Jump to content

Geocaching has changed


Followers 9

Recommended Posts

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. :lol:

 

I don't see it like this and i don't know if all reviewers would see like this either.

 

In my mind, a power trail is a series of caches placed in such a way as to let it's finders get them quickly. For example, a series along a road, same container, similarly hidden, and placed at comparable intervals. I've never heard the term "numbers trail" but it would seem to be the same thing as a power trail.

 

A series of caches, on the otherhand, could end up being a power trail depending on how they are placed. But i've run across a few series where accessing them was not as straight forward. For instance, caches placed along trail or a creek where it would be tough to rack up a high find count in a short time. Many of these also incorporate different hiding techniques between caches in the series. Allthough the caches in these series may be hidden around the 600 foot mark of each other, they just don't come across as being a power trail where quick numbers can be racked up.

Link to comment

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. :lol:

 

I don't see it like this and i don't know if all reviewers would see like this either.

 

In my mind, a power trail is a series of caches placed in such a way as to let it's finders get them quickly. For example, a series along a road, same container, similarly hidden, and placed at comparable intervals. I've never heard the term "numbers trail" but it would seem to be the same thing as a power trail.

 

A series of caches, on the otherhand, could end up being a power trail depending on how they are placed. But i've run across a few series where accessing them was not as straight forward. For instance, caches placed along trail or a creek where it would be tough to rack up a high find count in a short time. Many of these also incorporate different hiding techniques between caches in the series. Allthough the caches in these series may be hidden around the 600 foot mark of each other, they just don't come across as being a power trail where quick numbers can be racked up.

I kinda agree with the frog.

I confused series with pt caches for some time.

Now that every other roadside pill bottle is 1.5/1.5 in my area, I was using D/T as criteria.

Turned out I was missing out on long walks and some real hikes, mostly on game lands trails/old logging roads.

Now I use the map.

Still a few caches and terrain (for me) might be lower than I'd like, but requiring more than getting outta your car with pen in hand.

Link to comment
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.
What about the power trails that existed before Groundspeak loosened the guidelines? We were using the term "power trail" first.

 

You seem to agree that there is a difference between what existed before Groundspeak loosened the guidelines and the numbers run trails (like the ET Highway trail) that came afterwards. The term power trail was already being used for what existed before Groundspeak loosened the guidelines. Please use a different word for the new numbers run trails.

Link to comment

So much micro junk i filter them all out with pocket queries. i only go for power trails if they are along paced bike paths and im in the mood for it but its nice to have the option... some with thousands of hides are going overboard though. more power to em but i gotta filter them out.

Link to comment

This thread made me remember how much I dislike urban micros. And inspired me to go out in 100 degree heat today to hide four more small/regular caches in our area along a beautiful trail just outside the nearby wildlife refuge that has no caches on it. So, there you go. You've made a difference, people!

 

(A very small one, from which you won't benefit unless you come out to southwest Oklahoma in the next year, but still, a difference! Go you!)

Link to comment

Reread Mr.Yuck's post and notice the smiley

 

No, actually, I am totally friggin' serious here. Seriously. :o Although Mr.Yuck would take a 13 mile round trip bike ride in Brantford Ontario, or an 8 mile round trip bike ride in Ashtabula Ohio, he'd NEVER stop his vehicle every 528 feet in the Desert for film canisters.

 

They're all Power Trails. And when further caches were being rejected in saturated areas pre 2009 or 2010 or whenever it was that they decided to ignore "please don't place a cache every 600 feet just because you can", the reviewers told the offenders they couldn't place any more caches because it was a Power Trail. I doubt any reviewers will show up in this thread and verify this though, as they all rolled their eyes and left the thread by the end of page 1. :lol:

Link to comment

Reread Mr.Yuck's post and notice the smiley

 

No, actually, I am totally friggin' serious here. Seriously. :o Although Mr.Yuck would take a 13 mile round trip bike ride in Brantford Ontario, or an 8 mile round trip bike ride in Ashtabula Ohio, he'd NEVER stop his vehicle every 528 feet in the Desert for film canisters.

