Jump to content

Remember 10 years ago when you couldn't do 500 caches in a weekend?


Recommended Posts

We weren’t involved then but joined in the fun 3 years later.

When we first started, it was all consuming and we spent every bit of spare time caching or in preparation for a trip. Back then, we were in competition with another cacher – now, we couldn’t be less interested in making it a personal challenge/chore and the numbers game has well and truly dropped off our radar.

We would much rather complete 1 well thought out multi than 10 film pots at the bases of posts. We do still occasionally complete a series but this is always now picked for location rather than the size of the haul.

Link to comment

It took me 2 1/2 years to get 500. now it only appears to take that time to get 5,000, although i don't do the numbers, prefer the walk.

Thing is: if you like a walk you'll rack up a lot of numbers, with all the excellent walking series around. So it's certainly no either/or.

 

Something like a dozen caches in a five mile circular walk somewhere new to you is one of the best improvements in the game since it began. I wonder why we didn't think of such a thing in the early days? I suppose we'd have set it up as a five-mile multi with twelve stages to find, and wonder why nobody bothered with it.

Link to comment

Luxury! I remember having to crawl 50 miles over rough gravel, navigating by sextant, only to find a note saying that the nano had been removed for maintenance. Then we had to crawl 60 miles back to the car (which had no hubcaps or tyres left by then) and drive 200 miles to the chip shop, where they'd only got used fat left. So we had to eat that. We only had a pound, but after buying petrol on the way home we still had enough left for ten pints of Double Diamond beer, a Marathon bar, and a tin of tripe. Happy days.

Link to comment

...

Something like a dozen caches in a five mile circular walk somewhere new to you is one of the best improvements in the game since it began.

...

But in those days power trails like that weren't allowed

 

Going way back to 2006 I'd have happily published a 5 mile circular trail of around 10/12 caches, because it would not have meet my own personal definition of a Power Trail. I can remember only ever applying the Power Trail Guideline once, before it was dropped [which was due to the fact, no one could actually define exactly what a Power Trail was. Some had the opinion it was multiple caches at 0.11 miles, and others at 0.25 miles]. It was a single cache to which I applied the Guideline, because it was placed to join up a group of 4 caches, which varied from 0.11 miles to 0.25 miles and a group of 5 caches with a similar spread. The cache in question being 0.11 miles from the last in the group of 4, and the same distance from the first in the group of 5.

 

I believe that the reason Circular trails where not put out, is that the concept had not really been thought of way back then, not the Power Trail Guideline.

 

The ET Highway did meet my own personal definition of a power trail, caches in succession at 0.1 miles. If Groundspeak had defined the Guideline at 0.1 miles, you'd have seen the ET Trail at 0.11 miles to get around it. Whatever distance would have been used, trails would have gone out at 0.01 over that distance.

 

I can remember spending 4 solid hours reviewing the Chiltern Hundreds series, all 111 caches, and not believing that it was a power trail, and yet it is not a circular trail either. There are a number of High cache trails out in the UK, which are not circular, but Linear Trails, a concept which seems to becoming more popular. Give modern transport links, and a little bit of planning.

 

And personally in 2004 [before I became a Reviewer] I can remember standing at a Event I'd organised with North Wales FC, explaining about Geocaching to someone. And mentioning to this person that, the first UK cacher, had just recently reached 1,100 finds. Only for that person to reveal his ID, yes I'd been explaining Geocaching to Seasider himself.

 

Way back then he was on a Sabbatical, and cached every day. Each night he planned with military precision, his next days caches. And I believe his busiest day was only 25 caches :yikes: [ I imagine today if he was still caching, he'd be doing 200+ per day :yikes:]

 

 

Deci

Link to comment

It took me 2 1/2 years to get 500. now it only appears to take that time to get 5,000, although i don't do the numbers, prefer the walk.

Thing is: if you like a walk you'll rack up a lot of numbers, with all the excellent walking series around. So it's certainly no either/or.

 

Something like a dozen caches in a five mile circular walk somewhere new to you is one of the best improvements in the game since it began. I wonder why we didn't think of such a thing in the early days? I suppose we'd have set it up as a five-mile multi with twelve stages to find, and wonder why nobody bothered with it.

