Cache Size

[mdyer]

Recently I have been taking my younger family members on some cache hunts in various locations. Like all kids they are most intersted in the larger caches due to the "treasure chest" aspect of the find. I am finding though that almost none of the current caches are very large. They all tend to be small, cheap, plastic containers with little more than a log. We tried to drop off a TB recently and could not find a cache that would hold it. We left it next to a crummy little container with nothing in it.

 

For those of you that place GC's, please consider placing a reasonable container that will hold a lot of stuff and will last a while. My feeling is that people are rushing to place caches and are simply not putting any time or effort into the cache itself. When my kids were younger we had a lot of fun hunting caches. Now with my brother's kids, who are younger, they are losing interest already due to so many dud caches.

 

Yes, I am aware the cache size is indicated on the cache page. Also, I should mention I own a cache that is full size, well-maintained and fully stocked.

[+the4dirtydogs]

The only thing I could say would be to take the kiddos to the BIGGER caches. Don't waste your time on the small and micro caches.

 

I have to ask... Why would you just throw a TB on the ground next to some crappy cache?

[mdyer]

The only thing I could say would be to take the kiddos to the BIGGER caches.

 

Yes, that is a good approach, however I have always used kind of an on-the-fly approach to geocaching. I will load my GPS unit with all caches in a given area and then when one is close while traveling, we'll visit it. More recently, I've used my iPhone to do the same thing -- look for the closest cache. These methods are not ideal for pre-screening caches.

 

In the past -- and I mean 5+ years ago -- this kind of approach worked. Most caches showed at least a moderate amount of effort on the part of the owner. Now it seems though that large caches are the exception. My own cache has had a number of logs recently simply commenting on how nice the size is. A few years ago it was just a normal cache -- now it is exceptional. I really think people are just placing a lot of quickie caches. To me this is degrading the entire activity.

 

I have to ask... Why would you just throw a TB on the ground next to some crappy cache?

 

The cache is very heavily visited -- daily almost. So I know the TB will find a home quickly.

[+StarBrand]

In principle, I agree with your base sentiment. I too wish that far more caches were a bit larger sized. Of greater concern is the quality of containers. Many are just not going to last for very long. I see that more and more.

 

However, all we can do is to lead by example. Place what you like to find. Place quality. Encourage others to follow suit.

 

The reality though, is that a certain segment of cachers like to find small/tiny caches. A large segment is not interested in the trades - at all. I think there is room for all of us in geocaching.

[+Walts Hunting]

The newer gps's and your iphone allow you to filter out the smaller ones on the run.

[+the4dirtydogs]

The best thing about geocaching is the variety of ways to play this game. Also there are a few different size caches to choose from. GSAK is a wonderful tool to use to filter out the caches you want to find. I feel the only thing degrading geocaching is ownerless caches and owners who don't maintain their caches, not the size of containers. I don't dwell on how geocaching was I try to make the game better by hiding caches that I like to find.

[+uxorious]

I have always used kind of an on-the-fly approach to geocaching. I will load my GPS unit with all caches in a given area and then when one is close while traveling, we'll visit it. More recently, I've used my iPhone to do the same thing -- look for the closest cache. These methods are not ideal for pre-screening caches.

 

I always get a chuckle when people say they don't read the cache pages, nor do they pre screen caches, then they complain about what they find!

 

True there is no requirement to read the cache page. But when you don't, and there was information there you should have had to enjoy the hunt,(or skip it) you have no basis to complain.

 

I agree there does seem to be an increase in the number of caches put out for quantity not quality. But, while I don't mind looking for the quantity caches sometimes. I don't seem to have much problem finding the quality when I want to look for them.

[+the4dirtydogs]

I had to take a look at the cache where the coin was placed and seems to have the last 3 TBs vanished from this cache. Hope this doesn't happen to this TB also. A really bad call in my eyes. Travelers belong INSIDE caches not on the ground next to them. Hope the last 2 cachers might have picked up the coin but neither one mention anything about seeing a coin.

[+The A-Team]

I had to take a look at the cache where the coin was placed and seems to have the last 3 TBs vanished from this cache. Hope this doesn't happen to this TB also. A really bad call in my eyes. Travelers belong INSIDE caches not on the ground next to them. Hope the last 2 cachers might have picked up the coin but neither one mention anything about seeing a coin.

