"What the game once was"

[Keystone]

Let's keep our discussion focused on trends in the game rather than on any one individual. Thanks.

[+zanadian]

Whenever a competition on points is used, the rules for scoring should be well defined so that the competition is viewed as fair.

 

I’m a stickler about claiming an “ethical” find, but I noticed that others;

 

- Create a different account to hide a cache, then claim a find on their regular account.

- Claim a find while they’re present while a friend hides a cache.

- Claim a find when throwing down a replacement cache.

- Have a friend sign the logbook for them to claim a find.

- Claim a find for visiting a site, but not actually signing the log book (I once found a cache up in a tree, someone claimed a find by signing the bottom rung of the ladder, but not the logbook).

 

I also noticed that some geocachers enjoy finding as many geocaches in a day as possible, while others enjoy hiking miles to visit one scenic geocache.

 

When the participants have vastly different expectations, or play by different rules, the stats tend to loose their meaning.

[+Ma & Pa]

Whenever a competition on points is used, the rules for scoring should be well defined so that the competition is viewed as fair.

 

I’m a stickler about claiming an “ethical” find, but I noticed that others;

 

- Create a different account to hide a cache, then claim a find on their regular account.

- Claim a find while they’re present while a friend hides a cache.

- Claim a find when throwing down a replacement cache.

- Have a friend sign the logbook for them to claim a find.

- Claim a find for visiting a site, but not actually signing the log book (I once found a cache up in a tree, someone claimed a find by signing the bottom rung of the ladder, but not the logbook).

 

I also noticed that some geocachers enjoy finding as many geocaches in a day as possible, while others enjoy hiking miles to visit one scenic geocache.

 

When the participants have vastly different expectations, or play by different rules, the stats tend to loose their meaning.

 

Here is my view of your comment

 

I’m a stickler about claiming an “ethical” find, but I noticed that others;

 

"others" implies a lot of cachers, which is not so. I am left with the impression that you think evryone cheats, except for you.

 

- Create a different account to hide a cache, then claim a find on their regular account.

 

I have been around a while and have only seen that when the account was created by an organization to hide caches for an event.

 

- Claim a find while they’re present while a friend hides a cache.

 

What do you suggest that person do? Go back later? Everyone that I have seen do that does not claim the FTF

 

- Claim a find when throwing down a replacement cache.

 

I have seen this a few times and have done it myself with advance permission from the CO in rare circumstances.

 

- Have a friend sign the logbook for them to claim a find.

 

If I am standing next to the cache, I have no problem with a freind signing for me or putting a group name in the log

 

- Claim a find for visiting a site, but not actually signing the log book (I once found a cache up in a tree, someone claimed a find by signing the bottom rung of the ladder, but not the logbook).

 

I agree with you on that one

 

I also noticed that some geocachers enjoy finding as many geocaches in a day as possible, while others enjoy hiking miles to visit one scenic geocache.

 

We like both.

 

When the participants have vastly different expectations, or play by different rules, the stats tend to loose their meaning.

 

agreed. But I only use my the stats to guide me

[+NeverSummer]

When the participants have vastly different expectations, or play by different rules, the stats tend to loose their meaning.

This is a fact that is easily misinterpreted. We do all play by the same rules. The issue is, the rules are broad enough that there can be vastly different interpretations. The goal, I'm guessing, is to keep the "rules" simple enough that it keeps the game from being too highly regulated, yet legally on solid ground.

 

We can all play the game a little differently, but to say that anything more finite than "find the cache, sign the logbook, log online" is a rule would be incorrect.

 

Sub-games like "FTF" are fine, but aren't a part of Geocaching on the whole. Think of other games with simple rules, but variations within them. Euchre, billiards, beer pong, darts, tag, duck-duck-goose, hide-and-seek, golf, football, etc... all of these games have variations, or "house rules". Does that make them different? Sure. However, the overarching "guidelines" are still present.

 

If you want to talk about "professional sports", they are an application of a game that decided to incorporate and have their own, finite, specific, detailed, endless rules. Do some kids play American football according to the specific rules they see, hear, and read that the NFL is using? Of course. But does that mean a pick-up game of football at a park that doesn't call every foul in the NFL rulebook not a football game? No way.

 

Geocaching is a broad, simply defined game, and we can all have our own interpretations of how we play, or want others to play. But the fact is, if it isn't addressed directly in the guidelines of Geocaching.com, it won't likely be enforced as a rule in everyday applications. A find is a find is a find.

[AZcachemeister]

Baseball

Football

Golf

Underwater Basket weaving

 

All participatory sports that have evolved over the years.

And each with their segment of devotees waxing nostalgic about how it was 'back in the good old days'.

 

Why should Geocaching be any different?

[+Roman!]

Baseball

Football

Golf

Underwater Basket weaving

 

All participatory sports that have evolved over the years.

And each with their segment of devotees waxing nostalgic about how it was 'back in the good old days'.

 

Why should Geocaching be any different?

 

I remember the good ol'days when there was fighting in hockey, now we don't even have hockey.

[+NeverSummer]

Baseball

Football

Golf

Underwater Basket weaving

 

All participatory sports that have evolved over the years.

And each with their segment of devotees waxing nostalgic about how it was 'back in the good old days'.