 

I agree with this (though on a 5 mile walk 20+ seems more common around here). But I also like those 12 stage multi/puzzles.

 

Many of my favourite caches have been multi stage caches (often with a puzzle aspect). The stages gives flexibility to the cache owner; often there are clever physical stages (or virtual clues) which would not be allowed as a cache on it's own. Also the fact that you don't know where you are going or the number of stages adds to the adventure.

 

I do both. Recently I spent 4 hours on a single multi-stage puzzle cache. And spent a similar amount of time doing a 8 mile 22 cache series. Sometimes I'm in the mood for a single complex cache; sometimes I want more of a walk with more straightforward caches on the way.

 

But the puzzle/multi which takes 4 hours to do will get much less traffic than the 20 cache series that takes the same time to do.

 

The only thing I think is a little bit sad is when I tell someone about a fantastic complex puzzle/multi, and they say "why do that when you could find 20 in the same amount of time".

Link to comment
The only thing I think is a little bit sad is when I tell someone about a fantastic complex puzzle/multi, and they say "why do that when you could find 20 in the same amount of time".

 

I agree that's one thing that's a bit sad.

 

I remember late last year I got an international FTF on a cache in Pennsylvania. It involved climbing "the 1000 steps" (no prizes for guessing what's there or how many of them), then a hike along a trail (which included a few more steps for good measure), then a scramble up a pile of scree to find the cache.

 

Having done that cache (which I would have done even if FTF had gone), on the way back to where I was staying I drove literally right past probably half a dozen other caches. All of them would have involved nothing more than pulling off at the side of the road and finding a film pot behind a billboard but after the cache (and another slightly easier one I did while at the top end of the 1000 steps) I just couldn't be bothered with a film pot behind a sign.

 

Now I find I like walks that take in geocaching and if some of those caches happen to be film pots it doesn't bother me, but I just can't be bothered with making a special journey out to find a cache that's nothing more than a film pot behind a sign.

Link to comment

When I started geocaching, towards the end of 2002, the caches were few and far between in my neck of the woods. Three or four a day with a lot of driving in between was the norm. To have a serious chance at getting in to double figures it meant a trip to Winchester, widely recognised as the spiritual home of geocaching in the UK (though I don't doubt some 'old timers' in the north east will dispute that :) ) I set of before dawn on the 1st March 2003 and picked up my first cache, GC6D19 - Trains, Planes & Little Trains, at 07:00 just as it was getting light. I cached my way across the area picking up my 13th and final cache (with one DNF for good measure), GCA070 - The Campaign Cache, at 18:40 in the dark.

That 13 in a day remained my 'best day' for quite a few years, right up until 29th May 2010 when accompanied by Omally and Hi-Tek, we found 32 . For all that, I was one of the first 10 UK cachers to break the 1000 mark when I found GCGJHW - Tommy Jones up on Pen-y-Fan in May 2005. In the 8 years since then, I've only found another 1500 which shows how my interest has wained - I think I've only found 14 so far this year :(. I just can't get enthusiastic about micro caches which is what they mostly seem to be these days. Ho hum....

Link to comment

I believe that the reason Circular trails where not put out, is that the concept had not really been thought of way back then, not the Power Trail Guideline.

I think you're right. They'd have been popular right from the start!

 

Actually, another improvement is the "challenge" cache. Not necessarily the one where you have to cache on every day of the year, but where you collect a set of caches. As an example, one I was looking at recently you can qualify for if you've found 26 caches at over 1000 feet altitude (26, because each one has to start with a different letter of the alphabet). That might send you out up a few hills to complete your set. Another common one is the D/T grid completion game. Or the Little Quest.

 

The original quest was to find all caches in the UK (possible at one time with a lot of driving). Then it was all caches in your local area (or county); the aforementioned Seasider found all the IOM caches in a day once (that's been impossible for many years).

Now that those targets have become difficult to achieve we have the more imaginative challenges, and I think to the jaded cacher these are a chance to revive your interest and get back to those marathon drives for a single cache up a hill, or that elusive grubby box with wet logbook that completes your challenge!

Link to comment

Then it was all caches in your local area (or county); the aforementioned Seasider found all the IOM caches in a day once (that's been impossible for many years).

