Geocaching has changed

[+J Grouchy]

 

Geocaching may have changed, but don't forget so can you.

 

So essentially you're saying that if some people think that game has changed for the worse that we should lower our standards.

 

No...I'd argue your premise is incorrect. I'm saying one shouldn't expect caching to always be that long hike in the forest to an ammo can. Why is that a higher standard than a micro hidden near a cool sculpture garden you never knew about two miles from your house? That ammo can will always be there and one can stubbornly refuse to do any other kind of caching, or you can, you know, expand your horizons a bit.

[+TriciaG]

*Retrieving my oar. On second thought, there's no sense sticking it in.*

Edited July 25, 2014 by TriciaG

[+narcissa]

There are three big things that I think would help alleviate some of the issues that I am seeing:

 

1. For the love of geocaching, please add a power trail attribute. There needn't be some lengthy argument about what is or isn't a power trail. Like all other attributes, it's up to the cache owner to decide. It won't be perfect, but it will help.

 

2. It is time to acknowledge that the intro app is a huge issue for urban cache owners. Do something. Let us exclude our caches from the intro app. Make these users confirm a phone number, an email. Something. Do something. And make it so that "Found it" isn't the default log!

 

3. For cache placements, add one extra field that asks the cache owner to list the permission contact, or the reason explicit permission isn't needed. Reviewers don't even need to check on this - it can just be recorded in case an issue comes up.

 

We can all get along. There is room on this planet for all sorts of variations of geocaching. Groundspeak needs to take some initiative to fix the growing pains instead of coming up with philosophical justifications for its failures.

[+Semper Questio]

There are three big things that I think would help alleviate some of the issues that I am seeing:

 

1. For the love of geocaching, please add a power trail attribute. There needn't be some lengthy argument about what is or isn't a power trail. Like all other attributes, it's up to the cache owner to decide. It won't be perfect, but it will help.

 

2. It is time to acknowledge that the intro app is a huge issue for urban cache owners. Do something. Let us exclude our caches from the intro app. Make these users confirm a phone number, an email. Something. Do something. And make it so that "Found it" isn't the default log!

 

3. For cache placements, add one extra field that asks the cache owner to list the permission contact, or the reason explicit permission isn't needed. Reviewers don't even need to check on this - it can just be recorded in case an issue comes up.

 

We can all get along. There is room on this planet for all sorts of variations of geocaching. Groundspeak needs to take some initiative to fix the growing pains instead of coming up with philosophical justifications for its failures.

 

And please, PLEASE REQUIRE email verification for ALL members!

[+The Jester]

I would rather have a pastime with a revolving door of adherents - those who leave because things change, those who come because things are new, and those who stick around because it's still good for them - than a stagnant pastime that does not embrace new ideas, technologies, concepts, and personalities (let alone having to adjust to ever-changing laws and regulations that differ the world over)

 

It's fine that you have that preference, but does everyone need to share it?

No more than everyone need share your preference of complaining loud and long about how geocaching doesn't fit you anymore. Me, I prefer a positive outlook on this very new, still changing sport/game.

[+The Jester]

We are new to caching. We have only just started. The reason we started is very simple. My wife had a stroke several years ago. She is paralyzed on her left side. She can walk a few steps but is generally confined to a wheel chair. Before the stroke we were active and enjoyed outdoor activities together. We are continually looking for outdoor activities that we can enjoy together today. We can't take the long walk in the woods along a trail along rough terrain and hard to find caches. But we can enjoy the game just by finding a cache under a light post skirt. My wife can wheel her self up to that light post or guard rail and be just as satisfied as someone who has hiked down a difficult trail. So please think about my wife and other handicap people for a moment. They just want to enjoy the same fun of outdoor activities as everyone else. Walk or "wheel" a mile in their shoes and realize there is room for all people to enjoy this activity.

Thank you for the reminder that not all people have the same capabilities, but can still enjoy this sport/game.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Geocaching may have changed, but don't forget so can you.

 

So essentially you're saying that if some people think that game has changed for the worse that we should lower our standards.

 

No...I'd argue your premise is incorrect. I'm saying one shouldn't expect caching to always be that long hike in the forest to an ammo can. Why is that a higher standard than a micro hidden near a cool sculpture garden you never knew about two miles from your house? That ammo can will always be there and one can stubbornly refuse to do any other kind of caching, or you can, you know, expand your horizons a bit.

 

My premise doesn't compare finding ammo cans after a long hike to finding a micro hidden near a cool sculpture garden. My premise has nothing to do with the size of the cache. It's more a comparison of caches placed for the purpose of bringing others to an interesting place (which could be a cool sculpture garden or a nice view along a hiking trail), or demonstrating a innovative hiding technique, to caches that seem to be placed only because there wasn't already a cache in that location or a series of caches placed for those seeking high find counts. What you describe as "expanding your horizons" I call "lowering your standards".

Edited July 25, 2014 by NYPaddleCacher

[+L0ne.R]

My wife can wheel her self up to that light post or guard rail and be just as satisfied as someone who has hiked down a difficult trail. So please think about my wife and other handicap people for a moment. They just want to enjoy the same fun of outdoor activities as everyone else. Walk or "wheel" a mile in their shoes and realize there is room for all people to enjoy this activity.

 

I agree that we should be inclusive of cachers that have physical disabilities. But we should raise the bar and not relegate mobility-impaired cachers to parking lots and roadways.

 

For a few months of my caching history I was on crutches and an air cast, then air cast, then ankle brace, so I have some experience with what it's like to have trouble finding good low terrain caches. My experience was that there was a lot of parking lot and guardrail caches but not enough pleasant location caches. Like caches along and near a paved park trail.

 

Edited July 25, 2014 by L0ne.R

[+thebruce0]

My wife can wheel her self up to that light post or guard rail and be just as satisfied as someone who has hiked down a difficult trail. So please think about my wife and other handicap people for a moment. They just want to enjoy the same fun of outdoor activities as everyone else. Walk or "wheel" a mile in their shoes and realize there is room for all people to enjoy this activity.

 

I agree that we should be inclusive of cachers that have physical disabilities. But we should raise the bar and not relegate mobility-impaired cachers to parking lots and roadways.