 

Why should Geocaching be any different?

What I meant above with my post wasn't a condemnation of evolution, or even a statement of nostalgia. Just saying that this site is the overarching "Geocaching" umbrella. If it is sub-game evolution we want to play, we still can. It's just like making "house rules" for whatever game you are playing--but not a necessary, recognized process or set of rules/guidelines that are present in the greater umbrella of the game.

 

Hide. Find. Sign. Log. Geocaching. (geocaching.com)

-Hide. First to Find. Sign. Log. FTF geocahing (not geocaching.com recognized)

-Hide/Find more than someone else. Sign. Log. Competitive geocaching. (not geocaching.com recognized)

-Etc, etc...

 

Nobody says we can't create more interactive, interesting, motivating, competitive sub-games under the umbrella. I like FTFs when I can get them, but I don't "play that game" the way, say, Roman' does. Same for how I look at/use/address my "numbers game".

 

Innovation is good, and can be really fun. But to say that it should be injected into the umbrella as a universal sub-set? That would be far more regulation than I think most would be willing to create, refine, update, define and regulate. I think this is why geocaching.com/Groundspeak has kept their hands off, and guidelines away from implementing specifics to address or encourage these sub-games.

[+Roman!]

This thread is about where Geocaching was not where it's going, was it better in the good old days? I don't know, I wasn't here but I know they have a medical or psychiatric term for the belief that things were better in the past.

[+roundnround we go]

This thread is about where Geocaching was not where it's going, was it better in the good old days? I don't know, I wasn't here but I know they have a medical or psychiatric term for the belief that things were better in the past.

not sure but I'd guess there would also be a term for the opposite also. but since you know there is a term for your way of thinking why don't you share it with us.

[+Don_J]

This thread is about where Geocaching was not where it's going, was it better in the good old days? I don't know, I wasn't here but I know they have a medical or psychiatric term for the belief that things were better in the past.

 

Today, I hiked a 8.3 mile loop trail in the mountains. I found 24 caches, 12 micros and 12 smalls. I hiked the exact same route in November of 2006 and found 11 caches, 5 Regulars and 6 smalls.

 

I don't know what is better, but it is definitely different. About a third of the way through, I ran into another cacher and we had a enjoyable hike together. As long as that part of the game never changes, I'll be happy.

 

Edit: Missing a word...

Edited November 25, 2012 by Don_J

[+briansnat]

This thread is about where Geocaching was not where it's going, was it better in the good old days? I don't know, I wasn't here but I know they have a medical or psychiatric term for the belief that things were better in the past.

 

Today, I hiked a 8.3 mile loop trail in the mountains. I found 24 caches, 12 micros and 12 smalls. I hiked the exact same route in November of 2006 and found 11 caches, 5 Regulars and 6 smalls.

 

I don't what is better, but it is definitely different. About a third of the way through, I ran into another cacher and we had a enjoyable hike together. As long as that part of the game never changes, I'll be happy.

 

I don't like the proliferation of micros in the woods. I think they increase the potential impact of a cache and I think increased impact will be a detriment to the sport.

 

I'm not alone this, a few months ago I met with some county park personnel regarding the formulation of a geocaching policy. They had actually searched for all of the caches in several parks to assess the actual and potential impact of the caches there. They found a noticeable difference in the impact of micros, thus their draft policy includes a ban on micro caches.

[Mr.Yuck]

This thread is about where Geocaching was not where it's going, was it better in the good old days? I don't know, I wasn't here but I know they have a medical or psychiatric term for the belief that things were better in the past.

 

Today, I hiked a 8.3 mile loop trail in the mountains. I found 24 caches, 12 micros and 12 smalls. I hiked the exact same route in November of 2006 and found 11 caches, 5 Regulars and 6 smalls.

 

I don't what is better, but it is definitely different. About a third of the way through, I ran into another cacher and we had a enjoyable hike together. As long as that part of the game never changes, I'll be happy.

 

I don't like the proliferation of micros in the woods. I think they increase the potential impact of a cache and I think increased impact will be a detriment to the sport.

 

I'm not alone this, a few months ago I met with some county park personnel regarding the formulation of a geocaching policy. They had actually searched for all of the caches in several parks to assess the actual and potential impact of the caches there. They found a noticeable difference in the impact of micros, thus their draft policy includes a ban on micro caches.

 

Well, I won't say that's good to hear about the policy, but it certainly makes sense, and sort of vindication for those of us who might say something like that, about micros in the woods causing more impact. I'm seeing a lot more of them myself. I really have to say, it usually appears to me to be all about the ease of placement and low cost. With the occasional afficienado of "evil micros" thrown in.

[+Totem Clan]

 

I don't like the proliferation of micros in the woods. I think they increase the potential impact of a cache and I think increased impact will be a detriment to the sport.

 

I'm not alone this, a few months ago I met with some county park personnel regarding the formulation of a geocaching policy. They had actually searched for all of the caches in several parks to assess the actual and potential impact of the caches there. They found a noticeable difference in the impact of micros, thus their draft policy includes a ban on micro caches.

I agree that many, maybe even most, micros hidden in the woods encourage some cachers to till up the area looking for it. I can understand why a park would ban them. I have also seen it go the other way.