 

In the summer of 2003, Hampshire Council set up an event at Farley Mount Country Park to promote geocaching. It was there I met Neil [Omally], Keith [Hi-Tek, formally Motley Crew] and Chris [Merman] and together the next day we crossed to the Isle of Wight and completed the Vectis series and Bonchurch Landslip. We were mightily chuffed, too. The following year we went back and cleared up all the remaining caches on the Island in one weekend... just 14 of them incuding the somewhat notorious virtual multicache, Diamond Isle.

There are close to 300 caches on the island now and I defy anyone to clear them all up on one weekend!!

Link to comment

When I started geocaching, towards the end of 2002, the caches were few and far between in my neck of the woods. Three or four a day with a lot of driving in between was the norm. To have a serious chance at getting in to double figures it meant a trip to Winchester, widely recognised as the spiritual home of geocaching in the UK (though I don't doubt some 'old timers' in the north east will dispute that :) ) I set of before dawn on the 1st March 2003 and picked up my first cache, GC6D19 - Trains, Planes & Little Trains, at 07:00 just as it was getting light. I cached my way across the area picking up my 13th and final cache (with one DNF for good measure), GCA070 - The Campaign Cache, at 18:40 in the dark.

That 13 in a day remained my 'best day' for quite a few years, right up until 29th May 2010 when accompanied by Omally and Hi-Tek, we found 32 . For all that, I was one of the first 10 UK cachers to break the 1000 mark when I found GCGJHW - Tommy Jones up on Pen-y-Fan in May 2005. In the 8 years since then, I've only found another 1500 which shows how my interest has wained - I think I've only found 14 so far this year :(. I just can't get enthusiastic about micro caches which is what they mostly seem to be these days. Ho hum....

 

Know what you mean about interest waning. That said I've found my caching activity has drifted from going to where the caches are even if that means endless film pots and keysafes, to looking to see if there are any caches in the areas I'm visiting anyway. If the area is nice the fact the cache is a film pot doesn't bother me - I just can't be bothered with making a special trip to find a cache when it's a film pot behind a sign.

 

I guess as caching as grown muggling has also grown and it's cheaper to place a film pot with a bit of paper in it than it is to place an ammo can with decent swag in it. Throw in urban caching and the seemingly insatiable desire people have to go all-in on a new hobby only to abandon it within a few months for the next fad and it's not surprising we see the proliferation of wet film pots as a result of "wow, cool game, I want to hide a cache" closely followed by "what's the next fad, forget that old film pot".

Link to comment

I just can't be bothered with making a special trip to find a cache when it's a film pot behind a sign.

I'm always baffled by this one. You can normally see that a cache is likely to be this type, so if you're not keen on such caches why would it bother you? You just ignore it.

As I said above, there are plenty of challenges for the jaded cacher that don't involve collecting film pots behind signs. Why ignore that type of cache in favour of the film pot, and then moan about it?

 

On the one hand, people bemoan the plethora of available caches and say that it was better when you had to travel 60 miles just to log your nearest unfound. Then on the other hand they bemoan the fact that you now have to travel 10 miles to log the nearest cache that you think worthy. Confusing.

Link to comment

I've been caching just about a year and can safetly say I don't like the idea of finding 500 caches in a weakend. I do look for nice trails with multiple caches on but mostly so I get to walk a nice walk.

I don't overly enjoy urban caches and even worse is the street sign cache.. I'd rather do a Wherigo cache that takes a day over 10 of those street sign caches.

Link to comment

I just can't be bothered with making a special trip to find a cache when it's a film pot behind a sign.

I'm always baffled by this one. You can normally see that a cache is likely to be this type, so if you're not keen on such caches why would it bother you? You just ignore it.

As I said above, there are plenty of challenges for the jaded cacher that don't involve collecting film pots behind signs. Why ignore that type of cache in favour of the film pot, and then moan about it?

 

On the one hand, people bemoan the plethora of available caches and say that it was better when you had to travel 60 miles just to log your nearest unfound. Then on the other hand they bemoan the fact that you now have to travel 10 miles to log the nearest cache that you think worthy. Confusing.

 

I didn't read team tisri's post that way. I read it that he/she doesn't enjoy film pots on signs so generally doesn't do them. So effectively ignoring them.

