the old multi caches.

I prefer multi caches to such series as I need to write only one log and can remember what I experienced there and also because the logs of cachers before me are much more helpful in the multi case as in the case of cache series where most logs are copy and paste. Typically no comments are made on wrong terrain ratings, other problems etc as hardly anyone even looks at the individual descriptions. For cachers who do not have troubles with rougher terrain and or hideouts higher up, this is not an issue. I'm dependent on proper ratings and more information on the type of terrain to be expected. Typically, for multi caches most cachers follow the same route while if one has to combine several caches into one tour,

everyone chooses his own route and less information about the route and its current condition are to be found in the logs.

 

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

I'm new at caching, but it seems to me that if you live in an area where the only caches seem to be placed in boring locations, then a solution is to build some of your own in beautiful and interesting places. It's an opportunity, not a problem; if nobody's been ambitious enough or innovative enough to miss out on a gorgeous natural feature or whatever, then grab your chance. I've got a canyon system nearby that only has a few widely-scattered caches; I have six planned to place over the next month. I want people to *see* how gorgeous the area is, and this ought to help. Just a suggestion, but why not? Maybe your caches'll inspire other locals to do the same. B)

Link to comment

I'm new at caching, but it seems to me that if you live in an area where the only caches seem to be placed in boring locations, then a solution is to build some of your own in beautiful and interesting places. It's an opportunity, not a problem; if nobody's been ambitious enough or innovative enough to miss out on a gorgeous natural feature or whatever, then grab your chance. I've got a canyon system nearby that only has a few widely-scattered caches; I have six planned to place over the next month. I want people to *see* how gorgeous the area is, and this ought to help. Just a suggestion, but why not? Maybe your caches'll inspire other locals to do the same. B)

If you're going to come in here and gum up this thread with your logic you can just take it elsewhere!! :lol:

Link to comment

What's wrong with a micro in the woods?

 

What's nicer then a micro in the woods? A swag-size, water-tight well-maintained cache in the woods. More geocachers get to enjoy a fuller caching experience.

 

If it's a micro in the woods I'm going to skip it. Why? Because it's been my experience over 10+ years of geocaching that the majority of COs plant micros because they are cheap (i.e. free), they are easier to hide, they don't need to be filled with swag, they require less maintenance. How does that make for a good caching experience? How is that an incentive to do the hike? Personally, I do not want to encourage the CO who plants micros in the woods by logging a find.

 

Yesterday I was on a forest trail. Found 2 swag size caches (traded 2 very cool personalized geotreasures, with 2 of my own handcrafted geoswag) and skipped the micro in the middle.

 

And yet one of our favorites is a micro in the woods.....the hike is the same and we like the challenge.

IMO a larger cache is easier to find, easier to muggle, and filled with the usual down-traded moldy junk.

 

It just shows that different folks like different things.

Link to comment
It's been a few years since I've last geocached. Back then, caches were no closer then about a kilometer each, and the cache sites had something significant there to see, whether it was natural beauty, some neat geological site, of historic significance, or some neat site only the locals know about. The year I stopped, caches were becoming too close together and with nothing significant at the site. Nowadays, caches seem to be only a few douzen yards apart, and for the most part there is nothing there interesting to see, just a micro stuck in a tree in the woods. What's the point of that? Now I see why I stopped. It's a shame too, because back then caches had real significance and geocaching itself was a lot of fun to do.

 

Filter out Micros. Look for caches with Favorite Points. Skip most urban caches.

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...