 

They're all Power Trails. And when further caches were being rejected in saturated areas pre 2009 or 2010 or whenever it was that they decided to ignore "please don't place a cache every 600 feet just because you can", the reviewers told the offenders they couldn't place any more caches because it was a Power Trail. I doubt any reviewers will show up in this thread and verify this though, as they all rolled their eyes and left the thread by the end of page 1. :lol:

What I deleted was pretty much what mudfrog and niraD wrote, that there were power trails before the change to guidelines that removed the "don't place a cache every 600 feet" phrase.

 

I don't believe the that change to the guidelines has anything to to with what is being discussed in this thread. Certainly some reviewers used the phrase to deny caches and the same reviewers may feel they have no choice but to publish now that the phrase has as been removed. Frankly, I wouldn't define power trail by guessing what a reviewer may not have published in the presence of a phrase in the guidelines but would publish after the phrase is removed. The truth is that the phrase didn't mean much. People would just place their caches every 601 feet or whatever distance their reviewer would allow, or several accounts would get together to hide a power trail, alternating caches so no one account had caches within 600 feet of each other.

Link to comment

 

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?

 

 

Well you did write

10 years and only 1,134 finds? You're not doing it enough!!

 

I assumed you would apply those sentiments to others with similar counts and since I have fewer finds over more years I figured you were including me as well.

Link to comment

You have 1069 finds in 13 years, that's 82 finds/year, that's under 7 finds/month, that's just over .22 finds/day, how can you be 8 time US geocacher of the year?

 

I'm not saying I'm better than you, heck, I'm not even American, but I'm sure someone is, why the arrogance?

Link to comment
You have 1069 finds in 13 years, that's 82 finds/year, that's under 7 finds/month, that's just over .22 finds/day, how can you be 8 time US geocacher of the year?
It's not about the numbers...

 

Right? ;)

 

I guess to the extreme, question unanswered.

Link to comment

This thread made me remember how much I dislike urban micros. And inspired me to go out in 100 degree heat today to hide four more small/regular caches in our area along a beautiful trail just outside the nearby wildlife refuge that has no caches on it. So, there you go. You've made a difference, people!

4 caches in one area by the same CO? Sounds like a power trail. At least, I haven't figured out why Cezanne wouldn't consider it a power trail and, hence, be unable to enjoy it.

 

Me, I'm happy with any caches you decide to place.

Link to comment

Ok, my long input after catching up on the entire thread (wow). tl;dr at the end.

 

This is a typical type of response lately. Someone starts a thread expressing dissatisfaction about some aspect and the game, and in response we get "this isn't a problem for me", implying that it's not a problem worthy of discussion.

On the flipside, when people chime in and say it's not a problem for them, the response tends to be "well it's a problem for me, so it's a problem for the whole game!"

 

It is worthy of a discussion, and prompts discussion, when neither side assumes it's a problem for far more than it actually is.

It's a problem for many, and not a problem for many. So, in which direction should game flow?

 

On series/powertrails taking up space:

 

"What? Why is this micro cache in forest placed here, when there's a far better spot 20m away where I would have placed it? This dumb cache is taking up valuable space!"

"Are you kidding? A lamp post cache in the parking lot when there's a park and trail not 100m from here with great hiding spot? Parking lot caches should be banned"

 

This argument about space being taken up appears everywhere, and usually when someone wants to place a cache nearby and can't because another cache (usually one they dislike) is too close. This is not new, and this is not unique to numbers or power trails.

 

On powertrail distance:

 

Regardless of this subjective powertrail minimum distance suggestion being removed, the "powertrail" will always exist as the smallest distance between caches. 0.1 miles? A powertrail is typically caches placed as close to 0.1 miles apart as possible. Increase it to 0.5 miles? A powertrail will be caches placed as close to 0.5 miles apart as possible. The powertrail will never go away. Nor will complaints that they exist. It is a concept, not a thing.

