"What the game once was"

[Clan Riffster]

Just like crappy caches there are crappy power trails, I did one too, but there are also good power trails, i have not met anyone who didn't enjoy the E.T. Highway, besides I'd rather be condemned to nothing but power trail than nothing but puzzles..

Is that because the E.T. Highway is an awesome caching experience...or because the majority of cachers who do the E.T. trail think the greatest thing in the world is the opportunity to rack up 1,500 finds in a day? My guess is the latter. If your goal is to get as many caches as you possibly can in 24 hours, you'd LOVE the E.T. highway.

 

That's not to say it's not a great place to do some caching. I'd be riding in the same car as the Riffster...stopping every few miles for the scenery and whatever oddities there might be in the desert and snatching a cache or two as long as I'm stopped.

I have nothing against runs like this, but I would prefer to be in Riffster's car as well.

 

If there's room in Riffster's car I'd like a spot in it as well. While those in Roman's car are jumping out every 45 seconds, those in Riffster's car will have more time to socialize between stops every 15-30 minutes or while taking a short hike together to the top of a hill which provides a scenic view of the area.

 

Frankly, I find it pretty insulting that not enjoying a certain way of caching is in any way related to ones ability to choose our friends.

 

Can I get in that car too? We'd have time to chat and share stories without stopping every 45 seconds to find a cache. Maybe we'll even pull over, climb a hill and sit a while to really take in the view. I'll bring a 6 pack, you bring the sandwiches.

 

Unlike so many trips to do the E.T. highway this trip will never happen, why? No reason too unless you all get together and do it to spite me.

Is your ego really that big? Seriously?

 

That's it, count me out of your car.

I don't think you'd fit...

[+Don_J]

 

What is or isn't a powertrail.

 

I'm planning a seires/trail that will be 33 miles long. It will have at least 70 caches maybe up to 100. It follows an old highway that has been replace with a new straight high speed 4 lane road. All the caches will be the largest I can hide at eache site. At least a small and even a couple of larges.

Part of the trail will be on a closed section that you must either walk or bike. There will be at least one cemetery cache. One will be at a place where a man collects and displays old signs. Some will be on of near old brigdes.

Is this a powertrail?

 

So even if you did 100, they would be .33 miles, or about 1,600 feet, apart. I dunno, that's a tough call. But I am going to reluctantly say yes it is. Back when Powertrails were banned, The reviewers would often use the term Power Trail itself in cases of cache saturation, and the banning of further caches in the saturated area. I don't know that one cache owner could have gotten away with 100 caches .33 miles apart in 2008 or so. Then again, you are in the SouthWest (sort of), and maybe a CO could have done such a thing there in the Pre-PT era.

 

If you did that around here, the crowd from four valleys over would show up and cram a pill bottle into all of the gaps, and then chide you for not doing the power trail properly in the first place. You can not have gaps.

[+Ma & Pa]

Ok I will go back to the title

 

We liked what the game once was and we like what the game is now. There are still lots of caches and series of caches out there that would meet the definition of what caching was and we really enjoy them. There are also power trails out there that would not have been allowed a few years ago, and we love them also.

 

A few years ago when we hid a series to bring cachers on an adventure in the wilderness or to show them a trail, we made sure the caches were far enough apart to not be considered a power trail. Our newer series have caches a little closer together.

 

We have gone out and added a few caches in the gaps on our older series. The long time cachers can come back out to enjoy the area, and the newer cachers have many more caches to tempt them.

 

Been caching for nearly nine years and still enjoying it.

 

PAul

[+nthacker66]

I read a few of those od posts which got e thinking, if it was so great before then why did it change?

 

I tried to explain it already in some earlier posting (before you asked the question) and others have done as well. What is great for one group is not great for another.

Geocaching changed also as a result of the constant and increasing influx of new cachers with totally different ideas about geocaching. Back when I started in my area at least 90% of the cachers enjoyed hiking, now I'd be surprised if this percentage were in the two digit area.

 

As competition and numbers are important for you, you would not have been happy back then and probably would have given up geocaching soon.

 

Cezanne

 

Hmm, Iive been know to hike 20-30km with a several thousand meters elevation gain quite often. I also regularly bike 30+ km.

Does that include the time before you quit smoking, or just after? Is this also for the sole purpose of geocaching, or for the exercise?

 

Essentially, you are proving the point that this game is filled with diverse users with various opinions, caching styles, hobbies, life stories and whatever else. The issue is being respectful at this point in the conversation.

 

Again, any "reason" the game changed that we list here is just a guess. But, after experiencing it first hand, reviewing that history by reading through old cache listings and dusting off old forum entries, you can't deny that the game has changed. Change for better or worse, that is up for anyone to personally decide.

 

This doesn't mean right or wrong, it means your opinion and mine. So long as they don't hurt the game for somebody else and meets the current guidelines, it's all good.

 

And I think that is the point some were trying to make (even I did AFTER this post got dragged into this argument) - that certain caching can potentially hurt the game - for everyone. Brain made the best point - low impact low visibility has turned into high impact high visibility - this is what power trails are doing.

 

People need to come off of the "your way vs. my way" statements and realize that is not what it is about at all. Again - there are other aspects of caching I personally dont like, never once complained about it and in fact defended those aspects I don;t like but others do. This apsects of it, power trails, while I don't like them personally, my vocal complaints are more geared to what they are doing and could potentially do to the game.

Edited November 29, 2012 by nthacker66

[+captnemo]

Ok I will go back to the title

 

We liked what the game once was and we like what the game is now. There are still lots of caches and series of caches out there that would meet the definition of what caching was and we really enjoy them. There are also power trails out there that would not have been allowed a few years ago, and we love them also.

 

A few years ago when we hid a series to bring cachers on an adventure in the wilderness or to show them a trail, we made sure the caches were far enough apart to not be considered a power trail. Our newer series have caches a little closer together.

 

We have gone out and added a few caches in the gaps on our older series. The long time cachers can come back out to enjoy the area, and the newer cachers have many more caches to tempt them.

 

Been caching for nearly nine years and still enjoying it.

 

PAul

+1. We have been caching for over 10 years now and when I think about it, I enjoyed the game back then or I wouldn't have kept caching and I must like it now or I wouldn't still be caching.

 

As far as power trails, some I like some I don't. Those that require you to do some searching I enjoy, those that are a film container next to the road I don't. The great thing about the game now is I can find those I like and ignore those I don't.