About a month ago I worked with the naturalist in the state park here to place caches on the trail. She asked that I use micros to mark the trail. There is a small at end of the series for TB and coins.

The way the container is used makes a difference. Micros are often hidden in a way that causes cachers to damage the area. In fact there is one cache in the series that I might have to re-hide because, based on some comments in the cache logs, it is too hard to find and could cause problems.

 

COs are the problem not the size of the cache. I will admit that micros tend to be misused more than other sizes, because their size makes them easy to misuse, but it’s still the CO that’s at fault.

[+hukilaulau]

They found a noticeable difference in the impact of micros, thus their draft policy includes a ban on micro caches.

This is the first time I've heard something like this, but I consider it refreshing news. There is no question in my mind that the proliferation of pointless, thoughtless micros in non-urban locations will have a negative, and possibly fatal impact on the game. Maybe with a few incidents like this GS will take some action before it's too late and we lose the best geocaching areas.

As a related topic, we may have to have a more official definition of "micro" which the reviewers enforce. In the past year, I have seen a number of film canisters listed as "small."

Also, on one of my matchbox containers a cacher with 5 finds said confidently, "definitely too large for a micro."

(It had been fine as a micro for the past 6 years.)

[+Don_J]

 

I don't like the proliferation of micros in the woods. I think they increase the potential impact of a cache and I think increased impact will be a detriment to the sport.

 

I'm not alone this, a few months ago I met with some county park personnel regarding the formulation of a geocaching policy. They had actually searched for all of the caches in several parks to assess the actual and potential impact of the caches there. They found a noticeable difference in the impact of micros, thus their draft policy includes a ban on micro caches.

I agree that many, maybe even most, micros hidden in the woods encourage some cachers to till up the area looking for it. I can understand why a park would ban them. I have also seen it go the other way.

About a month ago I worked with the naturalist in the state park here to place caches on the trail. She asked that I use micros to mark the trail. There is a small at end of the series for TB and coins.

The way the container is used makes a difference. Micros are often hidden in a way that causes cachers to damage the area. In fact there is one cache in the series that I might have to re-hide because, based on some comments in the cache logs, it is too hard to find and could cause problems.

 

COs are the problem not the size of the cache. I will admit that micros tend to be misused more than other sizes, because their size makes them easy to misuse, but it’s still the CO that’s at fault.

 

If COs are to blame for anything, it's the failure to realize that others are self entitled, I don't care about anyone or anything but me individuals. I do not like evil micros in the woods, but I can search for and find them with out anyone ever knowing that I have been there. If that is not possible, then I stop looking, log my DNF and send a friendly note to the CO explaining my concerns. I was hiking with Toz one day and we came to a GZ for a cache that had been placed less than week prior and had a total of two finds. It looked like the aliens had landed and left a crop circle in their wake. A 15' radius of flattened grass. The CO archived it the next day as he never expected that anyone would do that just for a smiley. The caches wasn't even that hard to find.

[+Don_J]

"Blah,blah,blah,blah,blah, Thanks for all the ET Highway smileys!"

 

When I see this posted on "Mike's Memorial Cache", a cache that has been in place since 2005 and memorializes a young man that lost his life on the highway, I just want to scream. Worse is when they thank the CO for ALL of the ET caches, or thank the ET COs for this cache.

 

This is the part of the game that has changed that bothers me the most. Speed caching and speed logging. I don't have a problem with logging the same thing on 500 micros along the same road, but if you can't take an extra second to write something different for that single ammo can in the middle, you know, that one next to the memorial, then I really wonder what's going on with this game.

 

I think with the mass proliferation of mindless micros that are placed there to "fill the gap", or "the spot needed a cache", or "the road had no caches on it, so I fixed the problem", etc, has reduced the value of a single cache to the point that they are just another smiley. I think that a lot of players either lost, or just never gained a respect for the cache owners that went through the trouble of hiding good caches. When they stumble upon that "Diamond in the Rough", it's just "#6 out of 45 that we found tonight".

[+Totem Clan]

They found a noticeable difference in the impact of micros, thus their draft policy includes a ban on micro caches.

This is the first time I've heard something like this, but I consider it refreshing news. There is no question in my mind that the proliferation of pointless, thoughtless micros in non-urban locations will have a negative, and possibly fatal impact on the game. Maybe with a few incidents like this GS will take some action before it's too late and we lose the best geocaching areas.

As a related topic, we may have to have a more official definition of "micro" which the reviewers enforce. In the past year, I have seen a number of film canisters listed as "small."

Also, on one of my matchbox containers a cacher with 5 finds said confidently, "definitely too large for a micro."

(It had been fine as a micro for the past 6 years.)

Tell me about it.

 

Wait till you find a series of film cans listed as regulars. I quit after the first 5 of 12.

[+tozainamboku]

I don't like the proliferation of micros in the woods. I think they increase the potential impact of a cache and I think increased impact will be a detriment to the sport.

 

I'm not alone this, a few months ago I met with some county park personnel regarding the formulation of a geocaching policy. They had actually searched for all of the caches in several parks to assess the actual and potential impact of the caches there. They found a noticeable difference in the impact of micros, thus their draft policy includes a ban on micro caches.