 

Preferred cache type analogy:

 

Power trails (or insert disliked cache styles here) are more akin to big-box franchise stores invading a small town and taking away business from the independent store owners and restaurants. Usually, the onslaught of disliked caches are due to the ease of placing and owning them (like an advantage that franchise stores have over independent single stores).

 

But now, it's more like the town locals growing up and opening these stores because the community wants cheaper and more accessible and more variety of product - at the expense of local business. If the community doesn't want it, the store will fail. If it does want it, the store will flourish, despite the loss of local business.

 

If the stores don't open, these newer generationers will likely move away, sometimes to more urbanized cities.

The small town will remain a small town with that mindset. Perhaps eventually die out if the newer gens are raised not exposed to external civilization.

 

A small town is fine if it wants to remain that way.

A growing town incorporating urbanization is fine if it wants to grow that way.

If it's the way the people want the town to grow, then -someone- will be unhappy, and they'll either accept change and grow with, or become the town grump always complaining about big business (which is thriving), or move out (and thus the town landscape changes over time).

 

Unfortunately in geocaching, there's only one town at the moment.

Groundspeak is not the mayor. Groundspeak is more like the governing body allowing the city to grow as it chooses within its provincial/state allowances. Because Groundspeak is the listing service, this town has no mayor.

 

I also mentioned that what makes geocaching worse for me, will make it better for others. So please be so kind and respect that preferences differ

Oh but cezanne, the respect is there. The majority of comments defending the current state of caching respect and understand that a variety of caching styles exist, and encourage you to cache how you like. On the other hand, there are those to decry the 'current' state, effectively not respecting the fact that there are caches and styles and individuals not of the ilk they prefer, often condemning (repeatedly) that ilk and advocating some means to reduce it - for their own enjoyment, typically at the expense of those who enjoy what they do not.

No one is calling for a removal or denial of old/classic/hiking/multi/lengthy/large/tradeable/etc geocaches often touted to be the cream of the crop, or 'old school'.

 

And if your only intent is to announce your dislike for what you don't like, then great - you've done that. Repeatedly. Over and over. Please just accept that constitutes 'complaining', which is not in and of itself a bad thing, except when it does nothing to improve, for yourself, and those like you, the hobby you enjoy. One might start to think you enjoy complaining.

 

So, "please be so kind and respect that preferences differ"

 

The issue is just that I can do that only a few times per year and I need to be physically more active all over the year.

Then find those caches you enjoy! Maybe even more than once! Or go out and be active without finding caches. You don't have to find caches to be physically active.

 

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.

What? Nothing interrupts your hike except what you let interrupt your hike. You do not have to search for 12 traditionals while you're on a hike.

If you want the hike, target the last traditional at the end of the trail/series, and skip the rest. Seriously. As you say: "In [sic] often have left caches unfound along my way." So do this more often. Or, all the time, if it annoys you so much - for your own good.

 

I do not have any intent to win. I wanted to explain my point of view.

You have. Repeatedly. And that's fine, you have your own view. But your repeated explaining is coming off like your view is the only right/valid view. That's what is being inferred, even if that's not what you mean. If someone explains an alternative view exists, you repeat yours as if to imply that it does not matter that someone else has a different view.

 

Your experiences are known, and respected (no one is saying you're wrong for having that view). But your way is one of many, many ways of enjoying geocaching (although admittedly a limited view, as you often state about your area), and certainly affected by region since your area is made up generally of different styles of hides. And you have a community which is demonstrating a preference towards different styles of hides to that which you prefer.

 

Please understand: your community is what has changed, not geocaching. Geocaching has allowed the increase of a style of a caching which you do not prefer. So change your community.

 

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.

That's unfortunate. So go hiking without finding caches you don't like. Or just find one on the trail you want to hike and leave the rest. Geocaching hasn't changed, your community has. And it's filling up with caches that your community prefers. Complaining here won't change anything except to get people annoyed (intentionally or not; I believe the latter) at your constant complaining about geocaching in general (in your area).

 

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.

Like... hiking.