 

When I started caching I had to go about 15+ miles to get to the closest cache today I won't have to. The only problem I have now is that the only cache less then a mile from home is mine.

[+nthacker66]

I also find by observation to a bit of amusement that those with the "choose to play the way you want to play and let others choose thier way" mantra - how quickly that philosophy chnages when it is something dont agree with - perfect example is virtuals. And I bet the day that they stop enjoying some other aspect of caching, it will be the same thing.

 

Kind of like a "do as I say, not as I do" thing I guess.

[+DragonsWest]

I also find by observation to a bit of amusement that those with the "choose to play the way you want to play and let others choose thier way" mantra - how quickly that philosophy chnages when it is something dont agree with - perfect example is virtuals. And I bet the day that they stop enjoying some other aspect of caching, it will be the same thing.

 

Kind of like a "do as I say, not as I do" thing I guess.

 

I've been in too many debates over the anti-this or pro-that and the one thing which has remained constant is nothing has changed, aside a few people have gone away from the forums in a bitter huff.

 

The first debates I engaged in on-line forums were back in the Fall of 1979. Tactics and such never really change it's all about starting an argy-bargy then seeing how many points can be scored. So much bother. It's as bad as being obsessed over what people think of something you said or posted on Facebook.

 

Meanwhile, there's having fun. Sometimes fun is actually trying a little bit of a power trail, or going on some 'orrible 'ike for a solitary old cache, which hasn't been found in months. Sometimes the best fun is cache-crafting a really cool new hide (or simply something very funny) and watching the log entries come in.

 

Many of my caches include log entries of the sort "xx of xx found today" and I wouldn't dream of taking issue with the finders. They are happy people (except for the one woman who tried crossing a mud hole to get to my T4 cache and ended up in the muck) and they are having fun. Leaves me stoked. I can only hope when I find a cool old cache or a cache which hasn't been found in a long time or for that matter any cache they owner feels some brief flicker of pride someone elected to seek it out and find it. That's a great part of the game, too.

 

Now get out there and cache!

[+nthacker66]

I also find by observation to a bit of amusement that those with the "choose to play the way you want to play and let others choose thier way" mantra - how quickly that philosophy chnages when it is something dont agree with - perfect example is virtuals. And I bet the day that they stop enjoying some other aspect of caching, it will be the same thing.

 

Kind of like a "do as I say, not as I do" thing I guess.

 

I've been in too many debates over the anti-this or pro-that and the one thing which has remained constant is nothing has changed, aside a few people have gone away from the forums in a bitter huff.

 

The first debates I engaged in on-line forums were back in the Fall of 1979. Tactics and such never really change it's all about starting an argy-bargy then seeing how many points can be scored. So much bother. It's as bad as being obsessed over what people think of something you said or posted on Facebook.

 

Meanwhile, there's having fun. Sometimes fun is actually trying a little bit of a power trail, or going on some 'orrible 'ike for a solitary old cache, which hasn't been found in months. Sometimes the best fun is cache-crafting a really cool new hide (or simply something very funny) and watching the log entries come in.

 

Many of my caches include log entries of the sort "xx of xx found today" and I wouldn't dream of taking issue with the finders. They are happy people (except for the one woman who tried crossing a mud hole to get to my T4 cache and ended up in the muck) and they are having fun. Leaves me stoked. I can only hope when I find a cool old cache or a cache which hasn't been found in a long time or for that matter any cache they owner feels some brief flicker of pride someone elected to seek it out and find it. That's a great part of the game, too.

 

Now get out there and cache!

 

Yeah well, the point keeps being missed no matter how many times I try to say it.

 

It also kind of gets old being attacked by the same two people over and over whenever I post something they don't agree with and it turns into whine fest on here when they change the nature of the topic I start.

[+Maingray]

 

I've been in too many debates over the anti-this or pro-that and the one thing which has remained constant is nothing has changed, aside a few people have gone away from the forums in a bitter huff.

 

The first debates I engaged in on-line forums were back in the Fall of 1979. Tactics and such never really change it's all about starting an argy-bargy then seeing how many points can be scored. So much bother. It's as bad as being obsessed over what people think of something you said or posted on Facebook.

 

Meanwhile, there's having fun. Sometimes fun is actually trying a little bit of a power trail, or going on some 'orrible 'ike for a solitary old cache, which hasn't been found in months. Sometimes the best fun is cache-crafting a really cool new hide (or simply something very funny) and watching the log entries come in.

 

Many of my caches include log entries of the sort "xx of xx found today" and I wouldn't dream of taking issue with the finders. They are happy people (except for the one woman who tried crossing a mud hole to get to my T4 cache and ended up in the muck) and they are having fun. Leaves me stoked. I can only hope when I find a cool old cache or a cache which hasn't been found in a long time or for that matter any cache they owner feels some brief flicker of pride someone elected to seek it out and find it. That's a great part of the game, too.

 

Now get out there and cache!

 

Exactly. Good perspective.

[+DragonsWest]

... my blather ...

 

Yeah well, the point keeps being missed no matter how many times I try to say it.

 

It also kind of gets old being attacked by the same two people over and over whenever I post something they don't agree with and it turns into whine fest on here when they change the nature of the topic I start.

 

Like I learned back in 1979, sometimes you need to see the wisdom of walking away from the discussion. There are people who will not see it your way, and all that happens from trying to convince them is you become angry and frustrated. Trim your losses and move on. You preserve your own integrity and sanity and leave those who wish to bait and/or argue with you nothing. It's the win-win most people don't see.

[+DragonsWest]

 

I've been in too many debates over the anti-this or pro-that and the one thing which has remained constant is nothing has changed, aside a few people have gone away from the forums in a bitter huff.

 

The first debates I engaged in on-line forums were back in the Fall of 1979. Tactics and such never really change it's all about starting an argy-bargy then seeing how many points can be scored. So much bother. It's as bad as being obsessed over what people think of something you said or posted on Facebook.

 

Meanwhile, there's having fun. Sometimes fun is actually trying a little bit of a power trail, or going on some 'orrible 'ike for a solitary old cache, which hasn't been found in months. Sometimes the best fun is cache-crafting a really cool new hide (or simply something very funny) and watching the log entries come in.

