Land Wars

[+L0ne.R]

I read this on a non-geocaching discussion site:

 

 

"Now they have "land wars" where groups compete to see which one can saturate the most land area at micros every 1/10 mile in every direction."

 

 

Has anyone experienced this in their area?

Edited May 3, 2014 by L0ne.R

[+lamoracke]

I mean, sometimes people or a group will take up an entire area for a power trail or just fill up an entire area because they can, but never have seen folks doing this just for the sake of beating another group to the punch. At least in my experience and my area.

[+The_Incredibles_]

Never seen this here. We do have people who put out alot of micros, but their focus is really just on putting out more caches for the folks who've found them all and are bored.

[+DanOCan]

Read this on a non-geocaching discussion site:

 

"Now they have "land wars" where groups compete to see which one can saturate the most land area at micros every 1/10 mile in every direction."

 

Has anyone experienced this in their area?

Not yet, but I'm sure it will spread and come here sooner or later. Most things in caching that start as regional things eventually do.

[+Touchstone]

I think they have us confused with Ingress

[+The A-Team]

 

I seriously hope whoever originally posted that was joking. If not, I only hope it stays confined to its own region like the multiple-event-logging in the US Midwest. We don't want this to infect the entire planet.

[+Walts Hunting]

It is one of the laws of nature that if two or more humans (especially those with testosterone) are involved in any activity it will become a competition.

[+dprovan]

I've never heard of it happening, and I doubt it would happen. But if it did happen, I wouldn't look at it as a competition with them trying to "beat" other cachers; I'd view it as an altruistic act of taking responsibility for populating an area with caches. So I'd just say, "Thanks a lot!" (It doesn't matter to me if in their head they think they're competing.)

 

Now if there's a problem with the caches such as being low quality, without thought, or not maintained, then that's another matter, and I'd complain about the faults. But I wouldn't complain about the numbers, except in so far as more bad caches are worse than fewer bad caches.

[+briansnat]

 

I seriously hope whoever originally posted that was joking. If not, I only hope it stays confined to its own region like the multiple-event-logging in the US Midwest. We don't want this to infect the entire planet.

 

If it provides quick and easy numbers to the numbers cachers it unfortunately will.

[+Don_J]

I've never heard of it happening, and I doubt it would happen. But if it did happen, I wouldn't look at it as a competition with them trying to "beat" other cachers; I'd view it as an altruistic act of taking responsibility for populating an area with caches. So I'd just say, "Thanks a lot!" (It doesn't matter to me if in their head they think they're competing.)

 

Now if there's a problem with the caches such as being low quality, without thought, or not maintained, then that's another matter, and I'd complain about the faults. But I wouldn't complain about the numbers, except in so far as more bad caches are worse than fewer bad caches.

 

I haven't seen actual competition between teams of cachers. What I have seen is groups of cachers that will saturate a trail with caches for the simple reason that they will never have to hike the trail again to get new caches. I decided to respond to this particular post because of the part that I underlined in the quote.

[+briansnat]

I read this on a non-geocaching discussion site:

 

 

"Now they have "land wars" where groups compete to see which one can saturate the most land area at micros every 1/10 mile in every direction."

 

 

Has anyone experienced this in their area?

 

I think the fact that this was found on a non geocaching site says it all. They likely have absolutely no clue what they are talking about.

[+L0ne.R]

I read this on a non-geocaching discussion site:

 

"Now they have "land wars" where groups compete to see which one can saturate the most land area at micros every 1/10 mile in every direction."

 

Has anyone experienced this in their area?

 

I think the fact that this was found on a non geocaching site says it all. They likely have absolutely no clue what they are talking about.

 

It was on the Atlas Quest discussion forums. The person who posted it is also a geocacher. He can sometimes write things to get a rise out of people. This is the 2nd time he has said this in the forums, so it got me sweating. With the increase in the competitive aspect of geocaching in the last couple of years, I thought something like this was quite likely. And because he had a coined phrase for it...."Land Wars", I thought it might be a new trend. He geocaches mostly in the south eastern states. I've asked him where it's happening. Will be interesting to see if he responds. Glad to hear no one else has heard of "Land Wars". But Don_J's comment is disturbing - to use up a trail just so they never have to find another cache on it, wow.

Edited May 5, 2014 by L0ne.R

[+dprovan]

I haven't seen actual competition between teams of cachers. What I have seen is groups of cachers that will saturate a trail with caches for the simple reason that they will never have to hike the trail again to get new caches.

Admittedly a queer reason to plant caches, but not a problem for me as long as they use it as inspiration to plant good caches. And as long as they recognize that they will have to hike the trail again to maintain their caches. I don't understand the logic since I'm just the opposite: I look forward to more caches in an area I enjoyed visiting. I guess they didn't like the hike.

 

Naturally this action is annoying and objectionable if they use it as an excuse to leave a bunch of geolitter and publish it as "caches" that they don't intend to take care of.

[4wheelin_fool]

There are quite a few parks which are saturated to the point that no new geocaches can fit in. This is actually fairly common. I don't know if the term "land war" is appropriate, but it certainly does happen. This is one park which every spot is filled up. Note that although there are plenty of other places nearby to hide something, this particular area is full. Here is just one thread about over saturation.

[Luckless]

I'm sure people do try to saturate areas with micros- sounds boring.

