Jump to content

People building trails to your cache


Followers 4

Recommended Posts

I miss the days when getting to the cache at the end of the trail was the accomplishment and "made it worthwhile". Chalk one up for the numbers crowd, I guess.

Nothing is different about the original cache. Anything you think makes it no longer worthwhile is entirely in your head. There's no one else to blame your disappointment on but yourself, so stop pretending it's all "the numbers crowd's" fault.

 

I admit that I can't sympathize with the OP, but what bothers me is the fact that they feel entitled to dictate what caches are placed in that area just because they placed the first one. Complain about power trails if you must, complain about bad hides or poor containers if appropriate, but I really have no patience for this "not on my trail!" attitude. I'm kinda surprise the consensus is so heavily supporting it.

 

He does not say he feels "entitled" to the area, and i really don't think he's complaining. He's simply asking others opinions.

Link to comment

I can't remember what the topic was, but someone reminisced on here about having to drive hundreds of mile "back in the day" to get thirty something caches, and all of the were good. Someone else replied that you could still do that, but you'd be driving past thousands of other caches. I think that logic applies here.

 

If you like your cache, you should not worry about the other caches around it.

Link to comment

I miss the days when getting to the cache at the end of the trail was the accomplishment and "made it worthwhile". Chalk one up for the numbers crowd, I guess.

Nothing is different about the original cache. Anything you think makes it no longer worthwhile is entirely in your head. There's no one else to blame your disappointment on but yourself, so stop pretending it's all "the numbers crowd's" fault.

 

I admit that I can't sympathize with the OP, but what bothers me is the fact that they feel entitled to dictate what caches are placed in that area just because they placed the first one. Complain about power trails if you must, complain about bad hides or poor containers if appropriate, but I really have no patience for this "not on my trail!" attitude. I'm kinda surprise the consensus is so heavily supporting it.

There is one thing different about the original cache: it's now harder to "find" on the GC map as a seperate hide. It looks like the end of small PT and as such I, as a visitor to the area, would not see it easily, buried as is were in a string of micros.

Link to comment

I miss the days when getting to the cache at the end of the trail was the accomplishment and "made it worthwhile". Chalk one up for the numbers crowd, I guess.

Nothing is different about the original cache. Anything you think makes it no longer worthwhile is entirely in your head. There's no one else to blame your disappointment on but yourself, so stop pretending it's all "the numbers crowd's" fault.

 

I wasn't saying I would find the final cache to be no longer worthwhile. I was lamenting the mentality that a nice hike along a trail is deemed to not be worthwhile unless one can rack up a whole bunch of smileys along the way.

 

I go back to the original post, which is where the "worthwhile" word came from:

 

Now imagine that someone else comes along and, starting at the parking coordinates, proceeds to place a cache every 600 feet (or similar short interval) to your cache, in order to "make the trip worthwhile" or "lure more cachers".

 

This absolutely is a direct result of the numbers-driven mentality that permeates the game today. If it wasn't about numbers, hiders would say "Ah, there is already a cache highlighting that trail; I'll find a different place to bring people to."

 

I'm not arguing right or wrong. That war was lost as soon as Groundspeak removed the guideline against placing caches every .10 of a mile just because you can.

Edited by DanOCan
Link to comment

I miss the days when getting to the cache at the end of the trail was the accomplishment and "made it worthwhile". Chalk one up for the numbers crowd, I guess.

Nothing is different about the original cache. Anything you think makes it no longer worthwhile is entirely in your head. There's no one else to blame your disappointment on but yourself, so stop pretending it's all "the numbers crowd's" fault.

 

If I was the OP and that was the response I got I'd archive that cache in a heart beat. The fact is, the placement of the other caches, even if they do have decent containers essentially turned the OPs cache into the last cache on a power trail. If the OP doesn't want to have their cache to be part of that power trail that's entirely their prerogative and they should not be criticized for their decision.

 

 

Link to comment

I miss the days when getting to the cache at the end of the trail was the accomplishment and "made it worthwhile". Chalk one up for the numbers crowd, I guess.

Nothing is different about the original cache. Anything you think makes it no longer worthwhile is entirely in your head. There's no one else to blame your disappointment on but yourself, so stop pretending it's all "the numbers crowd's" fault.