 

For a few months of my caching history I was on crutches and an air cast, then air cast, then ankle brace, so I have some experience with what it's like to have trouble finding good low terrain caches. My experience was that there was a lot of parking lot and guardrail caches but not enough pleasant location caches. Like caches along and near a paved park trail.

What if they don't want to? What if they're perfectly happy with parking lots and roadways?

You're attempting to relegate a preference, and that's precisely the problem, and why there are so many complaints about allofthethings.

People cache how they want - sometimes for good reason, and sometimes not. But "raising the bar" should mean encouraging and providing the option to do something more, not forcing it, if the alternative is not universally harmful (ie disrespect for nature and property). And that's precisely the flexibility that geocaching currently offers.

"Quality" is 100% subjective.

Edited July 25, 2014 by thebruce0

[Mr.Yuck]

My wife can wheel her self up to that light post or guard rail and be just as satisfied as someone who has hiked down a difficult trail. So please think about my wife and other handicap people for a moment. They just want to enjoy the same fun of outdoor activities as everyone else. Walk or "wheel" a mile in their shoes and realize there is room for all people to enjoy this activity.

 

I agree that we should be inclusive of cachers that have physical disabilities. But we should raise the bar and not relegate mobility-impaired cachers to parking lots and roadways.

 

For a few months of my caching history I was on crutches and an air cast, then air cast, then ankle brace, so I have some experience with what it's like to have trouble finding good low terrain caches. My experience was that there was a lot of parking lot and guardrail caches but not enough pleasant location caches. Like caches along and near a paved park trail.

What if they don't want to? What if they're perfectly happy with parking lots and roadways?

You're attempting to relegate a preference, and that's precisely the problem, and why there are so many complaints about allofthethings.

People cache how they want - sometimes for good reason, and sometimes not. But "raising the bar" should mean encouraging and providing the option to do something more, not forcing it, if the alternative is not universally harmful (ie disrespect for nature and property). And that's precisely the flexibility that geocaching currently offers.

"Quality" is 100% subjective.

 

Yes, but we have the trump card that the cache under the lampskirt in the parking lot is on private property without permission, in violation of the guidelines, but published anyways.

[+MisterE250]

That's very cleaver of you.

 

Just picking on your mispellings.

 

I generally like to put out Ammo Cans myself still, I have four out in the wild currently, the others are slightly better than the average micro's as I live near an urban area. Yes, those are in the woods or near the wood lines.

 

I enjoy these better myself as they get you to somewhere unique.. It always agitates me when someone hides a micro where there's a great spot for a small or larger just a few feet away..

 

Or when people post a cache as a regular when it's a small or even smaller or hide a nano and state it's a small.. *sigh*.

 

We have been geocaching for 10 years. When we started, a Geocache was an ammo can with nice trade items. They usually required a hike to get to them. Jeep used to be a sponsor and gave out Jeep Travel Bugs that were prize finds. (These have all but disappeared since people kept them.) There were some very cleaver hides and puzzles to solve and themes for the trade items. Caches were placed in interesting containers. Multi stage caches were placed. People thought about where they wanted to place a cache and prepared it in advance. Micros, usually 35mm film canisters for log only caches were beginning. Nanos did not exist. Cachers put at least their home location in their profiles. It was FUN. Now Geocaching is a big business selling everything from Premium Memberships to Geocaching Pencils. It's now all about the numbers - How many finds you have. How many caches you hid. The caches big enough to hold something usually have junk or worse, trash. I can't write small enough to sign some of the logs in the micros or nanos. Now a cache is often a blank piece of paper in an old pill bottle under a light pole skirt in a parking lot. And you needed a GPS to find them, not just your everyday smart phone. I don't expect it will ever go back to the old days but maybe, some geocachers will put some thought into a new cache instead of just putting a piece of paper in a guardrail along the road. (If you do the latter, at least put it in a place that has a nice view and is safe to get to.)

[+L0ne.R]

My wife can wheel her self up to that light post or guard rail and be just as satisfied as someone who has hiked down a difficult trail. So please think about my wife and other handicap people for a moment. They just want to enjoy the same fun of outdoor activities as everyone else. Walk or "wheel" a mile in their shoes and realize there is room for all people to enjoy this activity.

 

I agree that we should be inclusive of cachers that have physical disabilities. But we should raise the bar and not relegate mobility-impaired cachers to parking lots and roadways.

 

For a few months of my caching history I was on crutches and an air cast, then air cast, then ankle brace, so I have some experience with what it's like to have trouble finding good low terrain caches. My experience was that there was a lot of parking lot and guardrail caches but not enough pleasant location caches. Like caches along and near a paved park trail.

What if they don't want to? What if they're perfectly happy with parking lots and roadways?

 

 

That's fine, but I don't think that there's a lack of parking lot and guardrail caches out there. When thinking about handicap people (like I was for a few months), I do hope people will also consider that there are more paved, flat terrain locations then roads and parking lots. That's one thing that has changed from the early 2000s. If you are mobility-restricted and like caching in parking lots there's a lot of caches out there for you now.

[+tozainamboku]

Geocaching may have changed, but don't forget so can you.

 

So essentially you're saying that if some people think that game has changed for the worse that we should lower our standards.

 

No...I'd argue your premise is incorrect. I'm saying one shouldn't expect caching to always be that long hike in the forest to an ammo can. Why is that a higher standard than a micro hidden near a cool sculpture garden you never knew about two miles from your house? That ammo can will always be there and one can stubbornly refuse to do any other kind of caching, or you can, you know, expand your horizons a bit.

 

My premise doesn't compare finding ammo cans after a long hike to finding a micro hidden near a cool sculpture garden. My premise has nothing to do with the size of the cache. It's more a comparison of caches placed for the purpose of bringing others to an interesting place (which could be a cool sculpture garden or a nice view along a hiking trail), or demonstrating a innovative hiding technique, to caches that seem to be placed only because there wasn't already a cache in that location or a series of caches placed for those seeking high find counts. What you describe as "expanding your horizons" I call "lowering your standards".

Geocaching is primarily about finding caches. While many people who are simply looking for caches are happily surprised by caches that are in interesting places or that demonstrate some particular creativity by the cache hider, some people have decided that going to interesing places or being entertained by a creative onwer is the only reason for geocaching. To some, just the fact that there are any caches that fail to meet some personal criteria for being in a interesting place or demonstrating creativity is a sign that geocaching has changed for the worse.