I think the impact of a micro in the woods varies greatly from one "woods" to another. I don't doubt that in the northeast a micro hidden in a tree stump or simply covered by leaf litter will get some people using scorched earth methods to uncover the cache. A larger container will tend to lessen the number of places the cache could be hidden. Cachers may search these areas more carefully or may simple limit their scorched earth to the possible hiding spots.

 

Here in the southwest, micros in the woods tend to be easier to spot. The are hidden under piles of rocks or are hanging in a tree or bush at the side of the trail. Ammo cans tend to be off-trail and under bushes. Even if you spot them more easily they tend to cause more bushwhacking and damage to environement. I'm not sure which trail Don_J was referring to, but one reason for more micros has been guidelines put in place by the California State Parks requiring that caches be within 3 feet of an established trail. While in the northeast there is not much concerned with social trails forming, in our dry climate the land managers don't like anyone going off the trails. In our rugged mountainous terrain there is also the issue that rescues of people who get lost going off trail are costly and dangerous.

 

I will agree that one thing has changed. That is geocachers tend to have much less patience. In the old days people didn't complain if if took a hour of searching or even multiple trips to find a cache. Today people are impatient. They resort to scorched earth techniques instead of doing a careful thorough search. If they don't find the cache after a few minutes they leave a throw down. They expect a cache every 528 feet and if there is a a gap will try to hide one even if there is not a good spot for one. Then they complain when the reviewer doesn't publish it immediately. They complain if a cache is left disabled more than a week. They post needs maintenance on caches that haven't been found in a while even when they never looked for it themselves. They act as if you've got to find them all, and those they can't find are just taking up wasted space in someones pocket query so it's best to post a Needs Archive.

[+Roman!]

Ah but since we are comparing the good ol' days to now what would cause more searching, a micro in the forest with decent coordinates or a regular but the coordinates were taken with and found with 7-8 years or GPS'?

[+Totem Clan]

Ah but since we are comparing the good ol' days to now what would cause more searching, a micro in the forest with decent coordinates or a regular but the coordinates were taken with and found with 7-8 years or GPS'?

What?

 

I don't understand the question.

[+roundnround we go]

Ah but since we are comparing the good ol' days to now what would cause more searching, a micro in the forest with decent coordinates or a regular but the coordinates were taken with and found with 7-8 years or GPS'?

 

my old garmin 60csx from back in 2006 is a lot more accurate then my garmin Oregon from 2010. Since we are talking about accuracy of newer to older units I prefer a cache hidden with an older unit over one hidden with a new smart phone any day.

[+Roman!]

Ah but since we are comparing the good ol' days to now what would cause more searching, a micro in the forest with decent coordinates or a regular but the coordinates were taken with and found with 7-8 years or GPS'?

What?

 

I don't understand the question.

 

This thread is about the good ol' days of geocaching and how things were better back then.

 

It's been pointed out that there are more and more micros hidden now and some in forests. Finding a micro is generally harder than a larger sized container resulting in more searching thus more damage to the forest.

 

My point being, in the good ol' days GSP' weren't as precise as they are now so it actually might have taken (on average) more searching in the good ol' days to find a regular container than it does to find a micro nowadays.

[AZcachemeister]

Ah but since we are comparing the good ol' days to now what would cause more searching, a micro in the forest with decent coordinates or a regular but the coordinates were taken with and found with 7-8 years or GPS'?

 

In the Good Ol' Days, the CO would probably have realized their co-ordinates might be off 20-30 feet and they would have included a meaningful hint in the write-up.

 

You would need a 12-15 year-old GPSr to possibly get receiver-induced inaccuracy.

[+Roman!]

Ah but since we are comparing the good ol' days to now what would cause more searching, a micro in the forest with decent coordinates or a regular but the coordinates were taken with and found with 7-8 years or GPS'?

 

In the Good Ol' Days, the CO would probably have realized their co-ordinates might be off 20-30 feet and they would have included a meaningful hint in the write-up.

 

You would need a 12-15 year-old GPSr to possibly get receiver-induced inaccuracy.

 

In 2005, the first modernized GPS satellite was launched and began transmitting a second civilian signal (L2C) for enhanced user performance.

 

Even if there was no improvement in receiver accuracy there was with the satellites.

 

As for hints, COs put good hints in nowadays as well.

[+Don_J]

I don't like the proliferation of micros in the woods. I think they increase the potential impact of a cache and I think increased impact will be a detriment to the sport.

 

I'm not alone this, a few months ago I met with some county park personnel regarding the formulation of a geocaching policy. They had actually searched for all of the caches in several parks to assess the actual and potential impact of the caches there. They found a noticeable difference in the impact of micros, thus their draft policy includes a ban on micro caches.

I think the impact of a micro in the woods varies greatly from one "woods" to another. I don't doubt that in the northeast a micro hidden in a tree stump or simply covered by leaf litter will get some people using scorched earth methods to uncover the cache. A larger container will tend to lessen the number of places the cache could be hidden. Cachers may search these areas more carefully or may simple limit their scorched earth to the possible hiding spots.