I think you're looking at the wrong cache. They said they left a TB, which would indicate it's GC39VP2.

mdyer found [Traditional Cache] -TwoCs- Tunnel of Trees

Tuesday, 03 April 2012

Second time leaving this log entry. This cache is very tiny....too small really. Kids do not like these little caches and I wish more people would take the time to make decent sized caches. We left a huge travel bug.

No one else has logged that cache yet.

[mdyer]

I always get a chuckle when people say they don't read the cache pages, nor do they pre screen caches, then they complain about what they find!

 

I'm not complaining about what we found, I am complaining that people are not placing quality caches. I can't tell you how many tiny caches I have come across lately. A good quality cache is getting difficult to find -- that is my complaint.

 

I agree there does seem to be an increase in the number of caches put out for quantity not quality.

 

Good, we are in agreement.

 

I had to take a look at the cache where the coin was placed and seems to have the last 3 TBs vanished from this cache. Hope this doesn't happen to this TB also. A really bad call in my eyes. Travelers belong INSIDE caches not on the ground next to them. Hope the last 2 cachers might have picked up the coin but neither one mention anything about seeing a coin.

 

Were the other coins placed outside of the cache? If not then I don't get your point. How would putting it in the cache have made a difference? This is a real cache, it's just not a good cache. It's large enough to hold a geocoin.

 

I do understand that different people want different things. My feeling however is that a lot of people got pulled into this activity by taking their kids out. In the early days it was fun for kids to do because of the nature of the caches. I don't think it is fund for kids anymore though. The only good cache by niece and nephew have seen is the one I placed myself.

[+firestronaut]

I generally hold onto TBs until I can find a suitable container to put it in, and dip it into others.

[+the4dirtydogs]

I had to take a look at the cache where the coin was placed and seems to have the last 3 TBs vanished from this cache. Hope this doesn't happen to this TB also. A really bad call in my eyes. Travelers belong INSIDE caches not on the ground next to them. Hope the last 2 cachers might have picked up the coin but neither one mention anything about seeing a coin.

I think you're looking at the wrong cache. They said they left a TB, which would indicate it's GC39VP2.

mdyer found [Traditional Cache] -TwoCs- Tunnel of Trees

Tuesday, 03 April 2012

Second time leaving this log entry. This cache is very tiny....too small really. Kids do not like these little caches and I wish more people would take the time to make decent sized caches. We left a huge travel bug.

No one else has logged that cache yet.

Maybe so, I still don't understand why someone would think its ok to leave a TB unsecured outside of a cache. If the TB won't fit find a bigger cache.

[+TerraViators]

We tried to drop off a TB recently and could not find a cache that would hold it. We left it next to a crummy little container with nothing in it.

 

What?? Please go back and pick it up for the owner. Tossing it on the ground may mean a certain death of it.

[+BigChiefS4]

After finding a total of 67 caches, that's hardly enough to complain about what you think is a good cache. If you want people to make better caches, then lead the way and set the example by placing a few of your own. As others have already stated, use GSAK to filter out micros and smalls because it's apparent you don't like smaller containers. Never leave a TB on the ground. That's a surefire way to make sure it goes missing.

 

IMHO, it's not the size of the container that makes a good cache, it's the cache owner that makes a good cache. I have found micros and smalls that I thought were totally awesome and others that weren't so awesome. I have found regulars and larges that were awesome and some that weren't. It has nothing to do with the size. It's the care that the CO puts into making it. I know of a few CO's in the Twin Cities that take the extra effort to make every cache that they place unique. That makes my day interesting and makes me want to find more of their caches.

[+niraD]

I am complaining that people are not placing quality caches.

With the caveat that you define "quality" as "large enough to hold trade items", of course.

 

Not all of us define "quality" that way. I certainly don't. Many of my Favorites have been micro-caches.

[+wimseyguy]

The only thing I could say would be to take the kiddos to the BIGGER caches. Don't waste your time on the small and micro caches.

 

I have to ask... Why would you just throw a TB on the ground next to some crappy cache?

 

What he said. No disrespect to you, but blaming CO's for choosing to hide caches that are satisfactory to you without doing any preparation is wrong.