 

Nobody is asking anyone to lower their personal standards and look for every cache that is hidden. What you need to do is to take advantage of the tools that exist to increase the chances that the caches you hunt meet your personal standards. No system is perfect. You may not be able to eliminate every cache you find "lame", and you worry about missing some particularly worthy cache. But with a little effort you can certainly improve your experience and continue to find the kind of caches you like.

 

There may be additional things Groundspeak can do to help people select the kinds of caches they like to find. I'm not certain that a power trail attribute is necessary; I can look at the Geocaching.com maps and tell what is a power trail. Similarly, with the satellite image it's generally easy to tell what's in a parking lot and what's in the woods. (Though I once went looking for a cache in the woods and found the satellite image was old and there was a new big box store there - but as I said no system will be perfect).

[+narcissa]

I'm not certain that a power trail attribute is necessary; I can look at the Geocaching.com maps and tell what is a power trail. Similarly, with the satellite image it's generally easy to tell what's in a parking lot and what's in the woods.

 

I don't hand-pick each cache and would like an attribute for pocket queries so they can cover a wider area. My biggest issue with power trails is that when I run a pocket query and it overlaps a power trail with 100+ caches, that's a lot of mileage I'm not covering with the query. I'm not going to find those caches, and it would be nice to be able to filter them out without using GSAK.

[+narcissa]

I'm not certain that a power trail attribute is necessary; I can look at the Geocaching.com maps and tell what is a power trail. Similarly, with the satellite image it's generally easy to tell what's in a parking lot and what's in the woods.

 

I don't hand-pick each cache and would like an attribute for pocket queries so they can cover a wider area. My biggest issue with power trails is that when I run a pocket query and it overlaps a power trail with 100+ caches, that's a lot of mileage I'm not covering with the query. I'm not going to find those caches, and it would be nice to be able to filter them out without using GSAK.

 

Also, when someone else's geocache ends up in the middle of a power trail, this attribute would help me see that there's one there worth looking for.

[+thebruce0]

Yes, but we have the trump card that the cache under the lampskirt in the parking lot is on private property without permission, in violation of the guidelines, but published anyways.

Actually no. They'll publish caches on parking lots knowingly. But they will quickly disable/archive any. Because the owner implies they have permission, and the reviewers make the exception for publicly accessible private land (to the degree of parking lots). They treat parkades differently - if they know a cache is within the parkade building, even though publicly accessible, there are other potential issues at hand; they will (generally, when known) not publish parkade caches, while they will publish parking lot caches.

[Mr.Yuck]

Yes, but we have the trump card that the cache under the lampskirt in the parking lot is on private property without permission, in violation of the guidelines, but published anyways.

Actually no. They'll publish caches on parking lots knowingly. But they will quickly disable/archive any. Because the owner implies they have permission, and the reviewers make the exception for publicly accessible private land (to the degree of parking lots). They treat parkades differently - if they know a cache is within the parkade building, even though publicly accessible, there are other potential issues at hand; they will (generally, when known) not publish parkade caches, while they will publish parking lot caches.

 

You're lucky I live 5 miles from Canada, because no one else besides me in America knows what a Parkade is.

[cezanne]

They treat parkades differently - if they know a cache is within the parkade building, even though publicly accessible, there are other potential issues at hand; they will (generally, when known) not publish parkade caches

 

Not true in the countries I have cached so far.

[cezanne]

I would rather have a pastime with a revolving door of adherents - those who leave because things change, those who come because things are new, and those who stick around because it's still good for them - than a stagnant pastime that does not embrace new ideas, technologies, concepts, and personalities (let alone having to adjust to ever-changing laws and regulations that differ the world over)

 

It's fine that you have that preference, but does everyone need to share it?

No more than everyone need share your preference of complaining loud and long about how geocaching doesn't fit you anymore. Me, I prefer a positive outlook on this very new, still changing sport/game.

 

I asked my question for a certain reason. When following this thread and similar ones, it appears to me that some think that everyone needs to welcome changes and he/she does not it is called complaining.

[+Semper Questio]

Yes, but we have the trump card that the cache under the lampskirt in the parking lot is on private property without permission, in violation of the guidelines, but published anyways.

Actually no. They'll publish caches on parking lots knowingly. But they will quickly disable/archive any. Because the owner implies they have permission, and the reviewers make the exception for publicly accessible private land (to the degree of parking lots). They treat parkades differently - if they know a cache is within the parkade building, even though publicly accessible, there are other potential issues at hand; they will (generally, when known) not publish parkade caches, while they will publish parking lot caches.

 

You're lucky I live 5 miles from Canada, because no one else besides me in America knows what a Parkade is.

 

Parkade? New one to me!

[+thebruce0]

They treat parkades differently - if they know a cache is within the parkade building, even though publicly accessible, there are other potential issues at hand; they will (generally, when known) not publish parkade caches

Not true in the countries I have cached so far.

No precedents.

Reviewers will not publish caches in parking garages.

If a reviewer does, oh well. They're lucky. But the fact that there are reviewers that say they will not typically means it's a rule they do or should go by.

But reviewer judgement calls is a whole different topic for a different thread.

[+The Jester]

There may be additional things Groundspeak can do to help people select the kinds of caches they like to find. I'm not certain that a power trail attribute is necessary; I can look at the Geocaching.com maps and tell what is a power trail. Similarly, with the satellite image it's generally easy to tell what's in a parking lot and what's in the woods. (Though I once went looking for a cache in the woods and found the satellite image was old and there was a new big box store there - but as I said no system will be perfect).

Going by the maps, it's hard to pick XKD-380 out of the ET powertrail. If you just looked at the maps, the whole area would be 'discarded' as a powertrail making you miss one of the oldies in the area. So a attribute would be very helpful.

[cezanne]

Reviewers will not publish caches in parking garages.

 

I have not heard about a single one that has been rejected and I encounter new ones regularly. I rather think that it depends on the area and country how the reviewers act.

[Mr.Yuck]

Reviewers will not publish caches in parking garages.

 

I have not heard about a single one that has been rejected and I encounter new ones regularly. I rather think that it depends on the area and country how the reviewers act.