 

Here in the southwest, micros in the woods tend to be easier to spot. The are hidden under piles of rocks or are hanging in a tree or bush at the side of the trail. Ammo cans tend to be off-trail and under bushes. Even if you spot them more easily they tend to cause more bushwhacking and damage to environement. I'm not sure which trail Don_J was referring to, but one reason for more micros has been guidelines put in place by the California State Parks requiring that caches be within 3 feet of an established trail. While in the northeast there is not much concerned with social trails forming, in our dry climate the land managers don't like anyone going off the trails. In our rugged mountainous terrain there is also the issue that rescues of people who get lost going off trail are costly and dangerous.

 

I will agree that one thing has changed. That is geocachers tend to have much less patience. In the old days people didn't complain if if took a hour of searching or even multiple trips to find a cache. Today people are impatient. They resort to scorched earth techniques instead of doing a careful thorough search. If they don't find the cache after a few minutes they leave a throw down. They expect a cache every 528 feet and if there is a a gap will try to hide one even if there is not a good spot for one. Then they complain when the reviewer doesn't publish it immediately. They complain if a cache is left disabled more than a week. They post needs maintenance on caches that haven't been found in a while even when they never looked for it themselves. They act as if you've got to find them all, and those they can't find are just taking up wasted space in someones pocket query so it's best to post a Needs Archive.

 

That last paragraph is the exact impression I have been getting over the last year.

And I was hiking in the California State Parks, but omitted that because I know of the people that are hiding the caches, and they do the exact same hide, 300' off the trail in other areas.

[+Don_J]

Ah but since we are comparing the good ol' days to now what would cause more searching, a micro in the forest with decent coordinates or a regular but the coordinates were taken with and found with 7-8 years or GPS'?

What?

 

I don't understand the question.

 

Some of the caches around here that were hidden in early 2001 are up to 150' off because the handheld GPS technology was not as accurate as today. It is a valid point.

[+Totem Clan]

Ah but since we are comparing the good ol' days to now what would cause more searching, a micro in the forest with decent coordinates or a regular but the coordinates were taken with and found with 7-8 years or GPS'?

What?

 

I don't understand the question.

 

This thread is about the good ol' days of geocaching and how things were better back then.

 

It's been pointed out that there are more and more micros hidden now and some in forests. Finding a micro is generally harder than a larger sized container resulting in more searching thus more damage to the forest.

 

My point being, in the good ol' days GSP' weren't as precise as they are now so it actually might have taken (on average) more searching in the good ol' days to find a regular container than it does to find a micro nowadays.

Depend on the modle they were just as good as the one being used today. And the phones that many cachers use today are much worse.

[+Roman!]

Ah but since we are comparing the good ol' days to now what would cause more searching, a micro in the forest with decent coordinates or a regular but the coordinates were taken with and found with 7-8 years or GPS'?

What?

 

I don't understand the question.

 

This thread is about the good ol' days of geocaching and how things were better back then.

 

It's been pointed out that there are more and more micros hidden now and some in forests. Finding a micro is generally harder than a larger sized container resulting in more searching thus more damage to the forest.

 

My point being, in the good ol' days GSP' weren't as precise as they are now so it actually might have taken (on average) more searching in the good ol' days to find a regular container than it does to find a micro nowadays.

Depend on the modle they were just as good as the one being used today. And the phones that many cachers use today are much worse.

 

But the satellite technology has improved even if GPSr technology hasn't. I think an smart phone with a GPSr built in using todays satellites would be more accurate than a GPSr from 2001/02 using the satellites of that time.

 

I guess proving what resulted in more searching and damage is impossible to prove, just some food for thought, were the good ol' days really better?

 

http://voices.yahoo.com/were-good-old-days-really-better-than-present-5641914.html

[+Crow-T-Robot]

Ah but since we are comparing the good ol' days to now what would cause more searching, a micro in the forest with decent coordinates or a regular but the coordinates were taken with and found with 7-8 years or GPS'?

What?

 

I don't understand the question.

 

My point being, in the good ol' days GSP' weren't as precise as they are now so it actually might have taken (on average) more searching in the good ol' days to find a regular container than it does to find a micro nowadays.

 

The problem with that equation is that even if I triple the amount of area to search for a regular, I can eliminate alot of spots just because a regular sized container wouldn't fit. A micro can be hidden anywhere within a 30' circle in a forest and you have to touch and feel around alot more to find the micro. That adds up to alot more damage.

[+Roman!]

Ah but since we are comparing the good ol' days to now what would cause more searching, a micro in the forest with decent coordinates or a regular but the coordinates were taken with and found with 7-8 years or GPS'?

What?

 

I don't understand the question.

 

My point being, in the good ol' days GSP' weren't as precise as they are now so it actually might have taken (on average) more searching in the good ol' days to find a regular container than it does to find a micro nowadays.

 

The problem with that equation is that even if I triple the amount of area to search for a regular, I can eliminate alot of spots just because a regular sized container wouldn't fit. A micro can be hidden anywhere within a 30' circle in a forest and you have to touch and feel around alot more to find the micro. That adds up to alot more damage.

 

On the flip side more accurate coordinates may make GZ obvious when you get there. I don't think there is any way to prove it one way or the other, just maybe the good ol' days weren't as good as we remember them to be.

[+Totem Clan]

I think most the change the cachers have seen are mainly in or close to the more densely populated areas. Out here I don't have to worry about a rash of urban micros or LCPs. As more people in the urban areas who are not outdoors types began to get invloved changes were bound to occur as they hid caches that they wanted. Some of those were abandoned, but that has happened even in remote areas with some of the very first cachers.

