Geocaching has changed

[+coachstahly]

I do not like this solution at all. I hate it when I look at all recent logs of cacher X and realize that only a single log has some reasonable contents.

Cezanne

 

Really? Why are you even concerned about what other people log? It's not YOUR journey, it's theirs. You mention that you always want to write meaningful logs about your trip and experience for a single cache and then complain when someone posts just such a log on one cache along a trail, instead of on all of them that they might have stopped at.

 

You did the exact same thing you say you hate to see other cachers do when you did the Tour de Mur series - one log containing the majority of your experiences (mostly negative I might add) with the other logs being shorter and similar in nature to the rest.

 

That's not exactly true in this formulation.

I cannot fully enjoy the hike if I'm interrupted by 12 searches that annoy me (that's true also for a single cache with 12 physical stages) and it spoils my enjoyment at home when I have to split up

my experience in 12 logs and realize that almost all others write the same log for all caches.

Cezanne

 

Even if it's a virtual stage, you're still being interrupted by 12 searches, annoying or not. This point doesn't hold up for your argument. Your hike is being interrupted 12 times as you look for some number or answer some question about the location you've been brought to. Your most recent multi find has 4-5 virtual stages where you have to answer a question to get a number value for A-G and then do a bunch of math (simple, but time consuming) to get the coordinates you need to find the final stage (the one physical stage on this hike). How is this any different than looking for a physical stage, other than the obvious one that you have to actually read or peruse the items/locations you've been brought to?

 

One multi you did enjoy was Rundwanderung Kulm-Stubenburg. Here's the funny part though. You actually left the multi to go find other caches along the way. What happened to the hike and the journey that you state is the reason for getting out? You interrupted it 5 times to find other caches in the area, adding to your total, and then had to interrupt the multi 12 times looking for either a container or some virtual item on site that you need to assign a letter value to. That sounds like a mini-numbers run, not a hike with a cache thrown in to enjoy the trail.

[+Car54]

For all of the other caches I log "see my log on GCxxxxx for a description of my hike".

 

A log like that would probably make me consider archiving my cache with the log "see GCxxxx for the reason". If my cache is not notable enough to warrant its own log, I would probably conclude that its not a very good cache. If the finder isn't going to make an effort, why should the hider?

 

Mrs. Car54

[+narcissa]

For all of the other caches I log "see my log on GCxxxxx for a description of my hike".

 

A log like that would probably make me consider archiving my cache with the log "see GCxxxx for the reason". If my cache is not notable enough to warrant its own log, I would probably conclude that its not a very good cache. If the finder isn't going to make an effort, why should the hider?

 

Mrs. Car54

 

One lazy log would make you consider archiving a cache?

[cezanne]

I do not like this solution at all. I hate it when I look at all recent logs of cacher X and realize that only a single log has some reasonable contents.

Cezanne

 

Really? Why are you even concerned about what other people log? It's not YOUR journey, it's theirs.

 

Of course it is their journey, but I like to use logs for two purposes, one is to make my selection and get information about the terrain difficulty

and the other one is that I enjoy reading reports about hikes and watch nice photos. For hiking multi caches typically the incoming logs make me

happy with respect to both aspects. It is quite frustrating to click on say 20 logs and to realize in the end that a single one contains something of

interest. One can never be sure in advance however because some people add an additional sentence occasionally to their standard logs and

so I typically end up with clicking on all logs of the day. As you can see from Car54's post, there are cache owners out there who feel annoyed

when they receive copy and paste logs for their caches, but I know no example where this happened for a number trail. For the latter one, it is not even taken for granted

that owners react to severe maintenance issues. Normal logs are sent to device null anyway.

 

 

You did the exact same thing you say you hate to see other cachers do when you did the Tour de Mur series - one log containing the majority of your experiences (mostly negative I might add) with the other logs being shorter and similar in nature to the rest.

 

Yes, I did because I had no idea what to write and I hardly ever hated logging caches that much as on that evening. I visited these caches on a day where I was in a very bad mood and did not find anything better to do than to visit this series. I just went out to avoid staying at home the whole day and getting even more unhappy. I hope I will not end up visiting further caches of the series this year as this would be a sign of feeling really bad.

 

There is a difference however to the situation I had in mind when I wrote that I do not like copy and paste logs for all caches of the day. I referred to caches where something meaningful could be written, for number trails this is not the case by design. The Tour de Mur series is designed in a way that no decent logs are expected and the cache owners do not read the logs anyway. For the Tour de Mur series not even I'm in interested into reading the logs of others except comments on whether or nor the container is still there.

Edited July 11, 2014 by cezanne

[+L0ne.R]

I do not like this solution at all. I hate it when I look at all recent logs of cacher X and realize that only a single log has some reasonable contents.

Cezanne

 

Really? Why are you even concerned about what other people log? It's not YOUR journey, it's theirs.

 

It's important when you're out in the field hoping for something in the logs that will help you find the cache. Something like, 'Found the cache 10m from ground zero', or 'Tough find, blends in really well', or 'The coordinates were spot-on for me.' , or 'There's a field of stinging nettle by the cache - very painful' (that one saved me ruining my caching day - I didn't know the plants were stinging nettle and would have tried to wade through them).

[+fuzziebear3]

For me, there are two main purposes to my log.

 

1.) To make a record of my journey, for myself, to help me remember the trip.

2.) To tell the cache owner of my experience, and to thank them for allowing me the trip. Also to alert them of any issues.

 

It's fine if other people read them, and they might or might not enjoy them. That is their call, but not my primary purpose.

 

With that in mind, if I am doing a series, and they are all by the same CO, then I will tell the story in stages.

Each cache gets a unique log (always, anyway), they each are standalone, but overall they tell the whole story of my trip, without excessive repetition.

 

If there is another cache owner in there, I will tell its story as if they had not read any of the other parts. Probably mentioning that I was doing other nearby caches, and I did this one too, and what I liked and experienced at that cache specifically.

[cezanne]

With that in mind, if I am doing a series, and they are all by the same CO, then I will tell the story in stages.

Each cache gets a unique log (always, anyway), they each are standalone, but overall they tell the whole story of my trip, without excessive repetition.

 

Normally, I try to do something like that too, but I need to admit there are a few rare occasions where I could not think of anything specific to write.

On a bike trail with caches being 300m apart and everything looking the same and repeated hideouts, it is not even easy to remember which cache was which in case one

was a bit wet, for example.

 

Do you take notes during your trip? That certainly makes it easier. I do not take notes and try to reply on my memory which is normally not that bad but for some series I need to admit that already in the evening of the same day I could not always remember what happened where. For a multi cache it is easy. All can be written in the same log - I could write about stinging nettles without being unsure whether I mixed up caches. For series caches I sometimes hesitate to provide details as I'm not sure any longer that my memories are matched with the right cache.

[+redsox_mark]

 

Do you take notes during your trip? That certainly makes it easier.

 

I take notes. Just brief ones, but I will note key info on the cache condition, searching time, and if I saw something interesting.

 

Recently however I did a series by kayak. It wasn't convenient to take notes doing that, so I didn't. It was a series of 12 caches, and overall it was great - but my friend and I both had trouble at the end remembering details of each specific cache.

[+cerberus1]

 

Do you take notes during your trip? That certainly makes it easier.

 

I take notes. Just brief ones, but I will note key info on the cache condition, searching time, and if I saw something interesting.

 

Recently however I did a series by kayak. It wasn't convenient to take notes doing that, so I didn't. It was a series of 12 caches, and overall it was great - but my friend and I both had trouble at the end remembering details of each specific cache.