Join (or create) a hiking group. Try meetup.com and look for hiking groups. Target one cache and pretend it's a multi. You could bring others into geocaching who more prefer the physical activity.

 

But if your first goal is physical activity, don't put all your eggs in one basket; don't rely on geocaching alone to give you physical activity, blaming the game when it doesn't suit your preferences. If you want to be physically active, find a pastime that will promote that without requiring everyone else in your area to change in order to make you happier.

 

On logs being informative about a listing:

 

No. They are not required to be. If you as a cacher want to rely on other cachers' logs for information, that is not the problem of the cache, nor the owner, nor Groundspeak. That's yours. Cachers are not responsible to make sure their logs contain some subjectively good or informative content for the sake of other cachers. At best, you could blame the CO for not incorporating important information in logs posted by others' into their listing.

 

But ultimately, a bad cache is the fault of the CO. If loads of logs are uninformative or uninteresting, then chances are the cache isn't. Feel free to ignore. If most of the CO's hides are like that, chances are the CO's hides are all like that. Feel free to ignore. It's not a problem with the game, it's a problem with the cacher (or community).

 

On the label "old school" caches:

 

What are they? Really?

I see all styles of caches still being placed (which aren't grandfathered)

Is the definition of 'old school' simply a cache (whether new or old) that is of a style that was more relatively common long ago? If so, sure, but then of what importance is that to new cachers? To them it's just another style of cache. If you like "old school" hides, then just put out more like that, and encourage others to do the same. If your community doesn't latch on to that as somehow "better", then it means the face of the community has changed, not the face of the game - if "old school" caches are still perfectly feasible.

 

Shape your own community instead of building walls between "old" and "new".

 

On Series/Numbers/Power Trail definitions:

 

A theme showed up first (controversially), let's calle'em Powber trails - high cache quantities in small regions. People complained. Then they stopped being discouraged. Now, a new type of Powber trail became popular - these became distinguished as a matter of intentionality when searching, of speed.

 

Might I suggest some definitions for the sake of discussion and clarity - regardless of region and labels, so we can all talk about the same concept rather than arguing semantics?

 

Numbers trails remain just high quantity areas/trails.

Power trails are sets of caches (not necessarily series) intended for short-burst high quantity finds, usually with a common a theme (easy/quick/road/hike/bike/climbs/water/etc) typically with speed as the goal.

A small distinction, but a distinction nonetheless, as power trails (distinguishable from numbers trails) are rising in quantity in various areas

 

I'd also like to suggest that the definition be related to the cache owners' intended experience. Any cachers can easily and quickly make a close-knit series a power trail, especially a numbers trail. A region outside any city can be littered with caches as part of a series, not intended to be found easily or quickly, but a car of cachers can make it into a numbers run, even a power run if they so choose to attempt.

 

So, my suggested clarifications (regardless of regional terminology), based on the owners' intents for their caches: (note the repetition of "often", "usually", "typically"; these exceptions, not the rules, and precisely why these things are hard to define)

 

Series: Similar by name or theme or as an explicit collection of caches (not necessarily close by each other)

 

Numbers trail: High quantity of caches, not necessarily of the same series, but along the same trail or road, typically easy finds as a means to find many; might be a trail loop or placed between two separate destinations. Often a number of hides along a trail in a forest with a start/end parking area. More often, they're just a collection of usual hides at an interesting location for a nice hike. Usually a balance of value on the experience and on the location/trail. Not necessarily packed as close to each other as possible, just a high quantity relative to other areas in the region.

ie: Find the whole area as a set if you wish, or return to the same area to find them all over multiple visits.

Power trail: High quantity of caches typically following a theme or style (a high D power trail could be a series of challenging roadside/hike hides; a high numbers power trail could be a lot of micros or easy other easy-to-find caches intended to boost numbers), and usually above average length and typically not a trail loop (requiring some planning to return from the end to the start, for example). Much less improtance placed on the location or view, more focus on the experience as a whole. Caches are usually packed as close to together as possible by Groundspeak rules.

ie: Set out in a certain mindset in order to find as many as possible in one go.