I don't think the 'Spirit of the Game' has changed that much. People still hide what they want to find. There are just a whole lot more urban cachers and they hide urban micros. The deep woods and true back roads still belong to the "Old Breed."

[+WebChimp]

The game, as well as the underlying technology, has changed over time.

 

Receivers are better, and satellites now send a more accurate signal.

 

Yes, we have micros in the woods, and power trails, but we also frequently have more creative hides in some still surprising places.

 

Years ago, a high find-number probably represented a lot of experience with many caches and miles under foot.

 

Today, a high find-number may represent the ability to afford the gasoline and the availability of power trails.

 

We have a lot more sophisticated caching tools today than we did when I started caching in 2005.

 

The bottom line is, things change. Everything changes. Football is not the same as it was 40 years ago. Cars get 30 MPG vs 13 MPG. Eggs are no longer 45 cents per dozen. It's a long list, but you get the idea.

 

Geocaching changes too. Five years from now, it will be different from what it is today, at least to some degree, and today's newbies will opine over the loss of the good old days (i.e., today).

 

The basics of the game, though, are the same. Read the cache listing, decide if you want to find it, look for it, sign the log, note the find or DNF on line.

 

Today, just like back then, we get to decide how we play the game. If you're having fun with it, stay plugged in, go caching when you can, and enjoy life. If you're not enjoying it, re-think how you approach the game, and if you can't resolve to adapt to the change that's already occurred, find some other way to have fun, since it will never go back to how it once was.

 

Above all, remember it's a game, and don't take it too seriously.

Edited November 25, 2012 by WebChimp

[+NeverSummer]

Ah but since we are comparing the good ol' days to now what would cause more searching, a micro in the forest with decent coordinates or a regular but the coordinates were taken with and found with 7-8 years or GPS'?

What?

 

I don't understand the question.

 

My point being, in the good ol' days GSP' weren't as precise as they are now so it actually might have taken (on average) more searching in the good ol' days to find a regular container than it does to find a micro nowadays.

 

The problem with that equation is that even if I triple the amount of area to search for a regular, I can eliminate alot of spots just because a regular sized container wouldn't fit. A micro can be hidden anywhere within a 30' circle in a forest and you have to touch and feel around alot more to find the micro. That adds up to alot more damage.

 

On the flip side more accurate coordinates may make GZ obvious when you get there. I don't think there is any way to prove it one way or the other, just maybe the good ol' days weren't as good as we remember them to be.

Not really true. I still use a Garmin yellow GPS I bought used in 2004 from time to time. It didn't even have WAAS. Put that up against my 2007 Legend HCx, a 2011 Delorme PN40, and my 2011 Droid with 2 different Geocaching apps on it, and I still can "find GZ" with the ol' yellow just as well as with the others.

 

Put a micro in the woods, and any GPS gets you to +/-6 or 8ft. That's a 12-16ft circle. In most second-fourth growth forests you see nowadays, that means lots of places to hide a micro. Whereas, a regular or even a small cache would be easier to find. Add in bad accuracy from being in the woods, and it gets harder. GZ might mean where the GPS zeros, but doesn't mean that is where the cache is hidden.

 

I don't see much difference in my GPSers since the first ones I used in 2001, except for price, user-friendliness, satellite acquisition on start-up, and size. All will get me to a close enough radius to find a cache.

 

What has changed is the number of regulars and smalls that once occupied the forest. Now, if there is a micro in the woods, it often doesn't come with a good hint, and GZ is trammeled quite a bit more.

 

Also...I'm wondering how you use the word "we" to describe the good ol' days...

Edited November 26, 2012 by NeverSummer

[+Roman!]

Even if gpsr' were just as accurate the satellites were not meaning accuracy was worse in the past.

[+fizzymagic]

Even if gpsr' were just as accurate the satellites were not meaning accuracy was worse in the past.

 

?

 

I am not sure I understand what you mean by that.

[+Roman!]

I mean that even if the technology in GPS receivers has not improved in the last 8-10 years due to the upgrades in satellite technology GPSr are more accurate now.

[+popokiiti]

We are still finding that finding is fun, and if we get a bonus of a great view...even better. The sneaky, devilish, in your face but can't be seen, caches seem to be few and far between now. However, today we tackled a new concept, this cache and we had a blast. It was such a novel idea (to me) that I'd recommend it to any visitors to the Victoria, BC area. It has 30+ favourite votes so far, even though it takes a while (but not that long) to do - not just a drive up and grab. Kudos to The A Team!!

Caching for me is more than just getting numbers...it is about getting out there, appreciating all that is around and exercising the brain and body - which needs it!

Edited November 26, 2012 by popokiiti

[+Totem Clan]

I mean that even if the technology in GPS receivers has not improved in the last 8-10 years due to the upgrades in satellite technology GPSr are more accurate now.

The only improvement in satellites in the last 8-10 years was the launch of just 8 satellite to replace the older one with degrade orbits. The new satellites had L2C transmitters included.

 

L2C is the second civilian GPS signal, designed specifically to meet commercial needs.

 

When combined with L1 C/A in a dual-frequency receiver, L2C enables ionospheric correction, a technique that boosts accuracy. Civilians with dual-frequency GPS receivers enjoy the same accuracy as the military (or better).