 

I admit that I can't sympathize with the OP, but what bothers me is the fact that they feel entitled to dictate what caches are placed in that area just because they placed the first one. Complain about power trails if you must, complain about bad hides or poor containers if appropriate, but I really have no patience for this "not on my trail!" attitude. I'm kinda surprise the consensus is so heavily supporting it.

 

I think you're off base here. First off, the OP wasn't trying to dictate anything. It bothers him a bit (it would me too) and he came on here asking for opinions. This is the same thing that happens with geoart. Someone goes through the effort of placing the art but then another person comes along and places a cache(s) so close that it ruins the effect. People should just think before going hogwild placing caches.

 

Because of the power trail, the cache no longer provides the same experience for cachers. It was more adventurous and challenging when it was out there by itself. I would bet that most cachers who went for it, sought that little adventure and tended to write up nicer logs. Now because of the numbers seeking crowd, there will be more visits but the logs will probably be of the copy and paste, tftc variety.

 

Hiking the trail was part of the experience the OP probably went for but i can guarnatee you now that people going out there now barely even notice the trail.

Edited by Mudfrog
Link to comment

I go back to the original post, which is where the "worthwhile" word came from:

 

Now imagine that someone else comes along and, starting at the parking coordinates, proceeds to place a cache every 600 feet (or similar short interval) to your cache, in order to "make the trip worthwhile" or "lure more cachers".

 

This absolutely is a direct result of the numbers-driven mentality that permeates the game today. If it wasn't about numbers, hiders would say "Ah, there is already a cache highlighting that trail; I'll find a different place to bring people to."

 

I'm not arguing right or wrong. That war was lost as soon as Groundspeak removed the guideline against placing caches every .10 of a mile just because you can.

The WIGAS point is the only metric we have for whether caching is "worthwhile". Sure we can each decide what types of caching we enjoy and what types we don't, but that is not a useful metric - for while you might enjoy a long hike where you find a few caches, I may enjoy having many caches to find; or where you might enjoy only caches that are big enough to hold swag, I may like finding micros.

 

It's bit more work if someone has laid down a trail of micros to some old cache, but it's still possible to skip all those micros and search only for the few bigger and/or older caches on a trail. On the other hand if the OP is expecting fewer but longer logs, he can't keep the "numbers" cachers from finding his cache and logging "12 out of 12 on our hike. TFTC".

Link to comment

If you have a great cache at the end of a great trail the people that wanted the experience will still have it, the people that would gave posted nice logs probably still will, you'll just have a lot more traffic and the bulk of it will be cut & paste logs but overall I think you'll actually get more good logs.

 

Worrying too much about how others play the game, log their logs, hide their caches, etc. only hurts you.

Link to comment

I just want to hear some opinions out there. I'm not quite sure how to feel about this. Breech of etiquette or acceptable? Imagine if you thoughtfully placed a geocache a mile or so away from the nearest parking area in a remote yet scenic area with a nice wide shaded path to the cache, with the purpose of getting cachers out for a nice leisurely walk in a scenic area.

Now imagine that someone else comes along and, starting at the parking coordinates, proceeds to place a cache every 600 feet (or similar short interval) to your cache, in order to "make the trip worthwhile" or "lure more cachers". I've had this happen a few times. Should I be letting this bother me?

Only you can choose how to react. I recommend keeping your cache and letting this issue go.

 

Cache placement has morphed from a great spot and a nice hike, to purely about territory, and where one more can be squeezed in. You may have originally considered you claimed the spot and the trail (the journey) but that obviously is not the case. Cachers desire caches to hunt, the more the merrier for most. You quote some poor choices of words ("make the trip worthwhile" or "lure more cachers"), however it may be the cacher in question was honouring your cache and the spot a little by potentially bringing more people there.

 

The revolution will come one day where the power trail will lose its appeal (as it has for many already), the micro in the woods will be passed by and remain unfound, and great log writing will return. Then the truly great caches will shine through...I hope to find a bunch...then

Link to comment

I go back to the original post, which is where the "worthwhile" word came from:

 

Now imagine that someone else comes along and, starting at the parking coordinates, proceeds to place a cache every 600 feet (or similar short interval) to your cache, in order to "make the trip worthwhile" or "lure more cachers".