 

Many of my caches include log entries of the sort "xx of xx found today" and I wouldn't dream of taking issue with the finders. They are happy people (except for the one woman who tried crossing a mud hole to get to my T4 cache and ended up in the muck) and they are having fun. Leaves me stoked. I can only hope when I find a cool old cache or a cache which hasn't been found in a long time or for that matter any cache they owner feels some brief flicker of pride someone elected to seek it out and find it. That's a great part of the game, too.

 

Now get out there and cache!

 

Exactly. Good perspective.

 

Despite my best efforts, I continue to get older and wiser.

[+Ma & Pa]

Meanwhile, there's having fun. Sometimes fun is actually trying a little bit of a power trail, or going on some 'orrible 'ike for a solitary old cache, which hasn't been found in months. Sometimes the best fun is cache-crafting a really cool new hide (or simply something very funny) and watching the log entries come in.

 

Many of my caches include log entries of the sort "xx of xx found today" and I wouldn't dream of taking issue with the finders. They are happy people (except for the one woman who tried crossing a mud hole to get to my T4 cache and ended up in the muck) and they are having fun. Leaves me stoked. I can only hope when I find a cool old cache or a cache which hasn't been found in a long time or for that matter any cache they owner feels some brief flicker of pride someone elected to seek it out and find it. That's a great part of the game, too.

 

Now get out there and cache!

 

+1

 

GEEZ I FEEL EXACTLY THE SAME. CACHING IS SO MUCH MORE THAN GOING OUT AND FINDING A CACHE.

 

I so agree about watching the logs come in. I put out 5 new puzzle caches a few weeks ago and have received incredible logs about the puzzles, the trail, the race to solve, the group finds, etc. I really enjoyed the excitement. We live in a tourist area, and every summer we get tons of finds on our local caches. It is great to see logs from so many happy people.

 

Then we got the following incredible log on one of our puzzles:

 

WOW WOW WOW. This is the last micrologic that we did on our NB's ma & pa caching trip. My sister, cleo23, her two granddaughters, Katiekin and Reysecakes and I, buddysally, planned this trip about a year ago. We live in Ottawa and Sudbury, and had previously done all ma & pa's micrologic puzzles in the Ottawa and Gatineau area. We enjoyed them so much that we decided to do all the NB ones too, and plan a trip around them; which is exactly what we did. We had to jump through many hoops and find creative ways to get around barriers, but it all came together and the trip was on!!!! My sister, cleo23, left her home in St. Charles (near Sudbury) on July 31st. and arrived here in Ottawa to pick me up. From here, we went to Russell, Ontario and picked up her two granddaughters and then started on this exciting journey. When we did the first micrologic on this trip, we were all jumping and squealing with joy; soooo exciting. This was the last one that we did and again the air was full of our squeals of joy, and we were all doing our crazy happy dances. We now have completed and found all the current micrologics (well over 130). We are only missing two; one was a DNF and the other is on an island, that we couldn't get access to. This is a once in a life time achievement for us; something off our bucket list. Can't believe we got it all done; we were flying!!!! We travelled over 4500 miles to get this completed; but it was sooooooo worth it. This whole trip has been one of the highlights of my life. There are no words; how can we ever express to ma & pa how much all there hard work in putting out and maintaining these puzzles has meant to us; thanks for the caches, just doesn't seem adequate. We also had the opportunity to meet ma and pa in person and enjoy a wonderful barbeque at thier home and also to meet their two grandsons, Ben and Jake. Wonderful, awesome, fantastic experience. We will always cherish this trip. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR EVERYTHING.

[+nthacker66]

... my blather ...

 

Yeah well, the point keeps being missed no matter how many times I try to say it.

 

It also kind of gets old being attacked by the same two people over and over whenever I post something they don't agree with and it turns into whine fest on here when they change the nature of the topic I start.

 

Like I learned back in 1979, sometimes you need to see the wisdom of walking away from the discussion. There are people who will not see it your way, and all that happens from trying to convince them is you become angry and frustrated. Trim your losses and move on. You preserve your own integrity and sanity and leave those who wish to bait and/or argue with you nothing. It's the win-win most people don't see.

Thats just it. I didnt post looking for an argument. The original post wasnt looking for a debate. Lol.

Edited November 30, 2012 by nthacker66

[+Don_J]

Was talking with a cacher friend of mine about the old 1k tribute caches in our area. How creative, time consuming and clever they are/were. As she put it , a time past to what the game once was.

 

I couldn' agree more. I remember when I left the game for a couple of years, prior to "powertrails" peoples numbers were not ridiculously high. 1 - 3k was about normal. When I came back, just in 2 years, 10 and 12K was the new "1k" And of course powertrails was the new things.

 

Now again, I am not knokcing powertrails, nor how anyone wishes to play the game. That isn't the intention of my post. I am just reminiscent of a the day when I first came to the game (albeit early 2008, it was still not quite a crazy numbers game) the quality of caches was so much better. I loo back at a pq I ran and lament over some of the ones I did and still want to do and just wonder why this game transformed into chasing a never ending "sideways 8" to boast numbers amongst circles of people who really don't care?

 

 

Thats just it. I didnt post looking for an argument. The original post wasnt looking for a debate. Lol.

 

What exactly were you expecting? You basically say that the game is different, the quality of the caches has dropped, you don't like it and you blame the numbers cachers. You put this on a public forum and then get mad when people respond? Or, did you simply expect everyone to agree with you and give you a virtual high five?

 

You can type the words, "I am not knokcing powertrails, nor how anyone wishes to play the game", but that in fact is what you did. You basically accused both of ruining the game that you reminisce of.

 

I happen to agree with you, but I'm not naive to the point that I would expect that I could attack a faction on a message board and not expect a response from that faction.

[+nthacker66]

Again, people us subjectivity to determine what they think it is regardless of my disclaimer that I wasn't swiping at or complaining or griping about that aspect of the game. I shuldn't have to hand hold, wet nurse and spell out every intention of everything I post on here- perhaps taking me at my broad word (such as, I am not knocking power trails) should be good enough.

 

I also am not directing this at the general audience but a couple who decided to attack me personally on the subject (as well as anything else I post). Some people tend to think these forums are their realm to oversee and anything that doesn't agree with their vision will not only be attacked, but the person branded in the caching community. It is sad I have to endure the crap I do with some of these folks for being nothing more then vocal in forums.