And just leaving TB's out in the open is extremely disrespectful to the owner of that trackable.

[+The A-Team]

And just leaving TB's out in the open is extremely disrespectful to the owner of that trackable.

Thankfully the next finder grabbed it and dropped it into a regular size cache a few miles away.

[Pup Patrol]

Thankfully the next finder grabbed it and dropped it into a regular size cache a few miles away.

 

A cache that seems to be a black hole for trackables.

 

Looks like a "vacation" cache, with long-distance owners.

 

 

B.

Edited April 8, 2012 by Pup Patrol

[mdyer]

After finding a total of 67 caches, that's hardly enough to complain about what you think is a good cache.

 

BCS4,

 

Actually I think my numbers compare quite nicely to your own. I have only logged 67 caches, however I have a full-sized ammo can cache that is maintained and has been for 8 years. I looked at your caches and most of them are micros and very new. The effort needed to place a micro is minimal and IMO that is the value they carry. Placing a real cache that will last for more than a few years is not as easy but is much more valuable to the community.

 

Another poster here is also defending small caches, however his one and only cache is described as "Not much inside,just log paper". That is pretty weak.

 

All I am suggesting to people is that they put a little more effort into setting up long-term caches. Quantity is greatly exceeding quality right now and I personally think many new GC'ers will quit after finding a few tiny caches.

[+Totem Clan]

After finding a total of 67 caches, that's hardly enough to complain about what you think is a good cache.

 

BCS4,

 

Actually I think my numbers compare quite nicely to your own. I have only logged 67 caches, however I have a full-sized ammo can cache that is maintained and has been for 8 years. I looked at your caches and most of them are micros and very new. The effort needed to place a micro is minimal and IMO that is the value they carry. Placing a real cache that will last for more than a few years is not as easy but is much more valuable to the community.

 

Another poster here is also defending small caches, however his one and only cache is described as "Not much inside,just log paper". That is pretty weak.

 

All I am suggesting to people is that they put a little more effort into setting up long-term caches. Quantity is greatly exceeding quality right now and I personally think many new GC'ers will quit after finding a few tiny caches.

If you think it's a bad cache NA it and see what the reviewer has to say.

 

If it's in the guidelines it a good cache even if you don't like it.

[+Markwell]

The only thing I could say would be to take the kiddos to the BIGGER caches.

 

Yes, that is a good approach, however I have always used kind of an on-the-fly approach to geocaching. I will load my GPS unit with all caches in a given area and then when one is close while traveling, we'll visit it.

 

There's one of the problems. Why load caches that you won't enjoy?

What the premium membership WILL do is allow you to be more selective on the caches you choose to hunt.

 

From my December 1 pocket queries, there are 3,467 caches within 20 miles of my house.

Of those 3,467 caches, 435 are temporarily disabled leaving 3,032 caches

Of those 3,032 caches, 309 are not traditional leaving 2,723 caches

Of those 2,723 caches, 1,479 are micro leaving 1,244 caches

Of those 1,244 caches, 124 are not chosen in their size leaving 1,120 caches

Of those 1,120 caches, 79 are terrain=1.0 leaving 1,041 caches

Of those 1,041 caches, 107 are difficulty=1.0 leaving 934 caches

Of those 934 caches, 39 are are ones I've found or placed leaving 895 caches

Of those 895 caches, 144 are placed in a parking lot (based on my scouting reports) leaving 751 caches

Of those 751 caches, 13 are terrain>=4.0 leaving 738 caches

Of those 738 caches, 26 are have a size of "other" chosen leaving 712 caches

Of those 712 caches, 509 are excluded based on other criteria I use in GSAK (polygon filter, number of recent DNFs, etc.) leaving 203 caches.

 

So with my premium account, I've narrowed the criteria down to something I'll usually enjoy on the fly: Traditional caches (at their posted coordinates, with a terrain between 1.5 and 3.5, with a difficulty greater than 1.0, a container size that's not "Not Chosen", not "Micro" and not "other", that's enabled and not in a parking lot and has some recent finds. That criteria gets me down to about 5.86% of the caches.

 

Am I too picky? Probably. I would also include some of these criteria if it were not "on-the-fly" caching. But in using these criteria, I can be pretty sure that I'm going to be doing better than a guard rail junk box.