Drive some crazy sometimes (in a rush ya know...), but I take notes on each cache found. Carried a mini composition book since I started.

My kayak vest has pockets. Rite In Rain pad and a pencil or sharpie and I'm set.

[+RocTheCacheBox]

My dear loving wife Theresa and I began geocaching June 14, 2003.

 

Unfortunately we stopped, it must have been in 2004, but it was not for lack of interest. In the following 10 years, I thought our account would have been deleted. But it was not!

 

I was so pleased. It meant the world to me to visit Geocaching.com tonight to try to find our old cache pages and to discover that our account was still alive.

 

The only geocaching I know is that described in the original post. My wife and I had so much fun on the weekends. We spent just as much time researching what to write about our caches and coming up with a theme and placement and a great name – as we did searching. Theresa always thought of the names. We love Florida history and most had some tie to old Florida.

 

My dear wife passed away in May 2014 at age 56 and the fact that the account we shared is still alive means more than I can express in words. Those great memories all came back tonight as I thought about those days. A husband’s love never fades.

 

So, yes I do remember how it used to be. That is how geocaching will always be for me.

 

It was some of our happiest time together.

 

Lastly, my public thank-you to Geocaching.com. Your keeping our account after all these years is a blessing to this husband who misses his loving geocaching partner.

 

To the newer geocachers, you never know what great memories you are making with each cache.

 

John

Riverview, Florida

 

 

 

What I wonderful post. Mrs Roc and I are also in our mid 50s. I can't imagine losing my caching buddy.

This is the first time I've ever got tears in my eyes reading a forum post. I'm so sorry for your loss.

[+coachstahly]

I do not like this solution at all. I hate it when I look at all recent logs of cacher X and realize that only a single log has some reasonable contents.

Cezanne

 

Really? Why are you even concerned about what other people log? It's not YOUR journey, it's theirs.

 

It's important when you're out in the field hoping for something in the logs that will help you find the cache. Something like, 'Found the cache 10m from ground zero', or 'Tough find, blends in really well', or 'The coordinates were spot-on for me.' , or 'There's a field of stinging nettle by the cache - very painful' (that one saved me ruining my caching day - I didn't know the plants were stinging nettle and would have tried to wade through them).

But that's not the point Cezanne is trying to make. S/he wants the logs to be thoughtful and meaningful and about the journey and experience, not about finding the cache (their own words in a separate post on this thread I think). I'm all for seeing logs that contain what you've referenced.

[+coachstahly]

I referred to caches where something meaningful could be written, for number trails this is not the case by design.

II did a paddle series along a rather uninteresting stretch of water (mostly farm fields and the same container at each one) but I made sure to note something slightly different for each one, as meaningless as it might be to the CO or anyone else that might read the log. All it takes is some effort on the finder's part. It may not have much meaning to EITHER the finder or the CO, but something is there to differentiate it from the rest in the series. Sometimes it's really hard but I try to make the effort.

 

That being said, ANY cache can be meaningful to someone, even if it's a guardrail hide, a LPC, or a leaky film canister. Perhaps they met their first fellow geocacher out in the "wild", it was their first find, the spot is meaningful for some reason we can't comprehend, it was their first FTF, or they just liked it because it was the first hide like that they've found. Saying that number trail caches can't be meaningful at all isn't bound to be true for all caches in any series.

[+dprovan]

Which series do you mean? The Anaphylaxis series? That might be - then I did not select the best example.

Yes, and that's the point: you looked in my recent history, picked out a series, and declared it a good example of what was wrong with series without even looking at it. Unfortunately for your argument, you happened to pick a series with none of the problems you're complaining about. Your prejudice led you to unintentionally prove my point, which is that bad caches are bad caches, and whether they're in a series or not has nothing to do with it.

 

That depends on the number of cachers in your area.

In my area a cache series with 12 caches gets easily 50 visits within a month, at least during the first months.

You are convinced this is because of "your area", but another series not too far from Anaphylaxis, CMTPT, has had over 200 visits in the same amount of time. Not all series are power trails. It's as simple as that.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Do you take notes during your trip? That certainly makes it easier.

 

I take notes. Just brief ones, but I will note key info on the cache condition, searching time, and if I saw something interesting.

 

Recently however I did a series by kayak. It wasn't convenient to take notes doing that, so I didn't. It was a series of 12 caches, and overall it was great - but my friend and I both had trouble at the end remembering details of each specific cache.

 

Laminate a "large" (e.g. 12" x 20") sheet of paper and slip it under your deck bungees. Get a grease pencil from a hobby store and you can take lots of notes while on the water.

 

 

 

[+Car54]

For all of the other caches I log "see my log on GCxxxxx for a description of my hike".

 

A log like that would probably make me consider archiving my cache with the log "see GCxxxx for the reason". If my cache is not notable enough to warrant its own log, I would probably conclude that its not a very good cache. If the finder isn't going to make an effort, why should the hider?

 

Mrs. Car54

 

One lazy log would make you consider archiving a cache?

 

Of course not - we get "lazy" logs from time to time. The log above would most likely indicate that a power trail/number trail/call-it-whatever-you-want trail has sprung up around our cache. If that were the case, then, yes, I would archive our cache. Look on the bright side - someone would then have an opportunity to "fill in the gap" on the trail.

 

In general, being a cache owner is becoming less and less fun FOR ME - not speaking for others. We don't have very many caches, but the ones we do, we take pleasure in. Once we no longer take pleasure in them, we will archive them.

 

Mrs. Car54

[cezanne]

Which series do you mean? The Anaphylaxis series? That might be - then I did not select the best example.

Yes, and that's the point: you looked in my recent history, picked out a series, and declared it a good example of what was wrong with series without even looking at it.

 

I looked at it. My primary goal was to take an example for what a power trail means to me in order to demonstrate to you that we clearly mean something different by power trail.

I itentionally took a series with less than 20 caches where every single cache got favourite points and not just one.

 

Unfortunately for your argument, you happened to pick a series with none of the problems you're complaining about. Your prejudice led you to unintentionally prove my point, which is that bad caches are bad caches, and whether they're in a series or not has nothing to do with it.

 

Of course, not all power trails are the same in the same way as not all multi caches are the same.

When I wrote that you did not take the best example I meant that there certainly would exist examples for which most of the aspects I mentioned are true.

I did not say that this is the case for every power trail.

 

You are convinced this is because of "your area", but another series not too far from Anaphylaxis, CMTPT, has had over 200 visits in the same amount of time. Not all series are power trails. It's as simple as that.

 

It depends on how one uses the defined notions. Not all power trails (in my notion) are number trails. I did not say that the Anaphylaxis series a number trail.

 

The series I referred to in my area that has more visits in 2 weeks is not a number trail either. Fact is that a single lonely multi cache or traditional gets at most 1/10 of the traffic of the series of 10 caches regardless of the quality and I regard the number of visitors of the lonely caches as healthy.

 

I agree that the Anaphylaxis series has nothing in common with what a power trail is for you. I never claimed anything in that direction.

 

Cezanne

[+tozainamboku]

For all of the other caches I log "see my log on GCxxxxx for a description of my hike".

 

A log like that would probably make me consider archiving my cache with the log "see GCxxxx for the reason". If my cache is not notable enough to warrant its own log, I would probably conclude that its not a very good cache. If the finder isn't going to make an effort, why should the hider?