 

This absolutely is a direct result of the numbers-driven mentality that permeates the game today. If it wasn't about numbers, hiders would say "Ah, there is already a cache highlighting that trail; I'll find a different place to bring people to."

 

I'm not arguing right or wrong. That war was lost as soon as Groundspeak removed the guideline against placing caches every .10 of a mile just because you can.

The WIGAS point is the only metric we have for whether caching is "worthwhile". Sure we can each decide what types of caching we enjoy and what types we don't, but that is not a useful metric - for while you might enjoy a long hike where you find a few caches, I may enjoy having many caches to find; or where you might enjoy only caches that are big enough to hold swag, I may like finding micros.

 

A cache is no less worthwhile because it's appeal can't easily be quantified. You can use whatever metrics you like to determine which type of caching appeals to you. You don't get to dictate what type, or how much a type of caching appeals to others.

 

Are family photos worthwhile, or is their value only to be determined based on the number of photos?

 

 

Link to comment

I go back to the original post, which is where the "worthwhile" word came from:

 

Now imagine that someone else comes along and, starting at the parking coordinates, proceeds to place a cache every 600 feet (or similar short interval) to your cache, in order to "make the trip worthwhile" or "lure more cachers".

 

This absolutely is a direct result of the numbers-driven mentality that permeates the game today. If it wasn't about numbers, hiders would say "Ah, there is already a cache highlighting that trail; I'll find a different place to bring people to."

 

I'm not arguing right or wrong. That war was lost as soon as Groundspeak removed the guideline against placing caches every .10 of a mile just because you can.

The WIGAS point is the only metric we have for whether caching is "worthwhile". Sure we can each decide what types of caching we enjoy and what types we don't, but that is not a useful metric - for while you might enjoy a long hike where you find a few caches, I may enjoy having many caches to find; or where you might enjoy only caches that are big enough to hold swag, I may like finding micros.

 

A cache is no less worthwhile because it's appeal can't easily be quantified. You can use whatever metrics you like to determine which type of caching appeals to you. You don't get to dictate what type, or how much a type of caching appeals to others.

 

Are family photos worthwhile, or is their value only to be determined based on the number of photos?

Oops, I forgot the scarcasm smiley <_< The point is that you might find something worthwhile that I don't. For instance looking at your family photographs would probably not be something I find worthwhile, but if I were playing an internet game where I scored a WIGAS for looking at someone else's family photos, I might do it.

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment

I miss the days when getting to the cache at the end of the trail was the accomplishment and "made it worthwhile". Chalk one up for the numbers crowd, I guess.

Nothing is different about the original cache. Anything you think makes it no longer worthwhile is entirely in your head. There's no one else to blame your disappointment on but yourself, so stop pretending it's all "the numbers crowd's" fault.

 

If I was the OP and that was the response I got I'd archive that cache in a heart beat. The fact is, the placement of the other caches, even if they do have decent containers essentially turned the OPs cache into the last cache on a power trail. If the OP doesn't want to have their cache to be part of that power trail that's entirely their prerogative and they should not be criticized for their decision.

 

Well, I'm replying to dprovan more than NYPC, but I don't feel like going back. :lol: Actually, there is pretty darning evidence of it being the fault of the "numbers crowd", in the most recent case, and what probably inspired this thread. That being a person with just under 5,000 finds in barely over 2 years of caching dropping 4 micros on the way to his cache. There is another case (in 2011 I believe) by someone else. There may be a third case, but contrary to popular belief, I have better things to do than to audit Pork King's caches for involuntarily power trailification. :P

Link to comment

I miss the days when getting to the cache at the end of the trail was the accomplishment and "made it worthwhile". Chalk one up for the numbers crowd, I guess.

Nothing is different about the original cache. Anything you think makes it no longer worthwhile is entirely in your head. There's no one else to blame your disappointment on but yourself, so stop pretending it's all "the numbers crowd's" fault.

 

I admit that I can't sympathize with the OP, but what bothers me is the fact that they feel entitled to dictate what caches are placed in that area just because they placed the first one. Complain about power trails if you must, complain about bad hides or poor containers if appropriate, but I really have no patience for this "not on my trail!" attitude. I'm kinda surprise the consensus is so heavily supporting it.