 

For professional users with existing dual-frequency operations, L2C delivers faster signal acquisition, enhanced reliability, and greater operating range.

 

Unless you're caching with a comercial grade GPS, nothing has changed.

[+Roman!]

Hmmm, didn't you just post I had a valid point?

 

I find it hard to believe in the last 10 years GPS accuracy has not improved though.

[+fizzymagic]

Hmmm, didn't you just post I had a valid point?

 

I find it hard to believe in the last 10 years GPS accuracy has not improved though.

 

In general, it has. But your statement that it was a result of improved satellite accuracy was incorrect.

[+Totem Clan]

Hmmm, didn't you just post I had a valid point?

 

I find it hard to believe in the last 10 years GPS accuracy has not improved though.

If you're talking to me, no, I didn't. Don J did.

[+Roman!]

Hmmm, didn't you just post I had a valid point?

 

I find it hard to believe in the last 10 years GPS accuracy has not improved though.

If you're talking to me, no, I didn't. Don J did.

 

Sorry, I was reading on my iPhone.

 

Hmmm, didn't you just post I had a valid point?

 

I find it hard to believe in the last 10 years GPS accuracy has not improved though.

 

In general, it has. But your statement that it was a result of improved satellite accuracy was incorrect.

 

So let's recap:

 

Someone posts the recent crop up of micros in the forrest is causing a lot of undue damage as they are harder to find and in the good ol' days they didn't exist.

I posted that due to GPS accuracy improving since then that just maybe more damage was caused searching for a regular with a less accurate GPS.

Then several people posted that GPS accuracy is the same as it was 8-10 years ago.

Then you just posted it's not (the reason really does not matter)

 

So if GPS accuracy is the same as 8-10 years ago my original point is mute but if it has improved then as Don J said, I may just have a valid point.

[+Totem Clan]

...and to let you know. I've been working with GPS receivers since the mid 80's. Accuracy changed for the civilian receivers when selectability was turned off, but the system itself is not really any better than it was then. The receivers lock on quicker and are MUCH smaller now, but they work the same as the old man-pack I use to tote around.

 

Block IIIA should begin to change that a little. That won't be online till after 2014 and even then the average civilian user won't see much if any difference. The signal you get will be the same, but the satellite’s onboard laser will plot its exact location better and make changes to its onboard computer more often than what the system does now.

Edited November 26, 2012 by Totem Clan

[+fizzymagic]

So let's recap:

 

Someone posts the recent crop up of micros in the forrest is causing a lot of undue damage as they are harder to find and in the good ol' days they didn't exist.

I posted that due to GPS accuracy improving since then that just maybe more damage was caused searching for a regular with a less accurate GPS.

Then several people posted that GPS accuracy is the same as it was 8-10 years ago.

Then you just posted it's not (the reason really does not matter)

 

So if GPS accuracy is the same as 8-10 years ago my original point is mute but if it has improved then as Don J said, I may just have a valid point.

 

I said that in general it has improved. However, that is not the same as saying it has improved across the board.

 

Cell-phone GPS units in particular have a hard time in wooded areas because of the size of their antennae. Unfortunately for you, that pretty much negates your argument, which was not a good one in any case (a factor of 2 reduction in search area is quite inadequate to compensate for the much more invasive search required for a micro, IMO).

 

I have not taken sides in the "it's better/worse for the environment" debate in which you are engaged, and I am not going to.

[+NeverSummer]

Hmmm, didn't you just post I had a valid point?

 

I find it hard to believe in the last 10 years GPS accuracy has not improved though.

If you're talking to me, no, I didn't. Don J did.

 

Sorry, I was reading on my iPhone.

 

Hmmm, didn't you just post I had a valid point?

 

I find it hard to believe in the last 10 years GPS accuracy has not improved though.

 

In general, it has. But your statement that it was a result of improved satellite accuracy was incorrect.

 

So let's recap:

 

Someone posts the recent crop up of micros in the forrest is causing a lot of undue damage as they are harder to find and in the good ol' days they didn't exist.

I posted that due to GPS accuracy improving since then that just maybe more damage was caused searching for a regular with a less accurate GPS.

Then several people posted that GPS accuracy is the same as it was 8-10 years ago.

Then you just posted it's not (the reason really does not matter)

 

So if GPS accuracy is the same as 8-10 years ago my original point is mute moot but if it has improved then as Don J said, I may just have a valid point.

:blink: For all but the last part, you lost me. (fixed something for ya)

 

As for accuracy issues, my non-WAAS enabled first-gen eTrex yellow can get me to the same "GZ" as any of my other newer, fancier GPSrs. The interface might be better for the newer ones, and the best-case scenario accuracy might be improved. My old GPS does 12ft accuracy. My new ones do 6ft. In the woods, that is a negligible difference, based on the other issues that are present in these situations.

 

Person A places cache with 6ft accuracy. Person B hunts with 6ft accuracy. Effectively, you can have 12ft accuracy--at best--in most situations like this. All of this to say, with any improvements for consumer GPS that is related to hardware, satellites, etc, most folks have seen no significant change since the switch was flipped 12 years ago. Some change, sure...but not enough to really affect the game of geocaching.