 

Mrs. Car54

 

One lazy log would make you consider archiving a cache?

 

Of course not - we get "lazy" logs from time to time. The log above would most likely indicate that a power trail/number trail/call-it-whatever-you-want trail has sprung up around our cache. If that were the case, then, yes, I would archive our cache. Look on the bright side - someone would then have an opportunity to "fill in the gap" on the trail.

 

In general, being a cache owner is becoming less and less fun FOR ME - not speaking for others. We don't have very many caches, but the ones we do, we take pleasure in. Once we no longer take pleasure in them, we will archive them.

 

Mrs. Car54

Kinda funny since my example I say that I would pick my favorite cache - probably not part of a series - and put my long write-up there. If your cache wasn't my favorite it just might get stuck with the cut & paste log. But if your cache preceded someone leaving a bunch of new caches and it stood out, you might get lucky have your cache be the one I use to write my long log.

 

Now I did say that some cache owners might be upset if I put my whole day's adventure and mention other caches in the log for their cache. Too bad. My experience was the whole day's adventure and those new caches are part of that adventure. I don't really care about cacher owners who think my experience has to be about their cache.

 

I've some sympathy in that I tend to hide one or two cache on some trail that has few or no other caches. Over the years, people have dropped more caches, sometimes filling all the spots along the trail. Sure sometimes I get logs the that say "#27 out of 30 on the Rustic Canyon trail today". Othertimes though I'll get logs like "Always good to find an ammocan". But what I really like is when I get "This cache was our main goal today as we collected all the caches on the Rustic Trail." I can't imagine archiving my caches because they get logs like the first and then never see the ones like the third.

[+BAMBOOZLE]

We had just started caching and I was looking through caches to plan a trip when suddenly I called out to my wife, " come in here and see this, you're not going to believe it....the cacher that just logged this cache has 72 finds "!!

To this day no find count has impressed me more.....geocaching has indeed changed.

[+L0ne.R]

Do you take notes during your trip? That certainly makes it easier.

 

I take notes. Just brief ones, but I will note key info on the cache condition, searching time, and if I saw something interesting.

 

Recently however I did a series by kayak. It wasn't convenient to take notes doing that, so I didn't. It was a series of 12 caches, and overall it was great - but my friend and I both had trouble at the end remembering details of each specific cache.

Drive some crazy sometimes (in a rush ya know...), but I take notes on each cache found. Carried a mini composition book since I started.

My kayak vest has pockets. Rite In Rain pad and a pencil or sharpie and I'm set.

 

I'm a note taker too. It's a big reason why I like to cache alone - I can take my time and not rush through the process. I also like to take a few pictures of the cache, location and any trading I did, to remind me what the experience was like. In the old days when caching with someone I didn't feel rushed but then again we only did one or two caches in a day and it was easier to remember the whole experience, even without taking notes.

[+frinklabs]

I try to log my finds the way I would like others to log my caches. For me, the composing and writing of the online log is part of the fun.

 

Sometimes their context is only for my benefit. Here are the first lines of nine logs on an excellent day I spent with my daughter on a roadtrip that was supposed to be for work; as a set they made my daughter laugh when I sent her the links so she could log her finds:

 

This was the nearest cache to the client site where I made today's road trip for a drop off of some hardware.

 

This was find number two, a target cache for our Sudbury (ostensibly work-related) roadtrip

 

Third find on our Sudbury road trip (work-related, partly).

 

Fourth find on the return leg of our Sudbury (theoretically for work) road trip.

 

Find number five on our Sudbury road trip which was alleged to be work-related.

 

Find number six on a Sudbury road trip, which I allege was for work purposes.

 

Seventh find on our Sudbury road trip which was turning out less and less to be work-related.

 

The eighth cache on our Sudbury sure-its-for-work road trip and third ghost-town themed of the day.

 

Ninth and last targetted cache on the return leg of our Sudbury road trip which was, in the context of plausible-deniability, work related.

[cezanne]

 

But that's not the point Cezanne is trying to make. S/he wants the logs to be thoughtful and meaningful and about the journey and experience, not about finding the cache (their own words in a separate post on this thread I think). I'm all for seeing logs that contain what you've referenced.

 

Depending on the cache, I want them to be on both provided that it is a cache that I might be able to go for. (I enjoy reading logs and looking at photos also for caches that I will never be able to go to. Than I do not care about information about the cache.

Then it's like reading a hiking blog.)

 

For example, if the T-rating is wrong or the coordinates are off, I certainly want to know. I also try to comment on the status of the container of each cache I find. This becomes however difficult for me for series like the Tour de Mur series as I do not take notes (another reason why I do not like such series). When I visit a single multi cache or a small number of separate caches, my memory is sufficient. For what I call power trail (not necessarily a number trail) my memory does not suffice.

 

It is a different issue that it is the journey and not the container/hide that sparks my interest into geocaching.

 

I'm one of the few that rather finds a wet bad quality container at the end of a gorgeous hike than an extremely creative container at 100m distance from the parking location where most of the time is required for retrieving/opening the container. My personal preferences also imply that I often recommend quite different caches to other caches than my own favourites.

 

Cezanne

Edited July 12, 2014 by cezanne

[+dprovan]

It depends on how one uses the defined notions. Not all power trails (in my notion) are number trails. I did not say that the Anaphylaxis series a number trail.

Now you're just making up terms to win the argument. Instead of inventing a new term, "number trail", why not use the accepted term, "power trail", and stop pretending that "power trail" is a synonym for "series".

[+Lieblweb]

 

I think you misunderstand *MY* point. The quotes above, which admittedly were snipped, showcase a problem, in my opinion. While many folks will say, "Oh, your find count doesn't matter,", it is yet the first, almost knee-jerk response used to imply someone isn't quite up to snuff. I'm probably not wording that well, but if counts are not the point, why make it your first response?

 

Mrs. Car54

 

How can you truly find or discover enjoyment in a hobby, if you haven't done it all that much?

 

How can a person enjoy golf if he's only been golfing a few times? He/she might find more enjoyment if they were able to do it more, learn more, gain experience, get better at it.....

 

How can a chess player enjoy the hobby more? - is by playing more, getting experience, and feeling the accomplishment of getting better at it.

 

The Challenge of self improvement.

 

Yeah, and I wish I could find more caches for more self improvement - but you won't hear me complaining about hobby.

Edited July 12, 2014 by Lieblweb

[+Mudfrog]

 

I think you misunderstand *MY* point. The quotes above, which admittedly were snipped, showcase a problem, in my opinion. While many folks will say, "Oh, your find count doesn't matter,", it is yet the first, almost knee-jerk response used to imply someone isn't quite up to snuff. I'm probably not wording that well, but if counts are not the point, why make it your first response?

 

Mrs. Car54

 

How can you truly find or discover enjoyment in a hobby, if you haven't done it all that much?

 

How can a person enjoy golf if he's only been golfing a few times? He/she might find more enjoyment if they were able to do it more, learn more, gain experience, get better at it.....

 

How can a chess player enjoy the hobby more? - is by playing more, getting experience, and feeling the accomplishment of getting better at it.

 

The Challenge of self improvement.

 

Concerning most hobbies, you ask a good question. But geocaching is one where people try it and say WOW when they find their first cache or two. No doubt that many probably think this is the coolest thing ever. Back in the day, more people pursued our hobby longer and found that they enjoyed it the more they played. Today unfortunately, the WOWness factor probably wears off pretty quickly for most. I don't imagine it takes long for most people to lose interest and move on to something else.