--> A Series is by definition not explicitly a Numbers or Power trail.

--> Numbers and Power trails are not necessarily all that different, but usually distinguished by the intended experience and goal, by the CO (not the cache finders).

 

Examples, from my understanding:

 

* Anaphylaxis series: A Numbers trail.

* ET Highway: In practice, more likely a Power trail than Numbers, depending on how you set out to find them. Most people take it on as a power trail. I would guess it's more the locals who would treat is as a numbers trail, taking their time to get them. But I think the owners' intents were to be more like a number trail than power trail.

* A lengthy river cache series surrounded by private property requiring a floating vessel: A Numbers run, but could be a water-themed power trail.

 

List some other candidates, and I'd probably be able to categorize them under one of these definitions, depending on the COs' intended goal for people to find them.

 

Anyone could make most series into a numbers run. Anyone could make a numbers trail into a power trail. Not every series is a numbers trail, and not every numbers trail is a power trail.

 

--

Disclaimer: These are merely my suggestions based on opinion and experience of a variety of caching series/trails/loops, as an attempt to distinguish experiences and intents apart from pre-existing terminologies that are muddying the waters.

Maybe I'm completely wrong and out of my league. I'm just trying to help.

 

TL;DR:

Find what you want to find. Don't find what you don't want to find. Geocaching is about finding geocaches. Physical activity is not a requirement for geocaching and inextricably linked. "Old school" is a divisive term - those types of caches can still be placed, and it doesn't matter to new cachers what is "old school" or not - it's all the same - it's all geocaching; there are just more fun and less fun caches, and that is entirely subjective depending on the individual and the region. Your community is what is always changing, not the game.

Ok, done. :P:ph34r:

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment

 

TL;DR:

Find what you want to find. Don't find what you don't want to find. Geocaching is about finding geocaches. Physical activity is not a requirement for geocaching and inextricably linked. "Old school" is a divisive term - those types of caches can still be placed, and it doesn't matter to new cachers what is "old school" or not - it's all the same - it's all geocaching; there are just more fun and less fun caches, and that is entirely subjective depending on the individual and the region. Your community is what is always changing, not the game.

Ok, done. :P:ph34r:

 

I really did scroll down to the TL,DR: But it only stood out because you bolded it. :P

 

That's all I want to comment on anyways. I'm afraid to say for some (maybe all?) of us "old schoolers", we don't see it as "it's all Geocaching". Call it arrogant or divisive, or whatever, but I'm afraid it's a fact. With me, at the very least. I seriously believe, that people creeping around in parking lots lifting lampskirts are not even playing the same game as me. And those caches do not exist in my world, thanks to the ignore list. Heck, if YOU find one that's on my ignore list, I'd never even know about it, it's hidden from me in your finds even. :o

Link to comment

Yep. Soft-serve ice cream isn't ice cream. :mmraspberry:

 

I can sympathize with the "old school" cachers who finds that there is a higher ratio of caches they'd prefer to ignore than there used to be. But, to me, it is the epitome of arrogance to say that caches you don't like are not geocaching.

 

There isn't much one can do about the popularity of soft-serve. It's cheap and easy to serve. It provides the pleasure of eating ice cream to a big sector of the market. One can still find premium ice cream in flavors besides chocolate, vanilla, and "swirled". It costs more and it takes more effort to find places that serve it. People who prefer premium ice cream seem to understand this. I've yet to see a 5 page thread in the ice cream forums complaining that ice cream has changed.

 

Edit:

After typing this, I enteted "Ice Cream has changed" in Google, and found several forums from last year when Breyer's dropped "All Natural" from its label that had five pages or more of complaints. Perhaps dropping "All Natural" is the equivalent of dropping "Don't place a cache every 600 feet just because you can"? :unsure:

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment
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.

Like... hiking.

Join (or create) a hiking group. Try meetup.com and look for hiking groups. Target one cache and pretend it's a multi. You could bring others into geocaching who more prefer the physical activity.