Edited December 1, 2012 by Keystone
removed quoted post

[+DanOCan]

Well When I started geocaching you could load up your GPS and walk out the door and the odds were extremely good that you'd be taken some place interesting. It was a great way to explore new areas when you traveled, as the locals would often hide caches in their own special places. I largely stopped caching when I travel now because I found that I was being taken from strip mall to strip mall most of the time and I just don't have the tools or time to put in the necessary legwork to weed out the good ones.

 

This sums up my feelings as well.

 

When traveling I used to run a PQ and I would let Geocaching be my tour guide -- taking me to interesting places and seeing things that most visitors would never know about. It was like having "an in" with a local.

 

I used to cache to find locations. Now I am more likely to find an interesting location and then fire up my smartphone to see if there happens to be a cache in the area.

[+NeverSummer]

Well When I started geocaching you could load up your GPS and walk out the door and the odds were extremely good that you'd be taken some place interesting. It was a great way to explore new areas when you traveled, as the locals would often hide caches in their own special places. I largely stopped caching when I travel now because I found that I was being taken from strip mall to strip mall most of the time and I just don't have the tools or time to put in the necessary legwork to weed out the good ones.

 

This sums up my feelings as well.

 

When traveling I used to run a PQ and I would let Geocaching be my tour guide -- taking me to interesting places and seeing things that most visitors would never know about. It was like having "an in" with a local.

 

I used to cache to find locations. Now I am more likely to find an interesting location and then fire up my smartphone to see if there happens to be a cache in the area.

These two things together clicked a lightbulb on in my head. When I started "stash hunting", I remember being taken to some neat little places around where I lived. When I started geocaching here in 2005, it was more of the same. I could load waypoints, and guarantee that I would be taken to new trails, interesting overlooks, hidden creeks, etc. Now, when I load nearest, I am taken to convenient places, parking lots, and the like. It's hard to decide where to go, and being selective to that end is time consuming. Now, I am more likely to flip on the GPS or smartphone app when I'm already somewhere, and find out if there is a cache there.

 

Also, my wife isn't so keen on geocaching because it wasn't what I told her it would be. I said it would be a fun way to find new, interesting places, and learn how to navigate around an area better. She quickly got bored of it, because most of what is nearby to where we are isn't a nice hike or interesting spot.

 

Now, don't get me wrong! I know those caches are still out there. I find them from time to time. But, because there are more geocachers, and there are many spots already taken up, the tiers for geocaches move out and away from those "central" cool things/places. When I go out now, I can't guarantee that the closest geocache I'm seeking will be a neat place anymore. And, filtering that fact out in a PQ is tough!

[+geodarts]

These two things together clicked a lightbulb on in my head. When I started "stash hunting", I remember being taken to some neat little places around where I lived. When I started geocaching here in 2005, it was more of the same. I could load waypoints, and guarantee that I would be taken to new trails, interesting overlooks, hidden creeks, etc. Now, when I load nearest, I am taken to convenient places, parking lots, and the like. It's hard to decide where to go, and being selective to that end is time consuming. Now, I am more likely to flip on the GPS or smartphone app when I'm already somewhere, and find out if there is a cache there.

 

 

This is definitely another area where the game has changed for me. I used to load a general pq for any area that we visited while traveling. Now it is likely to be limited to virtuals and earthcahes.

 

My logs used to say that I never would have discovered the place except for caching. Its less likely now. I do not find "favorites" particular useful and there are no attributes for history, urban exploration, or hidden gems that travelers should not miss So I use Roadside America and google the area for particular interests. Once there, I might check the phone to see if there are any nearby caches, I visited a great location during my last trip that was off the tourist map, but the nano I found there would not have caught my attention if I had been using a pocket query as my guide.

 

On one hand, this proves that the caches are there. And I do try to track them down before traveling by going through our route and looking for interesting names or something that grabs my attention. But with limited time and spousal credits, I do not want to find myself at a parking lot.

 

This is not necessarily bad, just different. As caching has mainstreamed, there is much more to choose. So it depends on what you are looking to find. When we were last along the ET Highway, my wife asked if I wanted to stop for any of the repetitive caches. I told here that I could get a smiley anywhere and we were there to find other things. So in that sense, the growth of the game has given me greater options-- if I do not look for a cache in one location, there will be another even closer to where we are heading.. And yes, I did discover some amazing places while caching during that trip. It just took a little more work.

Edited December 1, 2012 by geodarts

[+Roman!]

Theres this cool program called GSAK which you can create your own personalized PQs, you can search by favourites, terrain ratings, cache types, cache size, COs if they have great hides or pretty much any criteria you wish. You can then view your PQ on satellite view and fine tune it by weeding out caches that look uninteresting.In fact it might just be easier nowadays to find good or great caches then ever before and even better yet there are more of them then ever before.

Edited December 1, 2012 by Roman!

[+NeverSummer]

Theres this cool program called GSAK which you can create your own personalized PQs, you can search by favourites, terrain ratings, cache types, cache size, COs if they have great hides or pretty much any criteria you wish. You can then view your PQ on satellite view and fine tune it by weeding out caches that look uninteresting.In fact it might just be easier nowadays to find good or great caches then ever before and even better yet there are more of them then ever before.

GSAK has been around for a long time. Doesn't solve the issues we're talking about.

 

You can do much of what you say with PQs already. What you can't do is guarantee that loading nearest caches will just take you to the cool places you once were taken to with your PQ. Favorite points have much less to do with where they are, and more about what it is to each person. Some with many favorites are great, others are just visited more and have odds in their favor to garner some more favs than a cache found, say, 5 times a year.

 

Satellite view is no guarantee that the cache takes one to the place one might be looking for. I disagree, wholeheartedly, that it is easier than ever to find "good or great" caches. I disagree, especially, with the sentiment that more caches nowadays makes it easier to find "good or great" caches.

[+roundnround we go]

also miss the days of thought being put into a cache listing. latest cache published in our area is just another micro by a baseball field that has had many caches hidden around it over the years. None have lasted more than a few months and the only thing the CO could think of to put on his cache page was "Just waiting to be found". if his past holds true it will stick around until it gets muggled and then he will claim it as a find and archive it. some just need to increase that find count any way they can. guess all I can really say is to each their own, for me it will just be one more to add to our ignore list.

[+Roman!]

Well, I think with GSAK, google maps and a bit of common sense you can find enough cool caches keep you busy for a long, long time. The only thing I see that may be an issue nowadays is the common sense part.

[+Mudfrog]

Well, I think with GSAK, google maps and a bit of common sense you can find enough cool caches keep you busy for a long, long time. The only thing I see that may be an issue nowadays is the common sense part.