 

Just kidding, by the way, Bruce. And if you ever refer to electricity as Hydro (which means water), I'll let them know what you mean there too. I saw a parking garage cache published in my area within the last 2 years or so, although I believe it only lasted about a year. I do not believe they are universally rejected, and it could be an Ontario thing.

 

To your point some people may prefer a parking lot to a paved bike trail with handicap accessable parking? I suppose it's possible, although I couldn't imagine why. The bike trail is actually much safer. And 100X safer than a "roadside grab". Some guy has been going to town with rural roadside micros on 55 MPH roads a couple Counties over from me of late. I've street viewed several of them, and wouldn't be interested myself, and hope there is never an accident of any kind involving a Geocacher.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Geocaching may have changed, but don't forget so can you.

 

So essentially you're saying that if some people think that game has changed for the worse that we should lower our standards.

 

No...I'd argue your premise is incorrect. I'm saying one shouldn't expect caching to always be that long hike in the forest to an ammo can. Why is that a higher standard than a micro hidden near a cool sculpture garden you never knew about two miles from your house? That ammo can will always be there and one can stubbornly refuse to do any other kind of caching, or you can, you know, expand your horizons a bit.

 

My premise doesn't compare finding ammo cans after a long hike to finding a micro hidden near a cool sculpture garden. My premise has nothing to do with the size of the cache. It's more a comparison of caches placed for the purpose of bringing others to an interesting place (which could be a cool sculpture garden or a nice view along a hiking trail), or demonstrating a innovative hiding technique, to caches that seem to be placed only because there wasn't already a cache in that location or a series of caches placed for those seeking high find counts. What you describe as "expanding your horizons" I call "lowering your standards".

Geocaching is primarily about finding caches. While many people who are simply looking for caches are happily surprised by caches that are in interesting places or that demonstrate some particular creativity by the cache hider, some people have decided that going to interesing places or being entertained by a creative onwer is the only reason for geocaching. To some, just the fact that there are any caches that fail to meet some personal criteria for being in a interesting place or demonstrating creativity is a sign that geocaching has changed for the worse.

 

Did someone write that in this thread because, if so, I must have missed it. Maybe you could help me out and show me just one person that has claimed the every cache should meet ones personal criteria.

 

 

Nobody is asking anyone to lower their personal standards and look for every cache that is hidden.

 

 

If someone prefers quality over quantity, and they're told to expand your horizons by finding *more* caches that are hidden for the sole purpose of increasing finds counts, isn't that still asking someone to lower their standards?

 

What you need to do is to take advantage of the tools that exist to increase the chances that the caches you hunt meet your personal standards. No system is perfect. You may not be able to eliminate every cache you find "lame", and you worry about missing some particularly worthy cache.

 

The only way to eliminate every cache one might find lame (something that nobody has claimed a desire to do) would be to stop playing the game. Would it be too much to ask for a compromise?

 

 

But with a little effort you can certainly improve your experience and continue to find the kind of caches you like.

 

 

The point that you seem to be missing is that the percentage of the kinds of caches some prefer is not static. The state of the game is not static. Over the past 5 years, the percentage has become smaller and smaller. As a result, the so called "little effort" you claim exits now, is a lot more effort than was required five years ago, and the amount of effort is increasing. For some, and just from my own observations, the number seems to be increasing, the amount of effort required to discover the existence of the caches they want to find was become such a barrier that they're giving up the game.

 

Just recently I became aware of someone that had been playing the game for 10 years, and they finally became so fed up with the increasing trend for it to be all about the numbers, that they archived over 150 of their caches (they kept 4 earth caches they owned active). I've only been playing the game for 7 years but I've never seen as many long term players quitting or significantly cutting back on the game solely because of how the game has changed.

 

 

There may be additional things Groundspeak can do to help people select the kinds of caches they like to find. I'm not certain that a power trail attribute is necessary; I can look at the Geocaching.com maps and tell what is a power trail. Similarly, with the satellite image it's generally easy to tell what's in a parking lot and what's in the woods. (Though I once went looking for a cache in the woods and found the satellite image was old and there was a new big box store there - but as I said no system will be perfect).

 

How do you quantify necessary? I contend that you can't, and would rather Groundspeak considering things that would be "helpful" rather than wait until they're necessary. I'm not asking for perfect. I'm asking for improvement.

 

I can also look at the geocaching maps and tell what is a power trail, and identify shorter cache series which seem to exist solely for the purpose of increasing the find count of those that tackle the series (let's not quibble over the definitions of power trail, numbers trail, etc., OK?). I can see caches that do not appear to be part of a trail (caches that are in the middle of a heavily saturated area are harder to identify) but, using the maps, how can I filter out all those caches on power trails or part of a series from a pocket query. Are you suggesting that cherry picking caches by looking a cache page (clicking on the icon for every cache that does not appear to be part of a trail) is just a "little effort"?

 

For those are indiscriminate about the quality of caches they look for, all they need to do is click on the Save as a Pocket Query link, then perhaps filter the results for caches with a difficult of 2 or less (because, after all, searching for a cache which might take more than 15 minutes to find reduces the number of caches one can find in a day).

 

All I'm asking for is a compromise. Since the trend is for the creation of more and more caches I don't want to find, give me better tools that will help those enjoy a game based upon quality instead of quality. As a cache hider, how about compromising a little and having some consideration for those that might want to find a few caches in the park based on quality instead of quantity.

 

Is it too much to ask for a compromise?

 

 

Edited July 25, 2014 by NYPaddleCacher

[+emmett]

.

 

 

Just recently I became aware of someone that had been playing the game for 10 years, and they finally became so fed up with the increasing trend for it to be all about the numbers, that they archived over 150 of their caches (they kept 4 earth caches they owned active). I've only been playing the game for 7 years but I've never seen as many long term players quitting or significantly cutting back on the game solely because of how the game has changed.

 

 

This, in a nutshell, is the issue. Those who don't care about quality continually dismiss this point. They are happy with what seems like crap to us and don't understand what all the fuss is about from us old timers. They especially can't relate to those of us who were really invested in this once. (I had 75 active caches and more than 200 stages at one point.) A box of junk thrown indiscriminately in the woods or a micro in a parking lot is good enough for them.