 

But if your first goal is physical activity, don't put all your eggs in one basket; don't rely on geocaching alone to give you physical activity, blaming the game when it doesn't suit your preferences. If you want to be physically active, find a pastime that will promote that without requiring everyone else in your area to change in order to make you happier.

 

Most of the post cut away to focus on this point.

 

When I started cycling it was primarily as a means of getting from cache to cache, faster than I could walk and without having to take the car. Over time my fitness improved, I struck out further and further, and the two fed each other. It was far from rare that I'd be covering tens of miles in a day looking for caches, I've been known to cycle a 20-mile round trip for one cache, and I think the furthest cache from home I ever found by bike was something like 65 miles away.

 

Over time I grew weary of stopping the bike to find a cache that was so frequently a film pot behind a sign, and so my activity shifted more from using cycling as a way of enhancing geocaching, to using geocaching as a way of enhancing cycling (by finding new places to go), to cycling as the primary activity with a very occasional nod in the direction of geocaching.

 

Maybe in time I'll take the mountain bike out to pick off some caches again but the reality is that a combination of a change in my mindset and an increase in micros in my area mean that I've mostly lost interest in the caching side of things. I still haunt the forums and still periodically check out the cache maps to see if anything new comes in, but to be honest I'm really not missing my premium membership right now.

 

Perhaps in a few weeks or months I'll give it another try, perhaps if I move to another area where caches aren't primarily micros and nanos I'll give it another try. But in the meantime I can hike or cycle without feeling the need to stop and rummage in the bushes every half a mile or less, which also means that hiking with non-caching friends isn't an endless trade-off.

Link to comment
I'm afraid to say for some (maybe all?) of us "old schoolers", we don't see it as "it's all Geocaching".

Well, it is all geocaching. It's just not all geocaching how you remember it. That's neither good nor bad in and of itself, as there are some who've been around a long time and may consider geocaching to have improved, while clearly there are some around who consider geocaching to have declined.

So. Yes, it is geocaching. It's no longer, in its entirety, the geocaching that you remember, and prefer. But everything changes over time - whether for the better or worse, and whether its acceptance currently is positive or critical.

Right now, geocaching seems to be far more positive than negative. And I'd wager most of the negative are from "old schoolers" who miss what they used to love, simply because it's not the "norm" any more.

 

I seriously believe, that people creeping around in parking lots lifting lampskirts are not even playing the same game as me.

Clearly they aren't :) by your definition. But it's still geocaching.

 

And those caches do not exist in my world, thanks to the ignore list. Heck, if YOU find one that's on my ignore list, I'd never even know about it, it's hidden from me in your finds even. :o

If only more people would follow that strategy! ;P

 

Toz: Soft-serve ice cream. Another nice analogy :) I can't even picture what that is (I could google, but meh). But it's out there, and I've probably had it. Ice cream is all the same to me. (well, on that level at least, heh). I'm far from an ice cream aficionado. I've had homemade ice cream at festivals though, and yep more expensive, but also more good :P

 

I would even say in the context of anything that's been around for a long time, that the label "old fashioned" is a marketing/selling point. The product is not actually old, it's just publicly connected with what many consider to be a "classic" concept.

 

Maybe someone should start oldfashionedgeocaching.com or classiccaching.com. Use the same geocache database but filter for large, rural, hike, physical (multi and traditional; and virtual I suppose), >8 years old listings (necessarily restricting to active veteran geocachers) with at least 2.5 Terrain. :ph34r:

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment

Yep. Soft-serve ice cream isn't ice cream. :mmraspberry:

 

I can sympathize with the "old school" cachers who finds that there is a higher ratio of caches they'd prefer to ignore than there used to be. But, to me, it is the epitome of arrogance to say that caches you don't like are not geocaching.

 

 

I knew that would be controversial, and I know I am a fringe element, but that's how I roll. :lol: They simply don't exist to me, and I can't see them anywhere on the website, even if you hide or find one.

 

EDIT: Not ignoring Bruce or anything, but I don't want to get into multiple quotes, and that pretty much sums it up. As Forest Gump would say "and that's all I have to say about that".