[cezanne]

It depends on how one uses the defined notions. Not all power trails (in my notion) are number trails. I did not say that the Anaphylaxis series a number trail.

Now you're just making up terms to win the argument. Instead of inventing a new term, "number trail", why not use the accepted term, "power trail", and stop pretending that "power trail" is a synonym for "series".

 

I'm not inventing a new term - number trail has been used before. In my area it is common that the old timers refer to such series as power trails and I have provided early on the definition used (all what could make up a multi cache). When such series have not been published in countries like Austria, Germany and Switzerland, they have been officially rejected as being power trails. That has been long before such trails as the ET trail and similar trails showed up. Caches like this series/power trail

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC1WQ47_marhofer-genussdosn-1-dei-bounk

(this is just cache one) showed up in 2009 for the first time in my country. In the early years it would have been absolutely impossible to get them through. The reviewers would have asked for a multi and/or a up to 3 traditionals. So the development started before you even started to geocache.

 

I do not have any intent to win. I wanted to explain my point of view. I'm not trying to make you or someone else change your opinion. I'm not arguing that such such series (in your terminology)/power trails (in my terminology) are bad - they are a change to the worse for me. So in a sense I'm a loser anyway and there is nothing to win for me.

 

My understanding of a cache series is rather something like the lost stones series of frustus http://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.aspx?u=frustus where separate caches have been hidden at different days that are devoted to the same theme. The caches are spread over a large area and are not intended to be visited on the same day. The term series (or rather the equivalent of it in German) has had a accepted meaning in German speaking countries long before power trails existed.

 

When I brought up the Anaphylaxis series, I did it because I thought it would be fair to make you aware of the fact that I think that the policy change of Groundspeak to allow such type of things (call them whatever you want) and not only what you regard as power trail is an unfortunate change from my point of view. I'm well aware of the fact that only a minority shares my opinion (more in my country than in yours). So you can stick with your concept of power trail. It does not play a role as the key statement of mine is what I explained above. You do not need to share my opinion and I do not expect you to do so. I have met only 1 or 2 cachers that started in 2010 who feel in a similar way about the change than I and many cachers who started in 2002-3.

Edited July 12, 2014 by cezanne

[+dprovan]

I'm not arguing that such such series (in your terminology)/power trails (in my terminology) are bad - they are a change to the worse for me.

And I've been trying to find out why added a theme and a common name make it worse for you, since none of the specific things you keep complaining about apply to the Anaphylaxis "power trail".

[+The Leprechauns]

How can you truly find or discover enjoyment in a hobby, if you haven't done it all that much?

 

Concerning most hobbies, you ask a good question. But geocaching is one where people try it and say WOW when they find their first cache or two. No doubt that many probably think this is the coolest thing ever. Back in the day, more people pursued our hobby longer and found that they enjoyed it the more they played. Today unfortunately, the WOWness factor probably wears off pretty quickly for most. I don't imagine it takes long for most people to lose interest and move on to something else.

My experience was different. When I look back at the cache listings from my early finds in 2002, I see lots of logs from accounts with less than a dozen or two finds. Their early logs say "wow, this is awesome, we're hooked." But, their last login was a few months after that.

 

I think a good percentage of that was because these accounts found all the caches within a convenient distance of their home. Within months of starting, I was planning big roadtrips just to pick up a few new caches. On Labor Day weekend 2002, I cleared out every cache in an area that today has more than 5,000. On a snowy day in February 2003, I found all four of the caches in a rural county -- a county that hosts 845 caches today.

 

Perhaps the problem 12 years ago was that there weren't enough caches, and the problem today is that there are too many?

[+tozainamboku]

 

How can you truly find or discover enjoyment in a hobby, if you haven't done it all that much?

 

How can a person enjoy golf if he's only been golfing a few times? He/she might find more enjoyment if they were able to do it more, learn more, gain experience, get better at it.....

 

How can a chess player enjoy the hobby more? - is by playing more, getting experience, and feeling the accomplishment of getting better at it.

 

The Challenge of self improvement.

 

Yeah, and I wish I could find more caches for more self improvement - but you won't hear me complaining about hobby.

I'm not sure I buy this argument. The nature of a hobby is something one does in their spare time for recreation. How much time someone has to participate depends on many factors. Some people will have several hobbies and split their time among them. How much time someone spend on an outdoor hobby, like golf or geocaching, can be greatly influenced by the weather, not to mention the price of a round of golf or the price of gasoline to drive to a cache.

 

Golf in particular takes a lot of time. My guess is that there are many golfers who have only golfed a fer times. They've bought clubs, maybe eve a membership in a country club, yet they only have time for a round of golf once or twice a year. Maybe they go to the driving range and hit a bucket of balls. They may watch professional golfers on TV, watch the Golf channel for tips, and read books about golf. Maybe they put a putting green in their backyard to practice. They may know more about golf then a person who is able to play a round every week.

 

Chess too it game where many people have a chess set and know the rules. But they aren't playing every day. Some will spend time reading books and watching tournaments. They likely will know more about the game than someone who plays friendly games every day.

 

Geocaching is a much simpler hobby than golf or chess. It's been said that after finding one or two caches you know everything there is know about geocaching. Of course this is an exaggeration - you haven't seen every type of hide or all the possible things that can go wrong with a search. But it doesn't take a whole lot of finds for people to know whether they prefer finding micros in news racks or 5 mile hikes to find a small Tupperware container. In particular, people who find they get more enjoyment from discovering new places than from the actual find will know this after just a few caches.

 

I suspect that people who are bringing up change feel that back when they started they would have discovered some place in their first few finds that would have got them to decide that what they enjoyed about geocaching is discovering new places. Their complaint is that that nowadays many areas as so full of "for the numbers" hides that people will quit before they discover that they prefer discovering new places to getting smileys for finds.

 

There have always been people who decided after a few geocaches that this hobby isn't for them. There have been others who get real excited, hide a few caches, and they quit when they find a new hobby (or perhaps as Lep suggest, when they ran out of nearby caches to find). And there have been those who participate for years, rack up a lot of finds, and burn out. But I still hear newbies talking about caches that took them to some cool spot, or who are planing caching vacations to discover places and find caches while doing so. My impression is that geocaching is doing fine and still attracting new participants who like it for many different reasons.

Edited July 12, 2014 by tozainamboku

[+briansnat]

 

My improper usage of words has confused you.

 

A person comes to this forum to complain about the hobby ....and all I can think of is:

 

You haven't explored enough

You haven't experienced enough

You haven't traveled enough

You haven't hiked enough

You haven't kayaked enough

You haven't climbed enough trees

You haven't found enough creative caches

You haven't solved enough puzzles

You haven't found enough multis

You haven't found enough earth caches

You haven't found enough ........ whatever......

 

And if a person doesn't find enjoyment in those above things (and more) ...then the hobby isn't right for them.

 

I have barely over 1,000 finds in nearly 13 years. Still, I will put my variety of experiences up against many cachers who have thousands or tens of thousands of finds.

 

Not explored enough? The thousands of miles that I have hiked and driven to find cool cache hiding places isn't exploring enough? Hundreds of hours of wandering on and off trail to find an historic site or cool geological feature I read about somewhere or just to see what I can find isn't exploring enough? Driving for many miles looking for green areas, then getting out and exploring them to see if a cache would work there. I'll put my exploring up against someone who racked up his high numbers on a few power trails and thousands of parking lot and guard rail park n grabs.