 

And I agree that generally film pots on a sign do not affect the availability of what one may define as more "quality caches".

 

However, circular trails to do impact the availability of space for a hider to hide a single cache (and perhaps a more involved, complex one with multiple stages). Most caches in the countryside are hidden near footpaths. If a cacher hides caches every .10 mile along long stretch of footpath, it reduces the scope for others to hide along that path. If there are many such series in an area, even more so.

 

That is not to say I am against circular trails; I do a lot of them. And there is still space out there, and I still manage to be able to find those one-off "special" caches when I crave one. So I'm happy. I'll generally ignore the urban sign post or supermarket carpark; but if I'm shopping somewhere with one of these and I'm in the mood, I'll find them too. Though they somehow make me feel a bit guilty.

 

And I guess the converse is true too. There might be a multi or puzzle cache which has 20 physical stages, all close to a footpath. Someone wants to hide a circular trail, and they only see this one cache on the map (which they haven't done) in the area. Later they find many of their proposed hides are rejected as they are too close to a stage of the existing multi/puzzle.

 

We all have to accept that the space will be filled by all types of caches, and we just need to figure out which ones we might like the most to find.

Link to comment

I just can't be bothered with making a special trip to find a cache when it's a film pot behind a sign.

I'm always baffled by this one. You can normally see that a cache is likely to be this type, so if you're not keen on such caches why would it bother you? You just ignore it.

 

Are we talking at cross purposes here? That's exactly what I'm saying - I can't be bothered with film pots behind signs unless I happen to be in the area anyway. Because I can't be bothered with them I don't bother with them.

 

As I said above, there are plenty of challenges for the jaded cacher that don't involve collecting film pots behind signs. Why ignore that type of cache in favour of the film pot, and then moan about it?

 

I wasn't aware I was ignoring them in favour of a film pot. In my area finding something that isn't a film pot or a silly tree climb (which might as well be on the moon as far as an overweight cacher like me is concerned) involves going further to find them. Sometimes I do that, sometimes I don't.

 

On the one hand, people bemoan the plethora of available caches and say that it was better when you had to travel 60 miles just to log your nearest unfound. Then on the other hand they bemoan the fact that you now have to travel 10 miles to log the nearest cache that you think worthy. Confusing.

 

Not really confusing, it's not that hard to understand "I'd like more quality caches near home" is it? I don't particularly hail back to the days where you'd have to make a 400 mile round trip in freezing fog and heavy traffic to find the only cache in the country, I'm just one of those who doesn't think caching as a hobby is improved by having dozens of film pots behind signs.

 

Ultimately it comes back to the old guideline of why you're placing a cache. If it's to show someone an area that's interesting then all well and good. If it's just a cache placed for the sake of hiding a cache and there's no reason why you might go to the area other than to find the cache, maybe it's best not to bother.

Link to comment

Not really confusing, it's not that hard to understand "I'd like more quality caches near home" is it? I don't particularly hail back to the days where you'd have to make a 400 mile round trip in freezing fog and heavy traffic to find the only cache in the country, I'm just one of those who doesn't think caching as a hobby is improved by having dozens of film pots behind signs.

 

Ultimately it comes back to the old guideline of why you're placing a cache. If it's to show someone an area that's interesting then all well and good. If it's just a cache placed for the sake of hiding a cache and there's no reason why you might go to the area other than to find the cache, maybe it's best not to bother.

OK, perhaps I misunderstood your point rather! I'm not sure where you live, so it's probably much different there and your caching neighbours clearly love hiding film pots. Maybe you should set an example and only hide quality micros in wonderful scenery.

It's different around here, where film pots are quite a rarity (probably because it's such a long time since they were common containers in the home, or perhaps because superior micro containers are so easy to obtain). Perhaps you should move house! Actually I quite like those behind signs. They aren't that common (in the Midlands and North) and can often be logged quickly without having to grub around too much.

 

In the context of this thread, all I'm saying is that you CAN cache as people did 10 years ago if you like.

The advantage is that you can pick and choose, and there are still plenty of caching challenges to be taken up. If you're only interested in the single game of logging every cache near home then things are going to get a bit dull after a while, whatever the quality of local caches.