Edited by Mr.Yuck
Link to comment
I'm afraid to say for some (maybe all?) of us "old schoolers", we don't see it as "it's all Geocaching". Call it arrogant or divisive, or whatever, but I'm afraid it's a fact.

 

"No true Scotsman" fallacy.

 

Also, very sanctimonious.

 

I've been caching since 2002, and I firmly reject the viewpoint that modern geocaching isn't true geocaching. I don't like all of it, but nobody made me God so I get to decide what is and is not "geocaching."

Link to comment
I'm afraid to say for some (maybe all?) of us "old schoolers", we don't see it as "it's all Geocaching". Call it arrogant or divisive, or whatever, but I'm afraid it's a fact.

 

"No true Scotsman" fallacy.

 

Also, very sanctimonious.

 

I've been caching since 2002, and I firmly reject the viewpoint that modern geocaching isn't true geocaching. I don't like all of it, but nobody made me God so I get to decide what is and is not "geocaching."

 

Power trails placed solely to increase find count, where anything goes (3 cache monty, leap frogging, container swapping), are not geocaching in my book. Like Waymarking, it would be nice if these things had their own website. ;)

Link to comment
Power trails placed solely to increase find count, where anything goes (3 cache monty, leap frogging, container swapping), are not geocaching in my book.
I agree that "shortcuts" like the three cache monte or leapfrogging are not really geocaching. (Likewise, cache vandalism and armchair logging aren't really geocaching either.) But that applies to the "shortcuts" used by the finders, not to the geocaches themselves.

 

Sure, the film pots of a numbers run trail have been (or will be) replaced dozens, hundreds, even thousands of times. But replacement containers (especially when replaced with the owner's permission and approval) are still geocaches.

Link to comment

My view, if you leapfrog you did not visit GZ of every cache and do not deserve to log every cache, three cache monte, you do visit every GZ, sign every log I think it is ok on accepted power trails, what we need is a way to identify where this is ok and where it us not. As of now I use my judgement, 100, 200 cache bike trails are not ok for this strategy but Route 66, ET higway, etc. are.

 

We need a way for cos to determine what strategy they will accept and which they won't, a PT attribute could help.

Link to comment

If people are going to log every second or every third cache, leapfrog, join forces with someone else and start at either end, fundamentally it's about logging finds against caches you didn't actually find. If you're going to do that you might as well just claim them all without ever leaving home.

 

Re the ice cream analogy, it's a good point but the counter is that if your city had local laws that prevented anyone from opening an ice cream shop within half a mile of another ice cream shop, and suddenly you found soft-scoop ice cream parlours springing up all over the place, you'd find it ever-harder to find anywhere that served anything of interest to you. So even there the soft-scoop sellers would be driving your preferred varieties out of the area.

Link to comment
I'm afraid to say for some (maybe all?) of us "old schoolers", we don't see it as "it's all Geocaching". Call it arrogant or divisive, or whatever, but I'm afraid it's a fact.

 

"No true Scotsman" fallacy.

 

Also, very sanctimonious.

 

I've been caching since 2002, and I firmly reject the viewpoint that modern geocaching isn't true geocaching. I don't like all of it, but nobody made me God so I get to decide what is and is not "geocaching."

 

I'm no God. I reject parking lot micros as Geocaching because almost all of them are on private property without permission, and everyone knows it. They could have nipped this in the bud when they first started showing up in significant numbers you know, and said "no, we ain't doing this". Someone could have rejected the first off your rocker cache. :P

Link to comment
Power trails placed solely to increase find count, where anything goes (3 cache monty, leap frogging, container swapping), are not geocaching in my book.
I agree that "shortcuts" like the three cache monte or leapfrogging are not really geocaching. (Likewise, cache vandalism and armchair logging aren't really geocaching either.) But that applies to the "shortcuts" used by the finders, not to the geocaches themselves.

 

Sure, the film pots of a numbers run trail have been (or will be) replaced dozens, hundreds, even thousands of times. But replacement containers (especially when replaced with the owner's permission and approval) are still geocaches.