 

Haven't experienced enough? Found virtual, locationless, multi, event and puzzle caches. Found an A.P.E cache. I've done parking lot caches and 10 mile hikes to caches as well as paddle to caches, drive to caches, backcountry caches and caches in town parks. Found nanos, small, regular and large caches. Found uniquely camoed caches and the run of mill Lock n Lock. Been to fabulous views and trash strewn urban lots. I've waded through waist deep swamps, slogged through knee deep mud, walked through the desert and found caches under several feet of snow in the Adirondacks and Green Mountains.

 

Haven't traveled enough? I've found caches in 18 states and have DNFs in two others.

 

Haven't hiked enough? See #1

 

Haven't kayaked enough? Ya got me there. I usually cache via canoe, and occasionally via motorboat, but I'm willing to bet I have more paddle to finds than most people who have many more total finds than I do.

 

Haven't climbed enough trees? How many is enough? I own two caches pretty high in trees and probably have found a dozen or more that required climbing.

 

Haven't found enough creative caches? I've found fake guardrail bolts when they were rare. Found caches in fake birdhouses, fake rocks, fake animals, fake pine cones and many other creative caches. Found caches that required special tools or ingenuity to retrieve.

 

Haven't solved enough puzzles? Ya got me again. I don't care for them and if I had 50,000 finds I'd still have few puzzle finds. BTW I don't log finds on puzzles I didn't personally solve even if I was the one to actually find the cache. There are a bunch of puzzle caches out there with my sig in the logbook that I logged notes or nothing at all.

 

Haven't found enough earth cache? I have little interest in them so no, I haven't found any. That wouldn't change if I had 100,000 finds.

 

When I see so many high number cachers who "achieve" those numbers through bogus logs, throwdowns, multi logging of events, logging pocket caches and caches where they waited in the car while someone else searched and other activities that have nothing to do with actually finding a geocache, it tells me that number counts are almost worthless.

 

Because so many cachers have different definitions of what can be logged as a find and because many of the numbers cachers have a very liberal definition of a find, I think it's silly to try to evaluate a cacher's experience based on their find count.

[cezanne]

I'm not arguing that such such series (in your terminology)/power trails (in my terminology) are bad - they are a change to the worse for me.

And I've been trying to find out why added a theme and a common name make it worse for you, since none of the specific things you keep complaining about apply to the Anaphylaxis "power trail".

 

If you just consider the single set of Anaphylaxis caches, you miss the most essential part. If there nice old school multis and caches like the Anaphylaxis caches co-existed among the newly hidden caches, it would be fine with me as there still existed caches that I enjoy very much and not every cache needs to be for me. What makes it worse for me is that old school multi caches (like the bike multi cache mentioned in this thread) are close to dying out in my area.

 

Cache AB #1 until Cache AB # x just does not fit to my way of caching. If I go for a hike that leads me to three mountain summits where at each I find a cache I have no difficulties with logging in the evening. I can clearly remember which cache was which. With Cache AB #1 until cache AB #x I would need to take notes even when x is around 10 and I do not take notes (and would most probably lose them somewhere anyway if I did).

 

With Cache AB #1 until cache AB #x I typically end up with the impression that it's the caches and the hides the cache owner wants to share with me and not the locations and the hike. That somehow puts me in a bad position right from the beginning - I'm not belonging to the target group and will tend to end up disappointed. I prefer to write very positive logs associated to nice experiences to writing about something which I did for certain reasons, but did not enjoy (which is of course my fault).

 

I do not like that much the term complaining in this context. For me stating that geocaching has changed to the worse for me is not a complaint, it is just a fact. If I claimed that geocaching got worse in general, then this would be something different.

 

Cezanne

[+coachstahly]

 

I do not like that much the term complaining in this context. For me stating that geocaching has changed to the worse for me is not a complaint, it is just a fact. If I claimed that geocaching got worse in general, then this would be something different.

 

Cezanne

 

Fact - a thing that is indisputably the case

 

Geocaching has changed and I think anyone can make the claim that is indeed a fact, although the type of change is variable and perhaps harder to pin down than most would think.

 

"Changed for the worse" is NOT a statement that is factual but is instead an opinion you believe to be true, but it is NOT indisputably the case. If it were a fact, you'd find general agreement on these forums and this thread would be only about 5 comments long instead of 4 pages long and it would look like this - "+1".

 

That being said, it really serves no purpose to get on here and continually wish things would go back to the way they used to be or that caching is changing in a negative way, or for that matter in a positive way. It IS changing, but it doesn't have to be negative unless we choose to make it that way. I never did a challenge (not the "?" ones, but the kiss the frog type) because I didn't like the end product. I didn't think it made caching worse, just different in a way that I had no interest in doing. Yes, it would be great if ALL caches met everyone's idea of what a geocache is supposed to be, but that's not going to happen.

 

That's one of the things that I find most enjoyable about this hobby - the variety. In 7 days I can completely run the gamut of caching and experience something new each day. I can follow some written instructions to find a cache with a stamp (letterbox) on one day, use my phone to do a tour (Wherigo) the next day, see a neat point of interest the next day (virtual), be challenged by a multi step tour (multi) of an area the next day, hike 2 miles to find an ammo can (traditional) the next day, use my brain to solve a puzzle (unknown) to find a cache the next day, and learn an earth-science lesson (Earth Cache) the last day. 7 days, 7 different types of experiences in one week, and I didn't even include the social aspect of an event. Why should geocaching be limited to only one type of experience for everybody? By limiting the experiences to only one type of cache (which is fine if that's the way a person chooses to geocache), I believe it limits some of the experiences that make this hobby so fun for me.

[+Lieblweb]

 

Concerning most hobbies, you ask a good question. But geocaching is one where people try it and say WOW when they find their first cache or two. No doubt that many probably think this is the coolest thing ever. Back in the day, more people pursued our hobby longer and found that they enjoyed it the more they played. Today unfortunately, the WOWness factor probably wears off pretty quickly for most. I don't imagine it takes long for most people to lose interest and move on to something else.

 

Most certainly..... Like any hobby, the more popularity it gains.... the hobbies change and evolve. It might not be enjoyable for folks anymore because of the new changes. Complaining about it isn't fair to the hobby. People have to evolve and change with the hobby to get enjoyment out of it. Or.....lose interest and find other hobbies.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I think you misunderstand *MY* point. The quotes above, which admittedly were snipped, showcase a problem, in my opinion. While many folks will say, "Oh, your find count doesn't matter,", it is yet the first, almost knee-jerk response used to imply someone isn't quite up to snuff. I'm probably not wording that well, but if counts are not the point, why make it your first response?

 

Mrs. Car54

 

How can you truly find or discover enjoyment in a hobby, if you haven't done it all that much?

 

How can a person enjoy golf if he's only been golfing a few times? He/she might find more enjoyment if they were able to do it more, learn more, gain experience, get better at it.....

 

How can a chess player enjoy the hobby more? - is by playing more, getting experience, and feeling the accomplishment of getting better at it.

 

The Challenge of self improvement.

 

Yeah, and I wish I could find more caches for more self improvement - but you won't hear me complaining about hobby.

 

Who has more experience? The chess player that has played 100 games against increasing challenging opponents or the chess player that has played 1000 games against opponents the only played a couple of games?

 

It' easy to go out and hit a few power trails and rack up a few thousand finds, but if most of the are just a film pot under a small pile of rocks, or attached to a wooden stake with a brightly covered ribbon, how much experience has been gained. Someone with a few hundred finds in a variety of different environments, hiding styles, difficulty and terrain ratings, and a variety of different container has, IMHO, far more experience.