We have turf wars here which are a little different. People who live in a certain area will put out caches in that area then along comes someone else who invades that "territory" by putting up their own caches and so it goes, each trying to establish a couple more caches there than the other. Then others may come along with theirs. It's all in good fun.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I'm sure people do try to saturate areas with micros- sounds boring.

We have turf wars here which are a little different. People who live in a certain area will put out caches in that area then along comes someone else who invades that "territory" by putting up their own caches and so it goes, each trying to establish a couple more caches there than the other. Then others may come along with theirs. It's all in good fun.

 

That doesn't sound it would be fun for someone that wants to find caches that exist for reasons other than to see who can place the most caches in an area.

[+AutisticMajor]

I'm sure people do try to saturate areas with micros- sounds boring.

We have turf wars here which are a little different. People who live in a certain area will put out caches in that area then along comes someone else who invades that "territory" by putting up their own caches and so it goes, each trying to establish a couple more caches there than the other. Then others may come along with theirs. It's all in good fun.

 

That doesn't sound it would be fun for someone that wants to find caches that exist for reasons other than to see who can place the most caches in an area.

 

And when they start trashing each others caches, it can really escalate...

[+dprovan]

I'm sure people do try to saturate areas with micros- sounds boring.

We have turf wars here which are a little different. People who live in a certain area will put out caches in that area then along comes someone else who invades that "territory" by putting up their own caches and so it goes, each trying to establish a couple more caches there than the other. Then others may come along with theirs. It's all in good fun.

That doesn't sound it would be fun for someone that wants to find caches that exist for reasons other than to see who can place the most caches in an area.

As has been pointed out many times before, poor caches can have many motives, so there's no good reason to single out this one. For example, imagine that the competition is not only to find places to put additional caches, but to one up the existing caches in quality, too. Same motive that you're objecting to, but now those people that want to find good caches have more fun because of the competition.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I'm sure people do try to saturate areas with micros- sounds boring.

We have turf wars here which are a little different. People who live in a certain area will put out caches in that area then along comes someone else who invades that "territory" by putting up their own caches and so it goes, each trying to establish a couple more caches there than the other. Then others may come along with theirs. It's all in good fun.

That doesn't sound it would be fun for someone that wants to find caches that exist for reasons other than to see who can place the most caches in an area.

As has been pointed out many times before, poor caches can have many motives, so there's no good reason to single out this one.

 

Yes there is. If there were 5 different motives which lead to poor caches, and one is removed (or reduced), then the overall motivation for creating poor caches is reduced. IMHO, anything that contributes to the creation of poor caches is fair game for criticism. Singling out a specific cause isn't going to eliminate poor caches but if singling out one cause reduces the number of poor caches then aren't we moving in the right direction?

 

 

 

[+dprovan]

As has been pointed out many times before, poor caches can have many motives, so there's no good reason to single out this one.

Yes there is. If there were 5 different motives which lead to poor caches, and one is removed (or reduced), then the overall motivation for creating poor caches is reduced. IMHO, anything that contributes to the creation of poor caches is fair game for criticism. Singling out a specific cause isn't going to eliminate poor caches but if singling out one cause reduces the number of poor caches then aren't we moving in the right direction?

The point being, as I demonstrated by example, that this could just as easily motivate good caches as bad caches. The problem is with the people placing bad caches, and it's misguided to point at what motivated them to plant caches and claim that that motivation had anything whatsoever with their independent decision to make the cache a poor one.

 

I'm going to try to give you hope, but you'll probably think I'm gloating: in my area, the people that are motivated by the challenge of squeezing one more cache into a particular cache dense area are much more often the interested, engaged COs that are most likely to plant and maintain a decent cache. (And, by the way, they're also the COs most likely to notice a challenge cache and decided to name a cache to help satisfy the requirements.) The people around here that plant junk caches are the ones that aren't paying that much attention to what's going on in the area.

[+Ambrosia]

The thread title makes me think of The Princess Bride. "Never get involved in a land war in Asia."

[+niraD]

The thread title makes me think of The Princess Bride. "Never get involved in a land war in Asia."=

"Never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line."

[Luckless]

I'm sure people do try to saturate areas with micros- sounds boring.

We have turf wars here which are a little different. People who live in a certain area will put out caches in that area then along comes someone else who invades that "territory" by putting up their own caches and so it goes, each trying to establish a couple more caches there than the other. Then others may come along with theirs. It's all in good fun.

 

That doesn't sound it would be fun for someone that wants to find caches that exist for reasons other than to see who can place the most caches in an area.

 

The areas are quite large, the caches are all well placed and most people here take pride in doing something interesting with their caches. It's not saturation for saturation's sake.

Edited May 11, 2014 by Luckless

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I'm sure people do try to saturate areas with micros- sounds boring.

We have turf wars here which are a little different. People who live in a certain area will put out caches in that area then along comes someone else who invades that "territory" by putting up their own caches and so it goes, each trying to establish a couple more caches there than the other. Then others may come along with theirs. It's all in good fun.

 

That doesn't sound it would be fun for someone that wants to find caches that exist for reasons other than to see who can place the most caches in an area.

 

The areas are quite large, the caches are all well placed and most people here take pride in doing something interesting with their caches. It's not saturation for saturation's sake.

 

Sorry about the stalking but I'm not that far away from you and have done some caching in your area (I'm actually going be in the area a few weeks from now) I would hardly call that area saturated by any stretch of of the imagination.