 

While some might disagree, i feel that my common sense is fine and dandy. I can run pocket queries, sort with gsak, look at maps, examine d/t ratings, look at favorite points, and read previous logs looking for the types of caches i think i might like. Doing all of this might be part of the fun for many but i'm finding it to be more time consuming and frankly, a bit monotonous these days. Yes, i know that most things worth getting in life involve time and effort but this is one of those things that is becoming more of a chore than i care for.

 

I know i'm in the minority but i miss the days when most caches weren't placed for the sole purpose of simply upping smiley count.

[+Roman!]

Theres this cool program called GSAK which you can create your own personalized PQs, you can search by favourites, terrain ratings, cache types, cache size, COs if they have great hides or pretty much any criteria you wish. You can then view your PQ on satellite view and fine tune it by weeding out caches that look uninteresting.In fact it might just be easier nowadays to find good or great caches then ever before and even better yet there are more of them then ever before.

GSAK has been around for a long time. Doesn't solve the issues we're talking about.

 

You can do much of what you say with PQs already. What you can't do is guarantee that loading nearest caches will just take you to the cool places you once were taken to with your PQ. Favorite points have much less to do with where they are, and more about what it is to each person. Some with many favorites are great, others are just visited more and have odds in their favor to garner some more favs than a cache found, say, 5 times a year.

 

Satellite view is no guarantee that the cache takes one to the place one might be looking for. I disagree, wholeheartedly, that it is easier than ever to find "good or great" caches. I disagree, especially, with the sentiment that more caches nowadays makes it easier to find "good or great" caches.

 

Just curios, in the good old days when you loaded up a pocket query of awesome caches how many did find a day? How far did yo drive to find them?

[+DragonsWest]

In the "Good Old Days" we didn't have pocket queries. We had some very poor maps, too. In 2003 I hand entered coordinates for geocaches, sometimes printed the pages off if I wanted to decode the clues. The "Good Old Days" sometimes weren't so good.

[+dprovan]

I know i'm in the minority but i miss the days when most caches weren't placed for the sole purpose of simply upping smiley count.

Thank you for crystallizing something that's been bugging me. A few recent posts, including yours, make the really good point that in the old days, caches were few and far between, so they tended to be at interesting locations. I wasn't here back then, but I can see how the overlap between where caches were placed and what people caching at the time would consider interesting would be very high, and there's no denying that things have changed. I'm glad this angle came up because I didn't really see that before, and I've started wondering how that missing element could be replaced.

 

But then you closed your post describing this perfectly reasonable issue with the line I quoted above, thus turning what could be an interesting discussion into the familiar argument about whether it's all for the numbers. Yes, these other caches were placed for reasons other than why you want them to be placed, but they were not placed to simply up the smiley count. They were placed because a lot of geocachers -- most geocachers -- find geocaches themselves inherently interesting, hence the specific location has become less central to every single cache placement.

 

If you think there's something that could be improved, then why don't you focus on that and suggest something instead of just asserting that everyone else's priorities are wrong, thus suggesting that the only solution if for everyone to adopt your priorities?

[+The Jester]

In the "Good Old Days" we didn't have pocket queries. We had some very poor maps, too. In 2003 I hand entered coordinates for geocaches, sometimes printed the pages off if I wanted to decode the clues. The "Good Old Days" sometimes weren't so good.

I agree, I think a lot of posters are looking back with rose colored hindsight. I've looked over my earliest finds (2001) and many of them would be in places complained about now. But, because they were few and far between, they were interesting - mainly because they were caches not because of the location. As much as I liked finding them, I can remember wondering why they put it there.

[+NeverSummer]

 

Just curious, in the good old days when you loaded up a pocket query of awesome caches how many did find a day? How far did you drive to find them?

Well, Roman!, if you had common sense, you would understand your own question by reading the other posts.

 

But, for your sake, I will clarify...again.

 

There are more caches today, yes.

There weren't as many caches "in the good fondly remembered old days", no.

 

As there are a myriad of different cachers, places to live, and cultures of geocaching across the world, you will find that there isn't one, singular answer you will find. (We covered this in many of your other threads.)

 

Where I lived (Portland, OR) when I first started my geocaching.com account here, you used to be able to just load up, and figure that a very, very high percentage of the caches were good containers, had good coordinates, and were in rather interesting places. As one, including myself, would experience, the more caches you loaded close to your home, the fewer there would be as time went on. Therefore your search radius expanded. So, you traveled more for a find. When I started stash-hunting in 2001, I only dabbled in the game, and didn't really care how many I found. I just wanted to find a couple, use my GPSr for a game rather than GIS work, and have fun seeing where other stash-hiders wanted to bring people. I didn't even keep track of which I found, or how many. (Mind blowing, I know!)

 

Then, there is the issue of sorting the wheat from the chaff. One could very easily look at a map with the query results, and weed out the parking lot or other NRV caches; there wasn't much "noise" to cover up the orchestra of geocaches around you. Therefore, you could just load and go quickly. Deciphering the chaff was simple, and the wheat was more plentiful.

 

As for the "find a day" question, I have no idea. If I found 10 in a day, I was rollin'. If I wanted to cache from Portland to the ocean, I could chalk up quite a few more. And, at that time, I could skip over the eastbound ones and catch them another time, so that I had some caches left to find some other day. The destination was not cache-related more often than not, so picking off a handful of caches on a trip to watch the sun set over the Pacific could have a couple of leg-stretchers.

 

Now for the "others" I knew in PDX at the time. Some dabbled, some didn't. Some were retired, or had road jobs that could afford them more time to find more caches. I only remember a small handful of cachers that had 1000 caches by the end of 2005, and finding 100 in 3 months was a celebrated deal. Find counts were cool, but it wasn't about being the best. It was a conversation starter to find out what kinds of places caching brought them, and what cool containers or hides they came across.

 

Roman!, you were born into geocaching, like many children in elementary school today, exposed to expanded gameplay that was not available for your forebears. Like being born into a world with cell phones and internet, you only seem to know that world. Others are trying to tell you how it was before the age of many geocaches, or even hardcore "numbers cachers" were represented in higher numbers than before. (Note, I didn't say higher percentage of "numbers cachers")

 

GSAK isn't the golden ticket. It is a tool that has been around for a long time. PQs have been around for a while, too. Those tools can make the game easier to inventory, yes. However, as others have said, those tools do not necessarily make the job easier to the end we are talking about. You used to not need those tools, necessarily, to know that the caches you were finding were good containers, good coordinates, neat locations. Once again, have some respect for the experience and knowledge of those that have been playing a bit longer than you; there are many who "were there, man!", and can speak to the history.