 

I wouldn't claim any concept of ownership of an area if I placed a cache, other than the 528 feet surrounding it as per the proximity guidelines.

 

Personally I'd be irritated if I placed a cache in a remote spot, wanting people to have to do a bit of work to get to it so they could enjoy the vista and seeking to attract the kind of cacher who would spend a good chunk of time to find one particular cache, only to find someone else then placed a series of caches along the trail to draw in the numbers crowds. If I placed such a cache I'd be looking to draw the kind of people who would rather have one enjoyable find than a dozen repetitive and unimaginative micros.

Link to comment

Actually, there is pretty darning evidence of it being the fault of the "numbers crowd", in the most recent case, and what probably inspired this thread.

You can blame the numbers crowd for the new caches if you like, but the numbers crowd did not force that poster to decide this great cache had lost value because of the new caches around it.

Link to comment

Actually, there is pretty darning evidence of it being the fault of the "numbers crowd", in the most recent case, and what probably inspired this thread.

You can blame the numbers crowd for the new caches if you like, but the numbers crowd did not force that poster to decide this great cache had lost value because of the new caches around it.

 

Well, the OP and others may not appreciate it, but the hider was just doing what others DO like. I'm certain that he did not intend any disrespect, and there are plenty of people prefer when more caches are added like that. Perhaps he should have asked permission, but rather just assumed that the OP would not mind, or even feel honored.

 

However this is another case of when caches cannot simply be ignored. I recall 2005 of so, many threads complaining about the game being overrun by micro spam. The reply was always that they could be filtered out or ignored. Why should anyone force their tastes on others? Ignore them. This trail can be certainly be ignored, until the CO starts getting copy and paste logs from the new traffic. It does change the hide.

 

I hid a cache which was on a island in thick underbrush, in an area accessible only from one direction on a pedestrian walkway alongside a train bridge. Most thought it was great. Then the state comes in and paves a walkway next to it and builds another bridge on the other side. The path subsequently has more caches added. So now its nothing special, although nothing about the hide or surrounding 30 feet has changed at all.

Link to comment

Perhaps he should have asked permission, but rather just assumed that the OP would not mind, or even feel honored.

Do you think the OP would have given permission? I don't think he would have. If so, saying he should have asked for permission is the same as saying he shouldn't have planted the caches.

Link to comment

No i don't feel "called out" at all. Some of the other hiders might, lol But that's their problem. I know Pork King and he's a stand up guy. I understand where he's coming from because this has happened on several of his hides. I guess i really don't have a opinion one way or the other. It wouldn't bother me on mine, but that's just me. Every man is entitled to his own thoughts. I didn't go in there with the thought of placing a cache. But when i saw the open spot she left, i couldn't resist. I guess to understand that you would have to be from around here,lol But i would archive it in a heartbeat if Pork asked me to.

 

1st of all, I did not realize that you had placed that one. I assumed it was just a continuation of the "series"... :)

 

2nd, I walked this trail again yesterday... 2.82 miles one way to be exact... for a new cache that was placed over 2 miles from the cache I placed. I had about an hour and 45 minutes of walking to think about the whole situation. Those extra caches don't detract from the peacefulness of the trail. They MAY lower the "specialness" of my cache, they may not. They MAY cause cachers to truncate their logs after finding mine 6th or 7th, hopefully not.

 

I'm not really sure what originally pushed my buttons looking at the map of these caches, but I must have been in one of my moods. I think it's just the "power trail" M.O. of this particular set (and I know I am using the PT term loosely. PTs can be hundreds of caches long. We are but simple folk down here, forgive our small power trails).

 

As I close in on 1000 finds, I have been actively preparing and selecting my 1000th cache. I have also been thinking about where I've been while geocaching. I am what I would consider an "old schooler". I started caching in 2004. At one time, I think I was even of the top 10 cachers in the state (as far as numbers). There was a guy that started about the same time, we found our 300th and 400th cache together. He now has over 10,000 finds. There are other cachers who started much more recently that have 1000's of finds. I've not been a "numbers" guy. I'll go quality over quantity any day. I will find the wal-mart lamp post micro, just to get it off the map, IF I'm already headed to wal-mart, but I will grumble about it :) Driving .1mile or .2mile to the next LPM is not fun for me.