 

briansnat has been playing the game for 13 years, yet has just over 1000 finds. How many more finds should he get before he's considered experienced?

[+Lieblweb]

 

I have barely over 1,000 finds in nearly 13 years. Still, I will put my variety of experiences up against many cachers who have thousands or tens of thousands of finds.

 

Not explored enough? The thousands of miles that I have hiked and driven to find cool cache hiding places isn't exploring enough? Hundreds of hours of wandering on and off trail to find an historic site or cool geological feature I read about somewhere or just to see what I can find isn't exploring enough? Driving for many miles looking for green areas, then getting out and exploring them to see if a cache would work there. I'll put my exploring up against someone who racked up his high numbers on a few power trails and thousands of parking lot and guard rail park n grabs.

 

Haven't experienced enough? Found virtual, locationless, multi, event and puzzle caches. Found an A.P.E cache. I've done parking lot caches and 10 mile hikes to caches as well as paddle to caches, drive to caches, backcountry caches and caches in town parks. Found nanos, small, regular and large caches. Found uniquely camoed caches and the run of mill Lock n Lock. Been to fabulous views and trash strewn urban lots. I've waded through waist deep swamps, slogged through knee deep mud, walked through the desert and found caches under several feet of snow in the Adirondacks and Green Mountains.

 

Haven't traveled enough? I've found caches in 18 states and have DNFs in two others.

 

Haven't hiked enough? See #1

 

Haven't kayaked enough? Ya got me there. I usually cache via canoe, and occasionally via motorboat, but I'm willing to bet I have more paddle to finds than most people who have many more total finds than I do.

 

Haven't climbed enough trees? How many is enough? I own two caches pretty high in trees and probably have found a dozen or more that required climbing.

 

Haven't found enough creative caches? I've found fake guardrail bolts when they were rare. Found caches in fake birdhouses, fake rocks, fake animals, fake pine cones and many other creative caches. Found caches that required special tools or ingenuity to retrieve.

 

Haven't solved enough puzzles? Ya got me again. I don't care for them and if I had 50,000 finds I'd still have few puzzle finds. BTW I don't log finds on puzzles I didn't personally solve even if I was the one to actually find the cache. There are a bunch of puzzle caches out there with my sig in the logbook that I logged notes or nothing at all.

 

Haven't found enough earth cache? I have little interest in them so no, I haven't found any. That wouldn't change if I had 100,000 finds.

 

When I see so many high number cachers who "achieve" those numbers through bogus logs, throwdowns, multi logging of events, logging pocket caches and caches where they waited in the car while someone else searched and other activities that have nothing to do with actually finding a geocache, it tells me that number counts are almost worthless.

 

Because so many cachers have different definitions of what can be logged as a find and because many of the numbers cachers have a very liberal definition of a find, I think it's silly to try to evaluate a cacher's experience based on their find count.

 

Are you the original person to post this thread?

 

I'm not talking about all geocachers in general. I'm talking about those people who have experienced the hobby and are COMPLAINING about how it has changed.

 

If they are disappointed or annoyed with the hobby because it has changed, then they need to discover a new way to enjoy it again or move on to something else (and stop complaining about it).

 

How about Benchmarking? If you find a lame benchmark, you can complain to the government.

[+niraD]

Now you're just making up terms to win the argument. Instead of inventing a new term, "number trail", why not use the accepted term, "power trail", and stop pretending that "power trail" is a synonym for "series".

The term "power trail" was in use long before the modern numbers run trails (like the ET Highway trail) existed. Instead of co-opting the existing term "power trail" and creating confusion, why don't those who enjoy modern numbers run trails use some other term to describe their game, which is in many ways very different from the old-school power trails that existed before (and that still exist today).

[+hzoi]

I too prefer the old-school caches, such as ammo cans in cool locations with stories in the logbook. They still exist. They're just harder to find. But when you do find them, it makes it that much more satisfying.

 

Since I move every two to three years, I get to start geocaching all over again in new areas. So that makes it easier for me to be picky -- I don't have to find all the caches in my area, because if I ignore the crappy parking lot or lampskirt or guardrail micros long enough, they will indeed go away. (Ok, I will, but same effect.)

[4wheelin_fool]

 

I have barely over 1,000 finds in nearly 13 years. Still, I will put my variety of experiences up against many cachers who have thousands or tens of thousands of finds.

 

Not explored enough? The thousands of miles that I have hiked and driven to find cool cache hiding places isn't exploring enough? Hundreds of hours of wandering on and off trail to find an historic site or cool geological feature I read about somewhere or just to see what I can find isn't exploring enough? Driving for many miles looking for green areas, then getting out and exploring them to see if a cache would work there. I'll put my exploring up against someone who racked up his high numbers on a few power trails and thousands of parking lot and guard rail park n grabs.

 

Haven't experienced enough? Found virtual, locationless, multi, event and puzzle caches. Found an A.P.E cache. I've done parking lot caches and 10 mile hikes to caches as well as paddle to caches, drive to caches, backcountry caches and caches in town parks. Found nanos, small, regular and large caches. Found uniquely camoed caches and the run of mill Lock n Lock. Been to fabulous views and trash strewn urban lots. I've waded through waist deep swamps, slogged through knee deep mud, walked through the desert and found caches under several feet of snow in the Adirondacks and Green Mountains.

 

Haven't traveled enough? I've found caches in 18 states and have DNFs in two others.

 

Haven't hiked enough? See #1

 

Haven't kayaked enough? Ya got me there. I usually cache via canoe, and occasionally via motorboat, but I'm willing to bet I have more paddle to finds than most people who have many more total finds than I do.

 

Haven't climbed enough trees? How many is enough? I own two caches pretty high in trees and probably have found a dozen or more that required climbing.

 

Haven't found enough creative caches? I've found fake guardrail bolts when they were rare. Found caches in fake birdhouses, fake rocks, fake animals, fake pine cones and many other creative caches. Found caches that required special tools or ingenuity to retrieve.

 

Haven't solved enough puzzles? Ya got me again. I don't care for them and if I had 50,000 finds I'd still have few puzzle finds. BTW I don't log finds on puzzles I didn't personally solve even if I was the one to actually find the cache. There are a bunch of puzzle caches out there with my sig in the logbook that I logged notes or nothing at all.

 

Haven't found enough earth cache? I have little interest in them so no, I haven't found any. That wouldn't change if I had 100,000 finds.

 

When I see so many high number cachers who "achieve" those numbers through bogus logs, throwdowns, multi logging of events, logging pocket caches and caches where they waited in the car while someone else searched and other activities that have nothing to do with actually finding a geocache, it tells me that number counts are almost worthless.

 

Because so many cachers have different definitions of what can be logged as a find and because many of the numbers cachers have a very liberal definition of a find, I think it's silly to try to evaluate a cacher's experience based on their find count.

 

Are you the original person to post this thread?

 

I'm not talking about all geocachers in general. I'm talking about those people who have experienced the hobby and are COMPLAINING about how it has changed.

 

If they are disappointed or annoyed with the hobby because it has changed, then they need to discover a new way to enjoy it again or move on to something else (and stop complaining about it).

 

How about Benchmarking? If you find a lame benchmark, you can complain to the government.

 

Complaints serve to educate those about what others like. Some new people do earnestly believe that everyone loves power trails. You are essentially complaining about others complaining which does not serve any purpose, as the majority of geocachers have already moved on to other hobbies. This can be evidenced in any area where abandoned geocaches can be readily found. Companies that are not successful are the same ones that ignore complaints.