 

edit to clarify "born"

Edited December 1, 2012 by NeverSummer

[+Don_J]

Theres this cool program called GSAK which you can create your own personalized PQs, you can search by favourites, terrain ratings, cache types, cache size, COs if they have great hides or pretty much any criteria you wish. You can then view your PQ on satellite view and fine tune it by weeding out caches that look uninteresting.In fact it might just be easier nowadays to find good or great caches then ever before and even better yet there are more of them then ever before.

GSAK has been around for a long time. Doesn't solve the issues we're talking about.

 

You can do much of what you say with PQs already. What you can't do is guarantee that loading nearest caches will just take you to the cool places you once were taken to with your PQ. Favorite points have much less to do with where they are, and more about what it is to each person. Some with many favorites are great, others are just visited more and have odds in their favor to garner some more favs than a cache found, say, 5 times a year.

 

Satellite view is no guarantee that the cache takes one to the place one might be looking for. I disagree, wholeheartedly, that it is easier than ever to find "good or great" caches. I disagree, especially, with the sentiment that more caches nowadays makes it easier to find "good or great" caches.

 

Just curios, in the good old days when you loaded up a pocket query of awesome caches how many did find a day? How far did yo drive to find them?

 

Despite the fact that people will say it over and over again, you simply refuse to accept the fact that not everyone plays the game the way that you do. When traveling down the highway through a new town on business, or just trying to get the campground before the sun sets, how many caches can you find anyway? Not everyone is trying to find every single cache.

 

The point is quite clear. If I have time to find three caches in that town, in 2005, the chances are that the three that I picked, without even looking at the details, would be good caches in interesting locations. FF to 2012, if I picked them at random, I would discover three lamp posts in supermarket parking lots.

[+NeverSummer]

In the "Good Old Days" we didn't have pocket queries. We had some very poor maps, too. In 2003 I hand entered coordinates for geocaches, sometimes printed the pages off if I wanted to decode the clues. The "Good Old Days" sometimes weren't so good.

Remember the good ol' days, when we had to actually ROT13 hints on a printout in the field? I do!

 

Now that reminds me of the good old days. I think many forget how far this game has come, in terms of website evolution and paperless GPSers. I also remember when the "cool" paperless-cached with their monochrome, horribly stylus-driven PDAs in addition to their non-WAAS GPSrs. At that time, I was jealous of the time and money they saved on printing out and storing cache pages in binders!

[+NeverSummer]

 

Just curios, in the good old days when you loaded up a pocket query of awesome caches how many did find a day? How far did yo drive to find them?

 

Despite the fact that people will say it over and over again, you simply refuse to accept the fact that not everyone plays the game the way that you do. When traveling down the highway through a new town on business, or just trying to get the campground before the sun sets, how many caches can you find anyway? Not everyone is trying to find every single cache.

 

The point is quite clear. If I have time to find three caches in that town, in 2005, the chances are that the three that I picked, without even looking at the details, would be good caches in interesting locations. FF to 2012, if I picked them at random, I would discover three lamp posts in supermarket parking lots.

^This. (Now, remind me why we keep having to re-summarize this point for him?)

Edited December 1, 2012 by NeverSummer

[+Don_J]

 

I know i'm in the minority but i miss the days when most caches weren't placed for the sole purpose of simply upping smiley count.

 

An excerpt from a cache published locally today. "I decided to start putting caches at locations where there are structures, devices, and other things that most people don't give a second look to".

 

This tells me that there is hope. I think that there are certain personality traits that drive the true numbers cachers, but for most geocachers that start out finding and hiding urban micros, at some point they will be sitting in their car next a LPC in the WalMart parking lot and the thought will pop into their heads, "Why am I here" More importantly, "Why am I bringing people to places like this with my caches". At that point, they either fade away or they "up the game". I'm happy that at least one local cacher choose the latter.

[RedShoesGirl]

In the "Good Old Days" we didn't have pocket queries. We had some very poor maps, too. In 2003 I hand entered coordinates for geocaches, sometimes printed the pages off if I wanted to decode the clues. The "Good Old Days" sometimes weren't so good.

 

oh, i dunno, hand entering coords was kind of a pain that's for sure, but i still print out the pages, don't use PQs because i can't figure out how to weed out the micro power trails which i don't like. i happen to live near the 800 PT of route 66. if i am bored someday i might go play on the mother road but probably not for very long. the unpleasant changes, for me, have been the proliferation of micros and nanos. i have to really study the map of where i want to go in order to find good caches.

 

when i started it was a treasure hunt. we hunted for fun stuff. we filled caches with fun stuff. 11 caches in a day was a big deal because we had to drive quite a distance because the caches in the desert were few and far between. in addition to seeing new places, the swag was fun. now not so much. people seem to think crap in caches, tiny plastic trinkets and shotgun shells are acceptable trade items. yep, i still place nice swag, clean the trash out of containers that are big enough to contain anything but a log.

 

and then we noticed that "small" became film canisters instead of small tupperware size containers. cache trash became the new norm for any caches close to a road, even dirt roads. i quit caching for a while and when i came back oh my, all those film canisters! to me that was totally against the original concept behind geocaching. which was to find stuff in a hidden container hopefully in a new and interesting location.

 

now do i think just because i don't like micros other people shouldn't play that way, no. but do i think micros keep good caches from being placed? yes. it's harder to find locations to place good caches anywhere near a road because there is a micro there.

 

going off a paved road in the desert is not always easy for those with only 2-wheel drive. nor is it safe for the those unprepared for extreme heat. and frankly, folks don't seem to want to hike across a moon-like landscape to find something hidden in, once you are out of the sight of the road, an alien environment.

 

change is inevitable, but change in and of itself is not necessarily good.

 

so i do see a huge difference in how the game is played and i don't see that as a good change.

[+geodarts]

In the "Good Old Days" we didn't have pocket queries. We had some very poor maps, too. In 2003 I hand entered coordinates for geocaches, sometimes printed the pages off if I wanted to decode the clues. The "Good Old Days" sometimes weren't so good.