 

ANYHOO... I guess that was my round-about way of saying that I just don't "get" power trails, or even caches placed "just because".(*) Some people like to play that way... fine.

 

I think I was just a little miffed that some of that type were placed leading up to a place that I had thoughtfully picked out. Thanks for listening to me rant and ramble, and help me understand others' opinions.

 

 

(*)"just because" caches: There once was a cache (archived) placed on the way to this set of caches. To get to this trail, which is basically a levee of a man-made waterway, one must exit the nearby highway, circle back under the highway bridge over the waterway, and then drive a mile or so the trailhead... Under this bridge was vile. graffiti, garbage, dead animals (both wild and abandoned pets). Somebody placed a cache there. In the garbage pile. WHY?? I took some pictures of the dead animals and thought I uploaded them with my log, but looking back, I see I didn't. As if to contradict my earlier statement, I looked 3 times for it before I found it. But I was always passing by it, and I wanted to get it of my map. And I grumbled about it each time.

Link to comment
Now imagine that someone else comes along and, starting at the parking coordinates, proceeds to place a cache every 600 feet (or similar short interval) to your cache, in order to "make the trip worthwhile" or "lure more cachers". I've had this happen a few times. Should I be letting this bother me?

 

Sadly, this is just going to happen. There is nothing you can do about it. It's a fact of geocaching life in 2014.

 

You have a choice: let it bother you or just accept it and move on. I have chosen the latter for my caches. If the logs on my cache get too cut-and-paste-like, I archive it.

Link to comment

I don't place many caches but I am proud of every single one that I do place. I live in a very small town and there are about 40 caches total within the "city". The town I live in is not terribly far from a very cache-dense area of the state...so, with relatively few caches, it's tough to get cachers to visit. Now, if someone would come along and drop a small power trail in this town to lure more cachers, I'd have no issue with it, even if it lumped one of my caches in with the trail. The reason? I feel like my caches can stand on their own. Even if they just drop a TFTC or cut-n-paste log, it doesn't bother me because my caches are being found. Whenever I place a cache, I do it because I imagine the person finding it is going to have a fun experience. That experience wouldn't change just because there are now 100 other caches within a few miles of mine.

 

So, my advice is that if you feel like your cache is less "special" because of a powertrail, create or revamp your cache into something memorable so that those number hounds will HAVE to notice.

 

Link to comment

I just placed a comment on the "irk" thread:

That's a sub-irk under the irk of destroying the environment: "bushwhacked in, found the trail after I found the cache." Granted, I have been in an area where I honestly thought that there wasn't a trail and made the best way I could to a cache before... only to find a scraggly path that looks like maybe it was maintained at some point a decade ago after I found the cache. The ones that irk me are the ones who repeatedly do this in parks that have well marked systems of trails, some of which are paved or gravel, and I'm pretty sure "bushwhacked in, found the trail after I found the cache" really means "tromped through, cut and crushed various flora and fauna I can't identify and didn't bother looking at anyway because I thought it would be a shortcut, heaven forbid I spend a quarter hour more in the wilderness, there's spiders and mud out here; after I found the cache I saw the well maintained path that the description told me the cache would be beside so I figured I would take that since it might actually be a quicker route to my car."

The people who are guilty of this "shortcut" technique (at least in my area) also tend to be the number hogs. A power trail to an honestly worthwhile cache would serve the purpose of at least keeping these people ON the trail.

As for myself, I tend to skip the micros on the power trail and go after the good cache while enjoying the walk with my dog (as the OP intended). Neither my dog nor my husband want to stop every 161 meters, and to my personal caching style this is what I find more enjoyable.

 

Also sort of in defense of power trails... I recently left a comment on a log thanking a CO for his placement of caches at trailheads and path intersections, as I use them for waypoints in finding my way back to my car.

Link to comment

...Anyway, my purpose for hiding a traditional cache is two-fold :

 

1) to bring people to a spot and point out something interesting to them, and / or

2) to give other geocachers another geocache to hunt for.

 

So a trail leading to where I want to bring people out to would actually be in my interest.

 

I love setting up a route and finding as many as possible along the way. Not because it's a numbers game, but because that way I get to visit more caches.

 

And in the woods, it's even better. No guardrails or lightposts, so it doesn't get repetitive.

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...
Followers 4
×
×
  • Create New...