Link to comment

Not really confusing, it's not that hard to understand "I'd like more quality caches near home" is it? I don't particularly hail back to the days where you'd have to make a 400 mile round trip in freezing fog and heavy traffic to find the only cache in the country, I'm just one of those who doesn't think caching as a hobby is improved by having dozens of film pots behind signs.

 

Ultimately it comes back to the old guideline of why you're placing a cache. If it's to show someone an area that's interesting then all well and good. If it's just a cache placed for the sake of hiding a cache and there's no reason why you might go to the area other than to find the cache, maybe it's best not to bother.

OK, perhaps I misunderstood your point rather! I'm not sure where you live, so it's probably much different there and your caching neighbours clearly love hiding film pots. Maybe you should set an example and only hide quality micros in wonderful scenery.

It's different around here, where film pots are quite a rarity (probably because it's such a long time since they were common containers in the home, or perhaps because superior micro containers are so easy to obtain). Perhaps you should move house! Actually I quite like those behind signs. They aren't that common (in the Midlands and North) and can often be logged quickly without having to grub around too much.

 

In London it's not always easy to find a spot that's nice enough to draw people to the spot in its own right, sufficiently accessible that maintenance isn't going to be a drag, that isn't likely to be plagued by muggles, and that doesn't already have a cache in place.

 

I think to a large extent in urban areas caches tend to be micros and nanos because anything else is nigh on impossible to hide such that it won't get muggled. Occasionally you find a small cache stuck to the back of a green BT box or similar with a magnet but most of what's out there is the bottom end of the size chart. Even micros and nanos seem to get muggled with surprising frequency. Film pots behind signs can be OK if you find them soon after publication but often seem to end up either wet or covered in spider webs and assorted street debris.

 

In the context of this thread, all I'm saying is that you CAN cache as people did 10 years ago if you like.

The advantage is that you can pick and choose, and there are still plenty of caching challenges to be taken up. If you're only interested in the single game of logging every cache near home then things are going to get a bit dull after a while, whatever the quality of local caches.

 

Sure, I hear what you're saying. Most of the time I cache as a social thing or when I'm away from home, simply because when I'm out and about near home I'm usually cycling and increasingly find I can't be bothered to interrupt my ride to root around for a film pot. Sometimes I find a cache in a nice little spot that looks like a nice place to take a break, and sometimes I'll just pick a cache somewhere and use it as a form of checkpoint for my ride, where it doesn't matter what the cache is or whether I find it, as long as I cover the distance.

Link to comment

I just passed my ten year mark. (Don't worry, I didn't notice either)

 

If I had to harken back to make a recommendation I would say place more multies. If you want to place a lamp post cache at least add in a local historical or other interesting item that would then lead me to the post.

 

I will say that after ten years I still support happy caching.

 

bd

Edited by BlueDeuce
Link to comment

If I had to harken back to make a recommendation I would say place more multies. If you want to place a lamp post cache at least add in a local historical or other interesting item that would then lead me to the post.

Multicaches are great, but not very popular. If I placed one, it'd be so that I don't have to visit it more than once per decade except to make sure it's still there!

Lamp post caches: I've actually found one of those (in Toronto) but they are as rare as hen's teeth in the UK so they'd be popular due to novelty value.

Link to comment

3 and a half years into the game and things are changing.

 

I started with no GPS (I was introduced and just went on a google satellite view and the clue). Then I had an old palm top which was a pretty good servant. A Blackberry suited me for another 18 months, and now I have a Garmin Dakota.

When started I was hungry to do caches - there were so few locally and they were generally well placed (a little bit of the whole thing being new and some cache placements that wouldn't be allowed today helped ;)). You would plan a day doing 1 cache and if it was a multi then it was all part of the fun.

Over the years I have been sliding into number hunts. I never really went in for the FTF thing as very quickly it seemed a colossal waste of time and money, but I did like to "clear areas". I was non-premium for a long time, as I shared an account with a buddy. He had introduced me to the game and I then took on the membership because it was obvious I would get most use. Then the last few years, setting and doing puzzles have been my thing.

 

Recently I just got bored.

 

I went for a short trip to the Midlands a few weeks ago and really enjoyed caching again. I have another trip planned for the Chiltern Hundred (not for the numbers but just for the iconic nature of it and the views) and this saturday I am out with my mate doing a fairly old series (by today's standards at least) which will involve a liquid lunch (which iswhereit all began)!