 

There is no question that technological advances have made the game more accessible. The first maps that I used on gc.com were so rudimentary that after a few finds I was forced to buy a gpsr to track some of the caches down. Pocket queries made things a lot easier. Field notes were a great addition. The web site has gotten better in several respects (although I was thinking the other day that the old photo banners were fun). GPSR units have gone almost paperless, smart phones provide a lot of capability (did I ever cache without geosphere?), and I no longer have to carry around a separate PDA to keep the cache details. I am sure all these things have contributed to the growth of the game. But with great tools come great responsibility . . .

[+tozainamboku]

Well, I think with GSAK, google maps and a bit of common sense you can find enough cool caches keep you busy for a long, long time. The only thing I see that may be an issue nowadays is the common sense part.

 

While some might disagree, i feel that my common sense is fine and dandy. I can run pocket queries, sort with gsak, look at maps, examine d/t ratings, look at favorite points, and read previous logs looking for the types of caches i think i might like. Doing all of this might be part of the fun for many but i'm finding it to be more time consuming and frankly, a bit monotonous these days. Yes, i know that most things worth getting in life involve time and effort but this is one of those things that is becoming more of a chore than i care for.

 

I know i'm in the minority but i miss the days when most caches weren't placed for the sole purpose of simply upping smiley count.

This sounds like someone complaining that they get 500 channels on cable but they miss the good old day when they got maybe 6 or 7 over-the-air channels.

 

There are so many choices now that it is difficult to decide what programs to watch and when you randomly select something it's likely that you won't enjoy it that much. But you can remember fondly when the choice was Gilligan's Island or Gomer Pyle. No need to look one Internet or read reviews. You just watched because it was the only thing on.

 

Now I accept that the back in the day you may have found it easier to find what you like. The demographics of geocaching was different. It mainly appealed to outdoor type who already owned a GPS for hiking, camping, or biking. So a higher percentage of caches were hiking cachers the urban caches tended to be place for a reason other than just to have another cache in the area. But for many people the choices back then were like choosing between Gilligan's Island and Gomer Pyle. Today they see geocaching environment with many more choices and far more opportunities.

 

"I decided to start putting caches at locations where there are structures, devices, and other things that most people don't give a second look to".

Sounds like a Waymarking category.

Edited December 1, 2012 by tozainamboku

[+Roman!]

Theres this cool program called GSAK which you can create your own personalized PQs, you can search by favourites, terrain ratings, cache types, cache size, COs if they have great hides or pretty much any criteria you wish. You can then view your PQ on satellite view and fine tune it by weeding out caches that look uninteresting.In fact it might just be easier nowadays to find good or great caches then ever before and even better yet there are more of them then ever before.

GSAK has been around for a long time. Doesn't solve the issues we're talking about.

 

You can do much of what you say with PQs already. What you can't do is guarantee that loading nearest caches will just take you to the cool places you once were taken to with your PQ. Favorite points have much less to do with where they are, and more about what it is to each person. Some with many favorites are great, others are just visited more and have odds in their favor to garner some more favs than a cache found, say, 5 times a year.

 

Satellite view is no guarantee that the cache takes one to the place one might be looking for. I disagree, wholeheartedly, that it is easier than ever to find "good or great" caches. I disagree, especially, with the sentiment that more caches nowadays makes it easier to find "good or great" caches.

 

Just curios, in the good old days when you loaded up a pocket query of awesome caches how many did find a day? How far did yo drive to find them?

 

Despite the fact that people will say it over and over again, you simply refuse to accept the fact that not everyone plays the game the way that you do. When traveling down the highway through a new town on business, or just trying to get the campground before the sun sets, how many caches can you find anyway? Not everyone is trying to find every single cache.

 

The point is quite clear. If I have time to find three caches in that town, in 2005, the chances are that the three that I picked, without even looking at the details, would be good caches in interesting locations. FF to 2012, if I picked them at random, I would discover three lamp posts in supermarket parking lots.

 

You're telling me in a new location given the tools at your disposal you'd have a hard time finding 3 caches you'd enjoy finding?

[+Don_J]

Theres this cool program called GSAK which you can create your own personalized PQs, you can search by favourites, terrain ratings, cache types, cache size, COs if they have great hides or pretty much any criteria you wish. You can then view your PQ on satellite view and fine tune it by weeding out caches that look uninteresting.In fact it might just be easier nowadays to find good or great caches then ever before and even better yet there are more of them then ever before.

GSAK has been around for a long time. Doesn't solve the issues we're talking about.

 

You can do much of what you say with PQs already. What you can't do is guarantee that loading nearest caches will just take you to the cool places you once were taken to with your PQ. Favorite points have much less to do with where they are, and more about what it is to each person. Some with many favorites are great, others are just visited more and have odds in their favor to garner some more favs than a cache found, say, 5 times a year.

 

Satellite view is no guarantee that the cache takes one to the place one might be looking for. I disagree, wholeheartedly, that it is easier than ever to find "good or great" caches. I disagree, especially, with the sentiment that more caches nowadays makes it easier to find "good or great" caches.

 

Just curios, in the good old days when you loaded up a pocket query of awesome caches how many did find a day? How far did yo drive to find them?

 

Despite the fact that people will say it over and over again, you simply refuse to accept the fact that not everyone plays the game the way that you do. When traveling down the highway through a new town on business, or just trying to get the campground before the sun sets, how many caches can you find anyway? Not everyone is trying to find every single cache.

 

The point is quite clear. If I have time to find three caches in that town, in 2005, the chances are that the three that I picked, without even looking at the details, would be good caches in interesting locations. FF to 2012, if I picked them at random, I would discover three lamp posts in supermarket parking lots.

 

You're telling me in a new location given the tools at your disposal you'd have a hard time finding 3 caches you'd enjoy finding?

 

Roman has great attendance but lacks comprehension skills. Ever get that on your report card as a youngster?

 

Read what I wrote and you will find that I was not telling you that at all. What I wrote was that in the past it took almost no effort to choose which caches would be good ones to look for. Now, regardless of the tools available, it does take some effort.

[+NeverSummer]

 

Roman has great attendance but lacks comprehension skills. Ever get that on your report card as a youngster?

 

Read what I wrote and you will find that I was not telling you that at all. What I wrote was that in the past it took almost no effort to choose which caches would be good ones to look for. Now, regardless of the tools available, it does take some effort.