 

In my area, I estimate there has not been so much as one cache placed within ten miles of me in the past two years that is compelling in any way. (I don't pay premium anymore so I cannot run a query to get hard data). There may be some OK caches but nothing of high caliber, nothing that has caused me to go look. This is a relatively new development.

 

In the early days, right up to 2011 or so, you could always count on something interesting coming out on a somewhat regular basis. Sure, they would be a small percentage of the total caches out there but there was a steady supply of interesting caches. Now, you have none of them, while the supply of crappy caches seems to have grown exponentially.

 

GC.com is solely responsible for this degradation of the game. They've decided there is no need to serve steak as long as so many people are satisfied with hamburg.

 

.

[+ArtieD]

GC.com is solely responsible for this degradation of the game. They've decided there is no need to serve steak as long as so many people are satisfied with hamburg.

 

GC.com is only a listing service. They are responsible for nothing.

 

As it stands, though, if a bunch of old-timers want to quit because they can't handle the game evolving, then let them. Good riddance. I am by no means new (01/06) but I have seen the change myself and it's not such a bad thing. People hide what people like. There's nothing wrong with that.

[+tozainamboku]

The point that you seem to be missing is that the percentage of the kinds of caches some prefer is not static. The state of the game is not static. Over the past 5 years, the percentage has become smaller and smaller. As a result, the so called "little effort" you claim exits now, is a lot more effort than was required five years ago, and the amount of effort is increasing. For some, and just from my own observations, the number seems to be increasing, the amount of effort required to discover the existence of the caches they want to find was become such a barrier that they're giving up the game.

 

Just recently I became aware of someone that had been playing the game for 10 years, and they finally became so fed up with the increasing trend for it to be all about the numbers, that they archived over 150 of their caches (they kept 4 earth caches they owned active). I've only been playing the game for 7 years but I've never seen as many long term players quitting or significantly cutting back on the game solely because of how the game has changed.

I never said the percentage of cache any one person likes is static. I've even posted earlier in this thread how the demographics of geocachers has changed over the years with new devices that can be used, and pointed out that that has certainly led to a change in the ratios of various styles of caches.

 

When I started 11 years ago, I already had to select where I wanted to search for caches. I seem to remember five or six years ago when NYPaddleCacher would complain about finding all the caches around Ithaca (at least all the ones you paddle to) and having to travel further to the find caches he liked. You may have seen greater changes in upstate New York in seven years than I have in southern California in 11. I can't deny that once there were few enough caches that you would look for every one, and that in most areas at that time the ratio favored the cache NYPaddleCacher liked.

 

There are all kinds of caches being placed and I still believe that is only takes a little effort to improve the ratio for the caches you actually spend time looking for. In fact I see new caches that you would call "quality" hidden all the time.

 

I admit that there could be more tools to help. I'm almost sorry I brought up the issue of a power-trail attribute. I just wanted to make a point that existing tool work well if you use them. I did say that no method is perfect. When someone makes a suggestion, the complainers seem to shoot it down because it isn't perfect and that they may miss some cache they otherwise would have liked. I have no sympathy for someone who refuses to do anything to improve their geocaching experience because they might miss a couple of "good" caches. When a doctor removes a tumor, he'll take out some healthy tissue as well. You sound like you'd rather avoid surgery and just complain that the tumor is getting bigger.

[+dprovan]

Those who don't care about quality continually dismiss this point.

I think those who think their evaluation of quality is the only one that matters are the ones that continually dismiss the point.

[+geodarts]

GC.com is only a listing service. They are responsible for nothing.

 

As it stands, though, if a bunch of old-timers want to quit because they can't handle the game evolving, then let them. Good riddance. I am by no means new (01/06) but I have seen the change myself and it's not such a bad thing. People hide what people like. There's nothing wrong with that.

 

Groundspeak is a little more than a listing service - their guidelines define the game (including the basic definition of a cache and what constitutes adequate permission) and their apps introduce people to the game ("one more for me"). Still, there is plenty of responsibility to go around.

 

When I first began caching I could count on the game introducing me to interesting locations or reminding me of why certain locations were worth visiting again. There was a sense of creativity associated with many of the caches - whether it be the containers, titles, descriptions, or location. Yes, there were some parking lot caches back then, although they were an exception and a few featured the most inventive containers I have ever seen.

 

But the core group of cachers that once were responsible for placing most of the hides have moved on to other things as the game changed. There are still a few of us, less than I can count on one hand, who remain active to some degree. But most of the new hides are in locations that I have no reason to visit by cachers who leave the game soon after they place a container that won't last much longer than their participation. Perhaps they liked the hides they placed, but I wonder how long they will like it.

 

I do not think that an old glue stick, placed sixty to eighty feet away from the listed coordinates, in a random location because "it's supposed to be hard" indicates the game is evolving. I cannot say "good riddance" to people who made the game what it was.

 

If I drive far enough, I can find caches placed along trails, lakes, or rivers - or roadside attractions - that remind me of why I started the game - but I once went out in search of caches. Now if a cache happens to be near where I am, I may or may not look for it.

 

Today, I stopped for a cache that was placed near my favorite abandoned building. I decided to revisit the area and contribute some photos with my log in case people wanted to see what the building looks like from the inside. I am glad I did, and I learned a couple of things from the excellent description. Then I saw another cache that, from its name, gave me hope that it would showcase public art. Instead it was just another parking lot near an art store in a shopping center. I kept on driving. That experience has become the norm. As a friend used to say, "TFTCC."

 

Perhaps some think the game is evolving. Perhaps some like such hides. But again, I am not going to say "good riddance" without thinking about why the game changed for them and for me.

Edited July 26, 2014 by geodarts

[+The Jester]

.

 

 

Just recently I became aware of someone that had been playing the game for 10 years, and they finally became so fed up with the increasing trend for it to be all about the numbers, that they archived over 150 of their caches (they kept 4 earth caches they owned active). I've only been playing the game for 7 years but I've never seen as many long term players quitting or significantly cutting back on the game solely because of how the game has changed.

 

 

This, in a nutshell, is the issue. Those who don't care about quality continually dismiss this point. They are happy with what seems like crap to us and don't understand what all the fuss is about from us old timers. They especially can't relate to those of us who were really invested in this once. (I had 75 active caches and more than 200 stages at one point.) A box of junk thrown indiscriminately in the woods or a micro in a parking lot is good enough for them.