I am still a little wary of multis because there aren't any decent ones around IMHO (Why do you make the collectable information so open for interpretation? Grrrr), and I hate Graveyard walks for CMs (I'm changing my one very shortly rest assured). But I do want to recapture the enjoyment I had when finding a cache was an event in itself.

Nowadays, I can't walk out the door without seeming to trip over a cache in my location. I have had all these email notifications of late and just deleted them. I was shocked when I looked at say a 25m radius (a lot of that is sea by the way) to see how many caches I hadn't done. Now I have no problem with 20 film pots in a 3 mile walk because it has made me do a 3 mile walk, hopefully in nice countryside. It's the random "a quick cache and dash"; "this is my dog walking route"; or "A series of caches celebrating places I park my taxi" that are just so disappointing.

It's very easy to be snobbish (and a few of you have been doing this a lot longer than me) but I for one will be doing caches that are worth doing from now on. I'm not saying I won't pull over at that layby and sign the odd log for the keyholder on the roadsign from time to time, but I certainly won't be bothered if I pass by it. And don't expect a nice log (some of you may know my frank and forthright opinions already). If you can't justify it then don't expect me to blow your trumpet.

My favourite cache is still my first. It's not the most special cache by any means (I think it was a tablet pot and the log might have been damp), but it was my first. A hope of things to come and what maybe. My first cache placements were pretty poor and most have gone now and that's fine because you learn from your mistakes (I was embarrassed to be honest).

It's very easy to hark back and perhaps a little elitist but very understandable when so many pointless caches are being placed nowadays. t's no use saying "just ignore them" because human nature and/or a mild form of OCD makes them really irritating. An itch that needs to be scratched.

 

What do Groundspeak think of this problem? Well it's not one is it? More caches means more punters. More punters means more revenue.

Maybe someone can come up with a fansite that has UK caches reviewed and advised and with an alternative map system (apologies if anyone already has a UK wide site and can you post me the link please)? I for one would be much more interested on a challenge of doing something like the best 100 caches in the country as reviewed by someone who doesn't think a film pot in a layby amongst dog poo bags is a favourite!

Link to comment

Almost 12 years for me and I enjoy the game as much if not more now! I've met some wonderful people and found many exciting and varied caches in places I might never have been and in places I pass every day. I'm happy to find one cache in a new area or when I come across an old cache along a new power trail. I've had days when I've found more caches in a day than I found the first 3 years I was caching! I thank each and every cache owner for all the fun I have playing this game.

Link to comment

I hardly ever post on the forums now, but for this thread feel i must.

 

It is so nice to see so many old face's here.

 

Back in 2001 when i started there were roughly 57 caches in the country, and to look at what has happened now is quite incredable.

I still enjoy it as much as i did when i first started, although i do tend to do more events than anything else these days

Link to comment

I think you will find that opinion is reasonably equally divided on cache sizes. No 'cache UKIP' here as far as I can see.

There will always be a division between those that like micro's and those that favour the larger. Im sure that most of us are as content with that diversity of persuasion as you are with seeking a variety of container sizes.

 

Years ago, our holiday destinations were determined by the amount of caches in the area. Now, the location most definitely comes first. However, we do usually try to find a town trail multi when we are away. Along with taking us to items of interest, very often, they have proved useful in helping us to get to know the place too. If one is selective, multi’s of this nature haven’t changed that much over the years and we can usually find one to fit the bill.

IMO, some aspects of caching have changed for the better and others perhaps not so but I guess that thats the nature of the beast.

Link to comment

I think you will find that opinion is reasonably equally divided on cache sizes. No 'cache UKIP' here as far as I can see.

There will always be a division between those that like micro's and those that favour the larger. Im sure that most of us are as content with that diversity of persuasion as you are with seeking a variety of container sizes.

There may be some who like micros and some who prefer bigger containers, but I think that they are both outweighed by those who aren't too bothered about the size of the container as long as the cache experience is good. Personally, I find nanos a bit fiddly, but apart from that I really don't mind. Obviously if it's a camouflaged micro hidden somewhere in a hedge with no hint I won't be impressed. But that's a poorly designed cache placement: it's not the container that's at fault.