 

As for the micros in the woods, I'm totally lost with what you are saying about regulars and collateral damage. Micros, as they are smaller and harder to see, can be hidden in many more places than a regular. Therefore, even with "good" accuracy of a modern GPS unit, you will still have a harder time finding the cache at GZ than if it were a regular-sized cache. This means that micros can oftentimes lead to more damage from searching than a regular cache that was at the same coordinates.

 

Supporting facts, yes. Fact of all cases? No. Good hints, solid coords, and a cache owner who pays attention to their hide and the damage it might be causing all make for less damage to surroundings. But, how many owners are out doing regular maintenance, log auditing, and cache page editing on a regular basis?

[Clan Riffster]

The basics of the game, though, are the same. Read the cache listing, decide if you want to find it, look for it, sign the log, note the find or DNF on line.

With one subtle addition:

Sort your way through the veritable mountain of poor containers in uninspired locations, then read the cache listing, decide if you want to find it, look for it, sign the log, note the find or DNF on line.

[Mr.Yuck]

I don't like the proliferation of micros in the woods. I think they increase the potential impact of a cache and I think increased impact will be a detriment to the sport.

 

I'm not alone this, a few months ago I met with some county park personnel regarding the formulation of a geocaching policy. They had actually searched for all of the caches in several parks to assess the actual and potential impact of the caches there. They found a noticeable difference in the impact of micros, thus their draft policy includes a ban on micro caches.

I think the impact of a micro in the woods varies greatly from one "woods" to another. I don't doubt that in the northeast a micro hidden in a tree stump or simply covered by leaf litter will get some people using scorched earth methods to uncover the cache. A larger container will tend to lessen the number of places the cache could be hidden. Cachers may search these areas more carefully or may simple limit their scorched earth to the possible hiding spots.

 

Yes, myself, BrianSnat and Hukilaulau (I hope I spelled that right, her post is too far up for me to see while posting) are from the Northeast. I do agree a micro in the woods up here is not the same as a micro in the woods (Desert?) in California. Why do you suppose you guys and us are seeing more of these things though?

 

I will leave you guys to your accuracy debate. And WebChimp, 40 years ago was 1972. Football was the same. I last suited up in 1981. I think you need to take it back to the Leather Helmet era.

Edited November 26, 2012 by Mr.Yuck

[+Don_J]

I don't like the proliferation of micros in the woods. I think they increase the potential impact of a cache and I think increased impact will be a detriment to the sport.

 

I'm not alone this, a few months ago I met with some county park personnel regarding the formulation of a geocaching policy. They had actually searched for all of the caches in several parks to assess the actual and potential impact of the caches there. They found a noticeable difference in the impact of micros, thus their draft policy includes a ban on micro caches.

I think the impact of a micro in the woods varies greatly from one "woods" to another. I don't doubt that in the northeast a micro hidden in a tree stump or simply covered by leaf litter will get some people using scorched earth methods to uncover the cache. A larger container will tend to lessen the number of places the cache could be hidden. Cachers may search these areas more carefully or may simple limit their scorched earth to the possible hiding spots.

 

Yes, myself, BrianSnat and Hukilaulau (I hope I spelled that right, her post is too far up for me to see while posting) are from the Northeast. I do agree a micro in the woods up here is not the same as a micro in the woods (Desert?) in California. Why do you suppose you guys and us are seeing more of these things though?

 

I will leave you guys to your accuracy debate. And WebChimp, 40 years ago was 1972. Football was the same. I last suited up in 1981. I think you need to take it back to the Leather Helmet era.

 

I used to put three small containers inside of an ammo can, stuff it in my backpack and go on a long hike, looking for spots to hide them in. Now, people are putting 25 pill bottles in their pack with the idea that they are going to try to fill the entire trail with caches. Why? Because of the mentality that they have to find every cache. If they leave a gap, I might go and place a cache there and "make" them "have" to hike the trail again.

[Keystone]

The original post was about the quality of caches, not the quality of GPS receivers and GPS satellites. The latter discussion belongs in the GPS and Technology forum, so feel free to move the debate over there if you wish to continue.

[+dprovan]

Today, I hiked a 8.3 mile loop trail in the mountains. I found 24 caches, 12 micros and 12 smalls. I hiked the exact same route in November of 2006 and found 11 caches, 5 Regulars and 6 smalls.

Yes, smaller caches is definitely a trend. I claim this is mostly because swag has become much less important generally. If you're not worried about what can be put into them, smaller caches are easier to carry and easier to hide near the trail. Is a tendency to avoid hides which involve bushwhacking caused by cachers getting lazy, or by the fact that you don't need to go 200' off the trail to hide a small cache?

 

Now admittedly, there haven't been any power trails in my area, but what I'm seeing is that many of these trail micros still involve a lot of thought and display a lot of talent. Typically the trail caches I find are anti-camo'd, so they're as easy to find as a ammo can if you know where to look. Some are even large hides, but still listed as micros because the actual container is a micro affixed to a much larger object.

 

The original post was about the quality of caches, not the quality of GPS receivers and GPS satellites.

Actually, the original post was about the quantity of caches, the point being that people wanted and were hiding caches just to get numbers. As usual, the discussion has hinged on the implicit assumption that the more caches there are, the less quality they have, but that's not necessarily true.