 

I actually found a lame benchmark yesterday, mounted on...a bench. Yeah, there's one in Bar Harbor on a concrete bench from 1947. Defacement!

[+dprovan]

If you just consider the single set of Anaphylaxis caches, you miss the most essential part.

I was focusing on the case because you brought it up as a good example of what you were trying to show me, and then defended it as a good example in subsequent posts even though it didn't appear to have any of the characteristics of the caches you see as a problem for you. From this comment here in the quoted post, I gather you don't think it's a good example any longer.

 

Now you're just making up terms to win the argument. Instead of inventing a new term, "number trail", why not use the accepted term, "power trail", and stop pretending that "power trail" is a synonym for "series".

The term "power trail" was in use long before the modern numbers run trails (like the ET Highway trail) existed. Instead of co-opting the existing term "power trail" and creating confusion, why don't those who enjoy modern numbers run trails use some other term to describe their game, which is in many ways very different from the old-school power trails that existed before (and that still exist today).

So what did the historical term "power trail" and how is it different than "numbers trail"? Is it different than "series", or is it a synonym?

 

I'm OK with a different term for the trails with huge numbers of indistinguishable caches. I'm just confused about the use of "power trail" for any series of caches named "<something or other> #1", "<something or other> #2", etc. I would have thought that something about the series would involve, well, power before a trail would be called a power trail.

[+gpsblake]

Premium membership also existed 10 years..... And it's the same price today as it was back then.

 

I guess the only real differences I have seen is the massive growth of geocaching, power trails, geocaching maps, and much better technology like cellphones. And the logs in the cache are almost always the name and date only, ten years ago, you were more likely to see a story about finding the cache in the logbook.

 

Paperless caching meant buying used Palm pilots (we had countless threads on them).

 

You can play the game the same way if you want. Only go after regular sized caches or caches with a terrain of 2 or above.

[+cerberus1]

You can play the game the same way if you want. Only go after regular sized caches or caches with a terrain of 2 or above.

Tried that.

Turned out I was missing out on good walks on well-maintained (though backwoods) game lands trails due to 1.5 terrain ratings.

- Now I look for caches with no roads alongside.

[+fizzymagic]

Now you're just making up terms to win the argument. Instead of inventing a new term, "number trail", why not use the accepted term, "power trail", and stop pretending that "power trail" is a synonym for "series".

The term "power trail" was in use long before the modern numbers run trails (like the ET Highway trail) existed.

 

The term "power trail" has always referred to a trail with multiple caches attractive to those who want to build up their numbers.

 

It is true that in the old days nobody could imagine a power trail with 1000 caches, but the intent was the same.

[+niraD]

So what did the historical term "power trail" and how is it different than "numbers trail"? Is it different than "series", or is it a synonym?

Around here, the term "power trail" referred to a hiking/cycling trail that was saturated with caches. This happens naturally in popular parks that restrict caches to a certain distance from established trails. The goal wasn't to pack caches as tightly as possible; the goal was to place caches at interesting locations along the trail without violating the saturation guideline.

 

The main differences between such a power trail and a modern numbers run trail are:

• PT caches are different and distinct; NRT caches are identical and fungible
  
• PT caches are usually created independently, or in independent batches that are small enough that none of them dominate the trail; NRT caches are created in large batches that dominate the trail
  
• PT caches might be anywhere between 528ft/161m and 1056ft/322m from their neighbors, depending on where different people wanted to hide caches; NRT caches are pretty much 528ft/161m apart
  
• PT caches are often along hiking/cycling trails; NRT caches are always along highways because driving from cache to cache increases your find rate
  

 

A series is different. A given power trail might include one or more caches from a series, but the series caches won't dominate the trail. Most of the series that I'm familiar with share a common theme, for example, common hides with a twist, or parks managed by a single parks district or open space district (one cache per park), or puzzle caches that are part of an annual puzzle challenge.

 

You could have a series along a power trail, which would create something in between a power trail and a numbers run trail. The example earlier in this thread was like that: the series dominated the trail, even if the caches weren't identical or tightly packed at 528ft/161m.

[Mr.Yuck]

Now you're just making up terms to win the argument. Instead of inventing a new term, "number trail", why not use the accepted term, "power trail", and stop pretending that "power trail" is a synonym for "series".

The term "power trail" was in use long before the modern numbers run trails (like the ET Highway trail) existed.

 

The term "power trail" has always referred to a trail with multiple caches attractive to those who want to build up their numbers.

 

It is true that in the old days nobody could imagine a power trail with 1000 caches, but the intent was the same.

 

The term "power trail" was once upon a time a derogatory term, applied to the line that once appeared in the guidelines (paraphrasing) "don't hide a cache every 600 feet just because you can". Back in the day, I'd seen further caches along the Bruce Trail in Ontario, and by a little old lady hiding parking lot micros in Greater Youngstown, Ohio, rejected under that premise. But then the floodgates were opened.

[cezanne]

Fact - a thing that is indisputably the case

 

Geocaching has changed and I think anyone can make the claim that is indeed a fact, although the type of change is variable and perhaps harder to pin down than most would think.

 

"Changed for the worse" is NOT a statement that is factual but is instead an opinion you believe to be true, but it is NOT indisputably the case. If it were a fact, you'd find general agreement on these forums and this thread would be only about 5 comments long instead of 4 pages long and it would look like this - "+1".

 

It seems that you overlooked the stress on "for me" in "changed for the worse", but maybe my English is too bad.

I never intended to say "I believe that geocaching changed to the worse", but only that given my own preferences and my personal situation (including that I did not move in all these years) the changes that geocaching has undergone have negative effects on my personal enjoyment.

 

As my geocaching preferences do not match with those of the majority and I know myself many cachers for whom I believe that geocaching has changed to the better, why should this thread look in the claimed way? This forum rather has a bias in the sense that more old-timers are active here than corresponds their proportion in the geocaching community.

 

Yes, it would be great if ALL caches met everyone's idea of what a geocache is supposed to be, but that's not going to happen.

 

That is very far from what I'm hoping for. If I can find an enjoyable cache that keeps me physically active for a few hours (maybe together with less enjoyable ones) in my home area every second week that would already fine.

Right now I mainly enjoy geocaching relatively far from my home.

 

That's one of the things that I find most enjoyable about this hobby - the variety. In 7 days I can completely run the gamut of caching and experience something new each day. I can follow some written instructions to find a cache with a stamp (letterbox) on one day, use my phone to do a tour (Wherigo) the next day, see a neat point of interest the next day (virtual), be challenged by a multi step tour (multi) of an area the next day, hike 2 miles to find an ammo can (traditional) the next day, use my brain to solve a puzzle (unknown) to find a cache the next day, and learn an earth-science lesson (Earth Cache) the last day. 7 days, 7 different types of experiences in one week, and I didn't even include the social aspect of an event. Why should geocaching be limited to only one type of experience for everybody? By limiting the experiences to only one type of cache (which is fine if that's the way a person chooses to geocache), I believe it limits some of the experiences that make this hobby so fun for me.

 

Maybe I created the wrong impression when I wrote about my preference for multi caches. I do not exclude other cache types and when you look in my profile you will realize that I do not exclude mysteries. The key point for me is that the reason why I'm into geocaching is to be physically active. If there is an interesting cache once in a while which does not involve physical activity of the appropriate intensity, this is not an issue, but it is an issue if it becomes the standard case.