Link to comment

I hardly ever post on the forums now, but for this thread feel i must.

 

It is so nice to see so many old face's here.

 

Back in 2001 when i started there were roughly 57 caches in the country, and to look at what has happened now is quite incredable.

I still enjoy it as much as i did when i first started, although i do tend to do more events than anything else these days

Hey noob, how's things?

Link to comment

500 in a weekend? I've been at it now for nearly 12 years and I'm not even halfway to that! (which must surely put me into some sort of "longest serving, least amount of finds" category?). Maybe I just need to try harder :)

 

As one of the 'old faces', I just thought I'd pop in and say hello.

Link to comment

We are practically newbies compared to some of the names oh this thread, there are some real blasts from the past and loads of cachers whos threads I remember reading and learning from many moons agao! We just need the two "grumpy auld gits" Moss and Moote to pop in and say hello and we are about complete

 

Back to the topic of the thread ... 2 weeks ago we did more caches on a trail across Scotland in 2 days than we did in the whole first year of us playing the game!! :blink: I am unsure if the game is going down hill or not, there are certainly more nanos and micros, :( but there are certainly a LOT more caches to find than when we first started, :) which obviously mean we can be a lot more selective in our choice of which caches to find :D

 

But what do we know we are only 8 1/2 year caching noobs

 

M :D

Link to comment

I think you will find that opinion is reasonably equally divided on cache sizes. No 'cache UKIP' here as far as I can see.

There will always be a division between those that like micro's and those that favour the larger. Im sure that most of us are as content with that diversity of persuasion as you are with seeking a variety of container sizes.

There may be some who like micros and some who prefer bigger containers, but I think that they are both outweighed by those who aren't too bothered about the size of the container as long as the cache experience is good. Personally, I find nanos a bit fiddly, but apart from that I really don't mind. Obviously if it's a camouflaged micro hidden somewhere in a hedge with no hint I won't be impressed. But that's a poorly designed cache placement: it's not the container that's at fault.

 

Good point - for all I find micros dull it's usually because if someone is going to place a dull hide the chances are they'll do it with a film pot. If someone is going to go to the extra trouble of hiding a larger container, filling it with swag and looking after it the chances are they'll hide it somewhere you'd actually want to go.

 

It comes back to the question of why a cache is being placed. Today I found a cache - a micro - in a location with truly stunning views. It's hard to see how anything much bigger than a micro would survive, and the location was amazing. Because it was a great location on a great walk the fact the cache was a micro wasn't an issue. If I find a film pot behind a sign half a mile from home at a junction that is apparently utterly unremarkable the obvious question is why I'd want to go there, and the fact the junction is where the cache setter had their first car accident or where they met their wife or whatever is utterly meaningless.

Link to comment

Good point - for all I find micros dull it's usually because if someone is going to place a dull hide the chances are they'll do it with a film pot. If someone is going to go to the extra trouble of hiding a larger container, filling it with swag and looking after it the chances are they'll hide it somewhere you'd actually want to go.

I tend to think that if you have little imagination and aren't bothered about making your cache interesting, the temptation is to throw down a tupperware box (or more likely, a takeaway container). It's easier, as they just sit on the ground and you can roll a few stones or a bit of vegetation over the container . You're probably focussed on the swaps rather than the overall experience, and set out to place the cache without having done any research, in the knowledge that it's easy to find a bit of hedge or a base of a tree where anything will fit. the cache being big enough, you don't need to think whether a seeker has a fair chance of spotting it.

A logbook that fits in the container is easy to source at the local shop, rather than having to cut one to suit. And you think that it must be a "good" cache because it's Regular size.

 

Most micros seem to require a bit more preparation, as they are usually containers sold specifically for geocaching. You very rarely find even a film pot these days without at least some camo tape stuck to it, and commonly the cache is going to be in a container carefully chosen to fit in a particular spot (such as in a hole in a post). You can't just hide it in a random spot, like you can with a larger container, as that would take more effort in providing a suitable hint.

 

Well of course you can, but only the thickest cachers will fail to realise that the cache isn't going to be popular and will draw quite a few negative comments before falling into disuse. As I've seen - but only rarely.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...