[+BigChiefS4]

After finding a total of 67 caches, that's hardly enough to complain about what you think is a good cache.

 

BCS4,

 

Actually I think my numbers compare quite nicely to your own. I have only logged 67 caches, however I have a full-sized ammo can cache that is maintained and has been for 8 years. I looked at your caches and most of them are micros and very new. The effort needed to place a micro is minimal and IMO that is the value they carry. Placing a real cache that will last for more than a few years is not as easy but is much more valuable to the community.

 

Another poster here is also defending small caches, however his one and only cache is described as "Not much inside,just log paper". That is pretty weak.

 

All I am suggesting to people is that they put a little more effort into setting up long-term caches. Quantity is greatly exceeding quality right now and I personally think many new GC'ers will quit after finding a few tiny caches.

 

Don't compare my apples to your oranges. You haven't seen my hides, so your opinion is based purely on their size. How many favorite points does your one cache have? Zero. I have many, so obviously people enjoy finding them. Also, I have put much more thought and effort into my hides than you think.

 

My point about your low find count is that you haven't found enough caches to form an informed opinion. The first few I found weren't all that great, but as I found more and more caches, I found some truly awesome caches. Some were micros, some were smalls, some were regulars. What makes yours so special?

 

If all you're going to do is complain about the size of the caches and do nothing about it, then maybe you need a new hobby.

[+L0ne.R]

The only thing I could say would be to take the kiddos to the BIGGER caches.

 

Yes, that is a good approach, however I have always used kind of an on-the-fly approach to geocaching. I will load my GPS unit with all caches in a given area and then when one is close while traveling, we'll visit it.

 

There's one of the problems. Why load caches that you won't enjoy?

What the premium membership WILL do is allow you to be more selective on the caches you choose to hunt.

 

From my December 1 pocket queries, there are 3,467 caches within 20 miles of my house.

Of those 3,467 caches, 435 are temporarily disabled leaving 3,032 caches

Of those 3,032 caches, 309 are not traditional leaving 2,723 caches

Of those 2,723 caches, 1,479 are micro leaving 1,244 caches

Of those 1,244 caches, 124 are not chosen in their size leaving 1,120 caches

Of those 1,120 caches, 79 are terrain=1.0 leaving 1,041 caches

Of those 1,041 caches, 107 are difficulty=1.0 leaving 934 caches

Of those 934 caches, 39 are are ones I've found or placed leaving 895 caches

Of those 895 caches, 144 are placed in a parking lot (based on my scouting reports) leaving 751 caches

Of those 751 caches, 13 are terrain>=4.0 leaving 738 caches

Of those 738 caches, 26 are have a size of "other" chosen leaving 712 caches

Of those 712 caches, 509 are excluded based on other criteria I use in GSAK (polygon filter, number of recent DNFs, etc.) leaving 203 caches.

 

So with my premium account, I've narrowed the criteria down to something I'll usually enjoy on the fly: Traditional caches (at their posted coordinates, with a terrain between 1.5 and 3.5, with a difficulty greater than 1.0, a container size that's not "Not Chosen", not "Micro" and not "other", that's enabled and not in a parking lot and has some recent finds. That criteria gets me down to about 5.86% of the caches.

 

Am I too picky? Probably. I would also include some of these criteria if it were not "on-the-fly" caching. But in using these criteria, I can be pretty sure that I'm going to be doing better than a guard rail junk box.

 

I tried your Selective Criteria approach and here are my results:

• There are 689 caches within 20 kms of my house.
• Of those 689 I haven't found 313
• Of those 313, 303 are enabled (10 are disabled)
• Of the 303 when I exclude micro, unknown and other (because these almost never are swag size) I get 136
• Of the 136, I exclude the following cache types: earthcache, Wherigo, virtual, gps maze, event, project ape, unknown, and webcam (not my cup of tea but if I can solve an unknown cache I'll hunt for it as long as it's swag size). That leaves 13 caches
• Finally I exclude any cache with a D/T rating of more then 3.5. That leaves 8 geocaches.

8 geocaches within 20km that meet my criteria. That criteria gets me down to about 1.16% of the caches.