 

In my area, I estimate there has not been so much as one cache placed within ten miles of me in the past two years that is compelling in any way. (I don't pay premium anymore so I cannot run a query to get hard data). There may be some OK caches but nothing of high caliber, nothing that has caused me to go look. This is a relatively new development.

 

In the early days, right up to 2011 or so, you could always count on something interesting coming out on a somewhat regular basis. Sure, they would be a small percentage of the total caches out there but there was a steady supply of interesting caches. Now, you have none of them, while the supply of crappy caches seems to have grown exponentially.

 

GC.com is solely responsible for this degradation of the game. They've decided there is no need to serve steak as long as so many people are satisfied with hamburg.

 

.

Let's see if I have this right. The best hiders were old-timers and they've dropped out so no 'good' caches are being hidden, only 'crap'. So GS should stop those from being hidden. But wouldn't that mean that no caches would be hidden at all? The crap hiders are stopped by GS, the good hiders have stopped themselves. Which BTW, doesn't help the game at all. Even you have cut back on quality caches ("I had 75 ..."). If you're not going to help keep 'good' caches going, or hide more, don't complain about the degradation of the cache hides.

 

On another subject, the "good old days" weren't all that great. I'v been around since early 2001 and the hides back then weren't all great locations, creative hides and such. Sure, they seemed so because it was all new back then. But many of those hides are the style now complained about as common and boring; or are against the current guidelines. Out of the first 20 I did, several would now be P&G's, some had 'bad' containers (even a plastic easter egg), and only two had any real hike to them.

[cezanne]

Which BTW, doesn't help the game at all. Even you have cut back on quality caches ("I had 75 ..."). If you're not going to help keep 'good' caches going, or hide more, don't complain about the degradation of the cache hides.

 

If the target audience for a certain type of cache dies out, it does not make too much sense to hide lots of such caches.

What you write certainly applies if it is only about good and bad caches.

For example, the new style in my area to replace multi caches with a series of at least 10 separate caches is not a question of

quality. It is a question of personal preferences. If those who prefer a single cache and log for the overall experience over many logs die out,

then it does not help that much to hide further caches of the type that appeal to mainly those who have already given up and quit geocaching.

Of course, one can try and I hid a cache of exactly the type I enjoy this year, but that does not change the fact that the cachers who are around

now have a different focus and that the few outdoor enthusiasists concentrate on high terrain mountain tours that are not reachable to me.

 

On another subject, the "good old days" weren't all that great. I'v been around since early 2001 and the hides back then weren't all great locations, creative hides and such. Sure, they seemed so because it was all new back then. But many of those hides are the style now complained about as common and boring; or are against the current guidelines. Out of the first 20 I did, several would now be P&G's, some had 'bad' containers (even a plastic easter egg), and only two had any real hike to them.

 

It depends on one's area. Among the caches I visited within the first two years, almost all involved a walk/hike and led to interesting locations or showed me a nice trail.

Creative hides were very rare back then (which I appreciated) as the idea of most hiders was to hide the caches such that they are easy to find for the eyes of geocachers once at GZ and hard to find only for muggles. I also encountered bad containers, but I did not care as I prefer a bad container at the end of an interesting hike to the best container hidden in the most creative way at a drive in location which offers no attraction to me.

[+Ambrosia]

.

 

 

Just recently I became aware of someone that had been playing the game for 10 years, and they finally became so fed up with the increasing trend for it to be all about the numbers, that they archived over 150 of their caches (they kept 4 earth caches they owned active). I've only been playing the game for 7 years but I've never seen as many long term players quitting or significantly cutting back on the game solely because of how the game has changed.

 

 

This, in a nutshell, is the issue. Those who don't care about quality continually dismiss this point. They are happy with what seems like crap to us and don't understand what all the fuss is about from us old timers. They especially can't relate to those of us who were really invested in this once. (I had 75 active caches and more than 200 stages at one point.) A box of junk thrown indiscriminately in the woods or a micro in a parking lot is good enough for them.

 

In my area, I estimate there has not been so much as one cache placed within ten miles of me in the past two years that is compelling in any way. (I don't pay premium anymore so I cannot run a query to get hard data). There may be some OK caches but nothing of high caliber, nothing that has caused me to go look. This is a relatively new development.

 

In the early days, right up to 2011 or so, you could always count on something interesting coming out on a somewhat regular basis. Sure, they would be a small percentage of the total caches out there but there was a steady supply of interesting caches. Now, you have none of them, while the supply of crappy caches seems to have grown exponentially.

 

GC.com is solely responsible for this degradation of the game. They've decided there is no need to serve steak as long as so many people are satisfied with hamburg.

 

.

Let's see if I have this right. The best hiders were old-timers and they've dropped out so no 'good' caches are being hidden, only 'crap'. So GS should stop those from being hidden. But wouldn't that mean that no caches would be hidden at all? The crap hiders are stopped by GS, the good hiders have stopped themselves. Which BTW, doesn't help the game at all. Even you have cut back on quality caches ("I had 75 ..."). If you're not going to help keep 'good' caches going, or hide more, don't complain about the degradation of the cache hides.

 

On another subject, the "good old days" weren't all that great. I'v been around since early 2001 and the hides back then weren't all great locations, creative hides and such. Sure, they seemed so because it was all new back then. But many of those hides are the style now complained about as common and boring; or are against the current guidelines. Out of the first 20 I did, several would now be P&G's, some had 'bad' containers (even a plastic easter egg), and only two had any real hike to them.

It is true that there were a fair amount of bad containers in the beginning. Or containers wrapped in garbage bags. If I knew how things would get later, I would have taken pictures of all the containers. Wow, that would have been an interesting montage, all the caches I've found over 12 years.

[Mr.Yuck]

GC.com is only a listing service. They are responsible for nothing.

 

As it stands, though, if a bunch of old-timers want to quit because they can't handle the game evolving, then let them. Good riddance. I am by no means new (01/06) but I have seen the change myself and it's not such a bad thing. People hide what people like. There's nothing wrong with that.

 

Groundspeak is a little more than a listing service - their guidelines define the game (including the basic definition of a cache and what constitutes adequate permission) and their apps introduce people to the game ("one more for me"). Still, there is plenty of responsibility to go around.