 

If a letterbox, an Earthcache or a traditional makes me go for a nice and not too short hike, they are as welcome as a multi cache that does serve the same purpose. I cannot do Wherigos except someone comes along with me as my GPS-receiver cannot deal with them and I own no appropriate phone either. There are however only very few Whereigos that invite for a walk in my area anyway.

 

It is true that I usually do not enjoy caches of the type

cache AB #1, .... cache AB #x. I do not object at all against there existence because I do know that others go for a hike of a certain length only if there enough caches on the hike, but I prefer a different experience that I cannot even get by selecting a few of those cache AB #y caches.

 

I do not have unrealistic wishes. I know that the changes are irreversible and that geocaching will evolve further throughout the next years. I would just wish that in among the newly hidden caches in my province there would be a few more hiking multi caches. I tried to hide a cache of the type of which I would like more to be hidden this year and asked others to join the effort, but with no success.

 

In some areas of my province multi caches are almost non-existent (except some urban ones and night caches) and the cache AB #1 to cache AB #x situation dominates everything else. That's good for those who specifically seek out such caches. I know many cachers who drive long distances to visit such power trails/series while they ignore caches much closer to them where only 1-2 caches can be found on a long hike.

But the situation is bad for me.

 

I cannot move to another location. I certainly could quit geocaching, but first I would need to find something that at least keeps my physical activity at the same level and I have not yet succeeded in that.

Edited July 13, 2014 by cezanne

[cezanne]

So what did the historical term "power trail" and how is it different than "numbers trail"? Is it different than "series", or is it a synonym?

 

I think part of the problem is that power trail does not mean the same to everyone and there exist also regional differences. What has been rejected as power trail in region A in a certain year, has not not necessarily been rejected as power trail in region B in the same year. As The Lep.... wrote in this thread this has also been one of the major reasons why the formulation of the guidelines has changed.

 

Every two cachers you might ask might come up with at least a slightly different answer to the question above. If you ask one of my fellow Austrian geocachers who started out early, they will regard a set of caches cache AB #1 to cache AB #10 along a hiking trail as a power trail which should have set up as multi cache. Some only log a find for the final cache which often is a mystery that can only be found after all the other caches before and notes for all the other ones and comment that this should be a multi cache and that they do not log stages. For most (not all) newer Austrian cachers

(in particular ones who have never experienced the years in which caches haven been rejected due to the power trail argument) cache AB #1 to cache AB #10 is just a series or what they call "Cacherunde" (runde means round).

 

I a new number trail along roads shows up, I do not care that much. Such caches have a completely different target audience and I would not go for a multi cache along such routes either. It hurts me however that in some areas whenever new caches show up on hiking trails that are within my reach (from the physical point of view) they are almost always of the type cache AB #1 ..... cache AB #x and they are treated by almost all finders (any very often also the cache owners) as being one cache which increases the find count by x. Statements in the log for cache #x of the type "Thank you for this nice cache trail. I was here with A, B, C and D and we enjoyed ourselves. We found all caches, some very quickly and for some we searched for a quite a while. For some caches the coordinates are off. For the effort of hiding all these caches, we award a FP to this cache" are not very useful for me. So for which caches the coordinates are off? Are the T-ratings ok? (Very often all caches of the trail have the same rating) etc

[+Roman!]

We have a 200 cache trail here that involves some tough biking and a bit of tough hiking, I would not consider this a PT, I would not use the three cache monte on this trail and I would not replace a cache I could not find, in fact I logged DNFs on some of the caches.

 

I did a 130 cache bike trail, same thing, no moving or leaving caches, logged 2 DNFs.

 

Then you have Route 66 where leaving a replacement and three cache monte are accepted strategies.

 

In both cases it was my judgement call how to treat the series.

 

Maybe the PT attribute would not only make it easier to filter out theses caches for those that don't want to do them, more importantly it would allow a CO to dictate how they want their trail to be treated.

Edited July 13, 2014 by Roman!

[cezanne]

We have a 200 cache trail here that involves some tough biking and a bit of tough hiking, I would not consider this a PT, I would not use the three cache monte on this trail and I would not replace a cache I could not find, in fact I logged DNFs on some of the caches.

 

I did a 130 cache bike trail, same thing, no moving or leaving caches, logged 2 DNFs.

 

Then you have Route 66 where leaving a replacement and three cache monte are accepted strategies.

 

In both cases it was my judgement call how to treat the series.

 

Maybe the PT attribute would not only make it easier to filter out theses caches for those that don't want to do them, more importantly it would allow a CO to dictate how they want their trail to be treated.

 

Your post made me wonder whether the concept someone has about a power trail also depends on local logging habits.

I noticed that I'm in the minority in my area and that the majority thinks that it is better to leave a replacement if one does not find one or more caches along a trail than to log DNF and that the replacement also helps the cache owner. Among those who do not leave a replacement many ask for log permission or log finds right away and do not even wait for the cache owner's response.

 

The unfortunate thing is that sometimes one cannot even tell from the logs which caches have been replaced or where not there because only the summary log says that those caches that have not been there have been replaced, but it is not mentioned which ones.

[Mr.Yuck]

I totally disagree with this distinction between Power Trails, and Numbers trails, or whatever that is going on around here, even from people who were around before The Frog loosened the guidelines. Plain and simple, if it wouldn't be allowed when the guidelines said "Please don't hide a cache every 600 feet just because you can" then it's a Power trail. I don't care if every single one of them is 50 feet up a Pine tree, your rejecting reviewer in 2009 would have told you it was a Power Trail.

[+L0ne.R]

1405247207[/url]' post='5401833']

I totally disagree with this distinction between Power Trails, and Numbers trails, or whatever that is going on around here, even from people who were around before The Frog loosened the guidelines. Plain and simple, if it wouldn't be allowed when the guidelines said "Please don't hide a cache every 600 feet just because you can" then it's a Power trail. I don't care if every single one of them is 50 feet up a Pine tree, your rejecting reviewer in 2009 would have told you it was a Power Trail.

 

+1. Exactly. I don't understand why people are splitting hairs.

Before the flood gates were open, at least in southern Ontario, we didn't have power trails. I don't recall anyone getting past the rule by cheating either, ie using multiple accounts to saturate a trail or road.

[Mr.Yuck]

1405247207[/url]' post='5401833']

I totally disagree with this distinction between Power Trails, and Numbers trails, or whatever that is going on around here, even from people who were around before The Frog loosened the guidelines. Plain and simple, if it wouldn't be allowed when the guidelines said "Please don't hide a cache every 600 feet just because you can" then it's a Power trail. I don't care if every single one of them is 50 feet up a Pine tree, your rejecting reviewer in 2009 would have told you it was a Power Trail.

 

+1. Exactly. I don't understand why people are splitting hairs.

Before the flood gates were open, at least in southern Ontario, we didn't have power trails. I don't recall anyone getting past the rule by cheating either, ie using multiple accounts to saturate a trail or road.

 

Actually, now that I think of it, in my example if they were all 50 feet up Pine Tree's, they would be identically hidden. But you get the point. I've done a whopping 3 power trails, all rails to trails types. The first one was actually shortly after the floodgates were opened, sorta up in The Lone R's area (near Brantford, Ontario). It was 95% small or regular, and included a variety of hides. There was one (maybe two) tree climbers, and one hoisted up in a tree with a pulley system. It was still a power trail (my opinion). Only complaint, a lot of cheap non waterproof containers, such as metal coffee cans.