[Nick - Cacher]

I do understand that different people want different things. My feeling however is that a lot of people got pulled into this activity by taking their kids out. In the early days it was fun for kids to do because of the nature of the caches. I don't think it is fund for kids anymore though. The only good cache by niece and nephew have seen is the one I placed myself.

 

Here's one possibility for why some may be moving away from hiding regular sized caches: I placed my first geocache of regular size. I put a brand new digital watch in original packaging in there. Someone traded it for a golf ball! I placed a brand new good looking pair of sunglasses, someone traded it for a small toy compass, which doesn't work. I also put in there a nice kids' toy plastic horse still attached to the cardboard packaging, and someone replaced it with an eraser and fireman key chain. Since people are so cheap and don't seem to care about the next cacher who comes along, I don't feel like hiding any more regular sized caches. In addition to that, I see all of these "fake sprinkler heads", "fake rocks", "fake bolts", etc, online, and they all sound so exciting to hide.

[+jellis]

I don't understand. I noticed there are at least 471 active caches ranging from small to large regular within 7 miles of your cache.

Edited April 9, 2012 by jellis

[+Corp Of Discovery]

The only thing I could say would be to take the kiddos to the BIGGER caches.

 

Yes, that is a good approach, however I have always used kind of an on-the-fly approach to geocaching. I will load my GPS unit with all caches in a given area and then when one is close while traveling, we'll visit it.

 

There's one of the problems. Why load caches that you won't enjoy?

What the premium membership WILL do is allow you to be more selective on the caches you choose to hunt.

 

From my December 1 pocket queries, there are 3,467 caches within 20 miles of my house.

Of those 3,467 caches, 435 are temporarily disabled leaving 3,032 caches

Of those 3,032 caches, 309 are not traditional leaving 2,723 caches

Of those 2,723 caches, 1,479 are micro leaving 1,244 caches

Of those 1,244 caches, 124 are not chosen in their size leaving 1,120 caches

Of those 1,120 caches, 79 are terrain=1.0 leaving 1,041 caches

Of those 1,041 caches, 107 are difficulty=1.0 leaving 934 caches

Of those 934 caches, 39 are are ones I've found or placed leaving 895 caches

Of those 895 caches, 144 are placed in a parking lot (based on my scouting reports) leaving 751 caches

Of those 751 caches, 13 are terrain>=4.0 leaving 738 caches

Of those 738 caches, 26 are have a size of "other" chosen leaving 712 caches

Of those 712 caches, 509 are excluded based on other criteria I use in GSAK (polygon filter, number of recent DNFs, etc.) leaving 203 caches.

 

So with my premium account, I've narrowed the criteria down to something I'll usually enjoy on the fly: Traditional caches (at their posted coordinates, with a terrain between 1.5 and 3.5, with a difficulty greater than 1.0, a container size that's not "Not Chosen", not "Micro" and not "other", that's enabled and not in a parking lot and has some recent finds. That criteria gets me down to about 5.86% of the caches.

 

Am I too picky? Probably. I would also include some of these criteria if it were not "on-the-fly" caching. But in using these criteria, I can be pretty sure that I'm going to be doing better than a guard rail junk box.

 

I tried your Selective Criteria approach and here are my results:

• There are 689 caches within 20 kms of my house.
• Of those 689 I haven't found 313
• Of those 313, 303 are enabled (10 are disabled)
• Of the 303 when I exclude micro, unknown and other (because these almost never are swag size) I get 136
• Of the 136, I exclude the following cache types: earthcache, Wherigo, virtual, gps maze, event, project ape, unknown, and webcam (not my cup of tea but if I can solve an unknown cache I'll hunt for it as long as it's swag size). That leaves 13 caches
• Finally I exclude any cache with a D/T rating of more then 3.5. That leaves 8 geocaches.

8 geocaches within 20km that meet my criteria. That criteria gets me down to about 1.16% of the caches.

 

Around here, as in some other areas most likely too, you'd have to filter out anything labeled 'small' if you wanted to drop a TB or coin. I've seen preforms (about 1/3 of the time), magnetic key holders and even the occasional film can listed as a 'small'. No, they weren't replacements or throwdowns but originally listed that way. I wish the guidelines would mention that a 'small' should be able to hold at least a TB tag or coin in addition to the logbook.