 

 

The company line is that they are only a listing service, but as Geodarts points out in just two sentences above, they are much more than that. They are the de facto world wide rulers of Geocaching for life, despite the existence of alternatives. One of which A&T was very familiar with, before they shut down his and everyone else's voice.

 

Who says us old-timers want to quit? I doubt few, if any, have ever done that because they didn't like the way the game evolved. And on top of that, (I'd never find the post, or who said it), but the general idea of the post was that us old-timers, complete with our old fangled GPS units connected to the computer, have always known how to plan an excursion and select the caches we like, and we can still do that.

[cezanne]

Who says us old-timers want to quit? I doubt few, if any, have ever done that because they didn't like the way the game evolved.

 

I know quite a number of old-timers who left and even more old-timers who decided to stop hiding caches and/or archived their existing caches because of the reason stated above.

[+Lieblweb]

We are new to caching. We have only just started. The reason we started is very simple. My wife had a stroke several years ago. She is paralyzed on her left side. She can walk a few steps but is generally confined to a wheel chair. Before the stroke we were active and enjoyed outdoor activities together. We are continually looking for outdoor activities that we can enjoy together today. We can't take the long walk in the woods along a trail along rough terrain and hard to find caches. But we can enjoy the game just by finding a cache under a light post skirt. My wife can wheel her self up to that light post or guard rail and be just as satisfied as someone who has hiked down a difficult trail. So please think about my wife and other handicap people for a moment. They just want to enjoy the same fun of outdoor activities as everyone else. Walk or "wheel" a mile in their shoes and realize there is room for all people to enjoy this activity.

 

For that reason - there needs to be A LOT MORE LPC and 1/1 caches for the disabled and/or those people who enjoy an easy find once in a while.

 

Geocaching gets people off the couch and out of the house! It's healthy to be active!

 

I love a long hike just as much as anyone, but I also love an LPC. It depends on my moods. My moods & how much time I have....dictates what types of caches I look for.

 

I get poison ivy badly - so - hiking and 'wooded area' geocaching involve a lot of prep work & packing for me (long pants & shirts, gloves, cleansing creams, taking my clothes off a certain way and washing my clothes twice, rubbing alcohol all over my car or else I'll re-infect myself a week later.....sprays, soaps, creams, prescrip creams...you name it). Believe it or not, around my area....even the urban caches can have a few Poison Ivy plants lingering..... But, I cache anyway.

 

Other days, I'm just not in the mood for all the prep work involved and/or I'm just having a bad day (headache, feeling sluggish, or whatever). On these days - I LOVE LPC caches & 1/1 caches. It still exposes us to areas of town that we never knew about and its still fully enjoyable no matter what type of caching you do.

 

So, I THANK YOU to the changes in geocachine and I accept them. I can geocache at my own pace, I can do it on my own schedule, I can adapt to my moods, I can do it by myself or in groups, I can pick where I go (they're EVERYWHERE!), and I can enjoy it how I want to enjoy it.

[Mr.Yuck]

We are new to caching. We have only just started. The reason we started is very simple. My wife had a stroke several years ago. She is paralyzed on her left side. She can walk a few steps but is generally confined to a wheel chair. Before the stroke we were active and enjoyed outdoor activities together. We are continually looking for outdoor activities that we can enjoy together today. We can't take the long walk in the woods along a trail along rough terrain and hard to find caches. But we can enjoy the game just by finding a cache under a light post skirt. My wife can wheel her self up to that light post or guard rail and be just as satisfied as someone who has hiked down a difficult trail. So please think about my wife and other handicap people for a moment. They just want to enjoy the same fun of outdoor activities as everyone else. Walk or "wheel" a mile in their shoes and realize there is room for all people to enjoy this activity.

 

For that reason - there needs to be A LOT MORE LPC and 1/1 caches for the disabled and/or those people who enjoy an easy find once in a while.

 

 

Wow. Just Wow. (I owed you that one).

[Mr.Yuck]

Who says us old-timers want to quit? I doubt few, if any, have ever done that because they didn't like the way the game evolved.

 

I know quite a number of old-timers who left and even more old-timers who decided to stop hiding caches and/or archived their existing caches because of the reason stated above.

 

OK, I guess I can say I know a few who stopped hiding and/or archived their existing caches over it. I personally don't know any who have completely quit finding though.

[+Dame Deco]

The funny thing is, all those parking lot and guardrail caches aren't blocking anything, are they? Why can't people just ignore them and go off into the woods if that's what they like? The game is evolving, better in some ways, maybe not as good in others, but change is just part of life. My very first cache was placed in a terrible place--I'd never hide a cache there now. The reason I don't archive it is because it is kind of a fun puzzle, I like the title, it's my first cache, and there is nowhere--and I mean NOWHERE--to put a better cache within more than .1 or more miles of it. It blocks nothing of interest, so I leave it up.

Edited July 26, 2014 by Dame Deco

[+cerberus1]

The funny thing is, all those parking lot and guardrail caches aren't blocking anything, are they? Why can't people just ignore them and go off into the woods if that's what they like?

We stopped attending quite a few events over that.

I have no problem passing caches on my way to the one that interested me.

Apparently some think you're a snob if you do so, like it's a pot-shot at them personally.

Mentioned at events made my other 2/3rds a bit uncomfortable.

[JASTA 11]

OK, I guess I can say I know a few who stopped hiding and/or archived their existing caches over it. I personally don't know any who have completely quit finding though.

 

We'd agree with you there.

 

The person who introduced us to geocaching quit the game altogether because of how things were changing. Also because a local geo-cop was giving him a hard time. He has recently returned to caching (after about four years) with his kid, but he'll never place another cache.

 

Another local cacher recently committed 'near-geocide'. Archived almost all of their caches due to a reviewer retracting a listing without any warning. From what I understand, the cache was along the border with a nearby state. Players were crossing private property to get the cache, so the CO moved it (less than .10 mile) across the border to the other state in order to keep folks from going across the private property. The reviewer from the state the cache was in originally retracted the listing. No temporary disable, no email contact, nothing according to the CO. They'll keep finding, but not hiding.

[+Dame Deco]

I'm thinking people are just a little too thin-skinned...