I am so happy that I didn't reply to his comment yet. You just put this so succinctly! Same trend that I've noticed carrying from thread to thread.

[+Roman!]

I'd bet it would take less effort today to plan and find 3 caches you like than it would have back in 2005.

[+NeverSummer]

Nevermind. Not worth it

Edited December 1, 2012 by NeverSummer

[RedShoesGirl]

I'd bet it would take less effort today to plan and find 3 caches you like than it would have back in 2005.

 

nope, that's not true at all. and i WAS there. i have to sift through hundreds of micros in order to find something good.

[+NeverSummer]

I'd bet it would take less effort today to plan and find 3 caches you like than it would have back in 2005.

 

nope, that's not true at all. and i WAS there. i have to sift through hundreds of micros in order to find something good.

So glad that someone else chimed in to say what we're all trying to say. Might be time to ignore the trolling...again.

[+NeverSummer]

I'd bet it would take less effort today to plan and find 3 caches you like than it would have back in 2005.

No. And I was there.

 

Edit: Darn, I gave in!

 

 

2 1/2 cups sifted all-purpose flour

1 teaspoon baking soda

2 eggs, lightly beaten

1 (28 ounce) jar prepared mincemeat pie filling

1 (14 ounce) can sweetened condensed milk

1 cup chopped walnuts

2 cups candied mixed fruit

Preheat oven to 300 degrees F (150 degrees C). Butter cake pans, and line with wax paper. Butter the wax paper. Sift the flour with the baking soda. In a large bowl, combine eggs, mincemeat, condensed milk, fruit, and nuts. Fold in dry ingredients. Pour into prepared pans. Bake for 2 hours, or until center springs back and top is golden brown. Cool. Turn cakes out onto wire rack; remove wax paper.

Edited December 1, 2012 by NeverSummer

[+Totem Clan]

I'd bet it would take less effort today to plan and find 3 caches you like than it would have back in 2005.

 

nope, that's not true at all. and i WAS there. i have to sift through hundreds of micros in order to find something good.

So glad that someone else chimed in to say what we're all trying to say. Might be time to ignore the trolling...again.

That's why I haven't said anything lately. His comments seem to all be just baiting everyone.

[+Roman!]

Delete micros with less than a few favorites and 99% of you work is done, besides, think of all the paper that was wasted in the good old days.

[+The_Incredibles_]

I'd bet it would take less effort today to plan and find 3 caches you like than it would have back in 2005.

 

nope, that's not true at all. and i WAS there. i have to sift through hundreds of micros in order to find something good.

So glad that someone else chimed in to say what we're all trying to say. Might be time to ignore the trolling...again.

 

Yep. Feeding trolls is a waste of time.

[cezanne]

 

Now I accept that the back in the day you may have found it easier to find what you like. The demographics of geocaching was different. It mainly appealed to outdoor type who already owned a GPS for hiking, camping, or biking. So a higher percentage of caches were hiking cachers the urban caches tended to be place for a reason other than just to have another cache in the area. But for many people the choices back then were like choosing between Gilligan's Island and Gomer Pyle. Today they see geocaching environment with many more choices and far more opportunities.

 

I agree with what you wrote. I cannot see any reason, however, why anyone who has been happy with the choice back then and who is not interested in diversity as geoaching is related, should be happy about more choices and more opportunities. It is not only that this development increases the effort one has to spend to find what one is interested into, it also leads to the unfortunate development that many old-timers give up geocaching due to frustration and since they are not willing to invest that much time to make their selection. I agree that the modern geocaching world has the potential to make many more people happy, but it makes most of those I really care about (because their preferences are similar than mine) unhappy.

 

As your TV example is regarded, only those will appreciate the change to a system with an increased number of channels who will profit. Translated to the geocaching world, what counts for me is not the number of caches available and not even not the number of caches available that meet certain criteria, but rather the overall time that can be spent happily with geocaching. For example, in my area the number of caches has of course increased dramatically, but the time to be spent per cache has decreased on average. When back then I selected a single cache to spend a nice day, I might today need to select 10 or more caches and still end up with a shorter walking distance and with being less satisfied than back then. Back then the focus of most cachers in my area has been on hiking which has been reflected in the cache descriptions as well. Nowadays if I want to combine geocaching with hiing or bicycle tours, almost all of the planning has to be done at my side which implies that after having selected caches to be visited, the work to be done is not over - rather the biggest part is still ahead of me. If someone just wants to get the cache as quickly as possible, then nowadays he/she is typically better off. Just go to the parking coordinates (which are typically close-by) and get the cache. If one wants to integrate geocaching into physical activities, then it gets much more difficult at least in my area, regardless of whether in a city or in the countryside. The landscape here is quite different than for example in Canada and offers much less wilderness and roads and settlement areas break up the forest and mountain areas into many small sections. What I'm trying to see is that it is much harder to integrate caches that have not been hidden as hiking or biking caches into hiking and biking activities than this would be the case for caches that have been hidden by a hiker/biker with the hiking/biking audience in mind.

 

Cezanne

[+Roman!]

So are you saying cachers in your area are not placing caches that may take a several hours hike or bike ride to get to or due to population it's not possible to place a cache that requires hours to get to from the nearest parking?

 

Also if you do enjoy the hikes and bike rides why not plan a trip around pacing a cache, if its a great area someone else may place one when they go out and you'll have an excuse to go back.

 

Maybe we're just spoiled here but I have enough cool hikes and bie rides to do for many many years to come.

[Clan Riffster]

I do not find "favorites" particular useful...

If you add one more step to your repertoire, those favorite points might become your new best friend. Once you sort the caches near you by favorite points, pick an entirely arbitrary number, (I use 10), and exclude any caches with less than that number. Then look at what I consider to be the critical data point; How many premium members awarded each cache a favorite point. A Virtual like Disney World will have a huge number of favorite points because, as you mentioned, it gets a lot of visits. But as of this writing, it only has a 13% ratio. For fairly good caches, look for a 20% ratio, or better. Rather good = 40%. Very good = 60%. Great = 80%. I've been using this sorting method for a while, and it hasn't done me wrong yet. You might miss a great cache because it is either too challenging or too new to have accumulated enough points when you start your sorting, and you might have the occasional stinker slip through, but it beats the heck out of going in blind.

[+6NoisyHikers]

 

Maybe we're just spoiled here but I have enough cool hikes and bie rides to do for many many years to come.

 

I'm in your area - we are spoiled, especially where you live.