[+Dame Deco]

The funny thing is, all those parking lot and guardrail caches aren't blocking anything, are they? Why can't people just ignore them and go off into the woods if that's what they like?

We stopped attending quite a few events over that.

I have no problem passing caches on my way to the one that interested me.

Apparently some think you're a snob if you do so, like it's a pot-shot at them personally.

Mentioned at events made my other 2/3rds a bit uncomfortable.

 

Wow, I never imagined anyone would interpret it that way. So I'm a snob? Who knew? I see it purely as a matter of time--how much time do I have? If 3 caches I want are going to take the whole three hours I have free for the day, I'm not stopping for anything else along the way.

[+larryc43230]

If 3 caches I want are going to take the whole three hours I have free for the day, I'm not stopping for anything else along the way.

^ ^ ^ ^

 

This, absolutely. Although I might spot another cache on my radar that I should have put on my list and make a slight course correction.

 

I almost always plan ahead, and leave the house with at least a short list of caches I want to go for. If I was somehow obligated to stop and look for every cache, lame or not, that's near my route, I can guarantee you I would never have time to even start looking for the ones on my list. That's just silly.

 

I guess that, according to this logic, I'm a snob for planning ahead at all, I should simply go somewhere, anywhere, where there are caches and start knocking them off at random.

 

That's not gonna happen.

 

--Larry

[+DanOCan]

If I drive far enough, I can find caches placed along trails, lakes, or rivers - or roadside attractions - that remind me of why I started the game - but I once went out in search of caches. Now if a cache happens to be near where I am, I may or may not look for it.

That has been the biggest change in my ten years of caching. Caching used to be a hobby unto itself and I could count on it to show me interesting places and things. Now I need to find interesting things in other ways and then I'll see if there is a cache nearby. In the past, the cache would often tell me something about where I was or provide me some background. Now they more often than not have a generic description and little info.

 

Waymarking has become a bit of a replacement for me, but there are so many categories to ignore in order to find those that interest me. Not to mention the lack of PQs makes it hard to load the GPSr for a hunt.

[+larryc43230]

Come to think of it, maybe that's one major difference between "old style" and "new style" caching: With the former, you plan ahead and choose your targets. With the latter, you don't bother because any cache will do.

 

Also, with "new style" caching it's a matter of pride (and apparently necessity) to find every cache in any given area you happen to find yourself in.

 

--Larry

[+Mudfrog]

Come to think of it, maybe that's one major difference between "old style" and "new style" caching: With the former, you plan ahead and choose your targets. With the latter, you don't bother because any cache will do.

 

Also, with "new style" caching it's a matter of pride (and apparently necessity) to find every cache in any given area you happen to find yourself in.

 

--Larry

 

My thoughts are that most new cachers just don't know anything else. Geocaching with their phone is just another game for many of them. Just like any other phone game, the object is to find stuff and get points. In this case, the points are smilies. I doubt very many ever wonder if a cache is going to be creative or take them to a nice location.

 

Caching like this by itself is not a bad thing. But when it's done repeatedly by 90% of newer people, and these newer people put out the same kinds of caches they're coming across, then it causes the number of a certain type of hide to exceed just about all other types of caches that can be hidden. Again, most new players probably never realize that geocaching can be so much more.

 

Gc.com is a listing service but as others have said, they are much more than that. Their guidelines play a big part of what's hidden out in our world. Their philosphy concerning geocaching has changed quite a bit over the years. Power trails used to not be allowed at all but they're fine and dandy now. Quality over quantity, and think about why you want to bring a person to a spot, were things gc.com once advocated. Now they offer a free app which requires nothing more but for someone to download and play. No research like probably most everyone did 10 years ago,, just turn the app on, pick a cache, go find it, then use the app's default wording to log it. Gc.com definitely has a hand in determining the future of our hobby!

[+Ambrosia]

I guess I'm spoiled where I live. Most of the old timers are still active here, and really throughout our state. I don't know if it is something about being a Washingtonian, or being in the Mother Land (or is that Father Land? Signal Land? Frog Land?), but there are still a ton of cachers who still put out hiking/wilderness hides. I could never find them all in my life time.

 

I don't understand old timers quitting or not hiding caches anymore because of change - if they all stop hiding, then they are contributing to the "problem". I'm glad people around here haven't given up and are still actively hiding caches, so we can all find each other's hiking/nature caches. Sure - all of us hide in town caches as well. We like to be well-rounded!

[+tozainamboku]

My thoughts are that most new cachers just don't know anything else. Geocaching with their phone is just another game for many of them. Just like any other phone game, the object is to find stuff and get points. In this case, the points are smilies. I doubt very many ever wonder if a cache is going to be creative or take them to a nice location.

 

I keep seeing this claim that all the new cacher know of nothing but "for-the-numbers" caches and thus simply never even think about hiding something creative or selecting a location for some reason beside it being a place to hide a cache.

 

I have yet to see a location where this is true. Sure the "for-the-numbers" hides may greatly outnumber caches that are placed for other reasons, but the new cachers will eventually find some caches that are hidden in some creative way or they may find a cache brings them to a place they find interesting for some reason other than the cache (and might even post that had it not been for the cache there, they would have never visited).

 

There are still many cachers, including newbies who started using the Intro app, who are thinking about creative ways to hide a cache or wanting to place a cache to share an interesting location they know about. Occasionally they may find the location they want to use blocked because there are so many caches. And perhaps what they though was a clever method is one that experienced cachers would see as a classic method, or perhaps it is one that is not allowed by the guidelines (Some people have an idea that involves partially burying a cache). It is certainly harder to hide a clever cache or to find an interesting location that is available and where you can get permission. That may be why there are more for-the-numbers caches. But IMO there are more of all types of caches being placed than there were in the past (with the possible exception of a cezanne 15 part multi)

[+thebruce0]

I saw a parking garage cache published in my area within the last 2 years or so, although I believe it only lasted about a year. I do not believe they are universally rejected, and it could be an Ontario thing.

It's a bit of a sore spot for me. Suffice to say, at least in Ontario, unless explicit permission is granted, reviewers will not/should not knowingly allow parking garage caches. And yeah, I fully agree that laws in different regions may mean they could be published elsewhere. Nonetheless... why was the point brought up again?