 

In a series where every container is the same and hidden in the exact same way,,, nahhhh. That's not geocaching to me. It's stop, grab, go, stop, grab, go, stop, grab, go,,, repeat until you tire of it or run out of gas. :laughing:

Link to comment
Power trails placed solely to increase find count, where anything goes (3 cache monty, leap frogging, container swapping), are not geocaching in my book.
I agree that "shortcuts" like the three cache monte or leapfrogging are not really geocaching. (Likewise, cache vandalism and armchair logging aren't really geocaching either.) But that applies to the "shortcuts" used by the finders, not to the geocaches themselves.

 

Sure, the film pots of a numbers run trail have been (or will be) replaced dozens, hundreds, even thousands of times. But replacement containers (especially when replaced with the owner's permission and approval) are still geocaches.

 

In a series where every container is the same and hidden in the exact same way,,, nahhhh. That's not geocaching to me. It's stop, grab, go, stop, grab, go, stop, grab, go,,, repeat until you tire of it or run out of gas. :laughing:

 

There, you two are making me feel better after being admonished by the great Fizzy, if you are pointing out things that you don't consider Geocaching. Is an illegal cache Geocaching? Because I just stumbled on a disabled listing yesterday for a missing cache that is clearly supposed to be on the bottom of a USPS mailbox.

 

Speaking of which, I will no longer split hairs attempting to distinguish Power Trails from Number Trails. I see where you guys are coming from.

Link to comment
Power trails placed solely to increase find count, where anything goes (3 cache monty, leap frogging, container swapping), are not geocaching in my book.
I agree that "shortcuts" like the three cache monte or leapfrogging are not really geocaching. (Likewise, cache vandalism and armchair logging aren't really geocaching either.) But that applies to the "shortcuts" used by the finders, not to the geocaches themselves.

 

Sure, the film pots of a numbers run trail have been (or will be) replaced dozens, hundreds, even thousands of times. But replacement containers (especially when replaced with the owner's permission and approval) are still geocaches.

 

In a series where every container is the same and hidden in the exact same way,,, nahhhh. That's not geocaching to me. It's stop, grab, go, stop, grab, go, stop, grab, go,,, repeat until you tire of it or run out of gas. :laughing:

 

There, you two are making me feel better after being admonished by the great Fizzy, if you are pointing out things that you don't consider Geocaching. Is an illegal cache Geocaching? Because I just stumbled on a disabled listing yesterday for a missing cache that is clearly supposed to be on the bottom of a USPS mailbox.

 

Speaking of which, I will no longer split hairs attempting to distinguish Power Trails from Number Trails. I see where you guys are coming from.

 

Technically, illegal placements are not following gc.com guidelines so therefore shouldn't be geocaches listed on gc's website. They sometimes mistakenly get listed because the person submitting, clicks the "i have read and gotten permission" boxes. I don't imagine that permission is asked for very often but as long as that box is checked, a reviewer pretty much has to go along with it unless something obvious pops out at her/him.

 

Like you, i don't think that LPCs, at least the majority of them, should be listed as geocaches on this website. Most are placed without permission and therefore don't meet gc.com's own guideline. For some reason, these are ok in gc.com's eyes.

Link to comment

Here's the thing (even though my post seems to have gone virtually unnoticed, even though I even broke it up into topical segments, even :P) - you can go geocaching however you want! This is, as you say, what is geocaching "to you". IF powertrails aren't geocaching to you, you can not do powertrails. That doesn't mean they're not geocaching. Same with LPCs, micros, nanos, challenges... So in that respect, I believe we can all agree -- Geocaching means different things to different people.

 

So, shape your geocaching community to the type that you like; but if it turns out that doesn't work, there's not much you can do about it, because there cannot be some form of regulation, across the board, to force your geocaching community into some mold that you prefer, which may not be the way it is in the rest of the world anyway.

 

To some, even treeclimbing "isn't geocaching" (I had a comment on a tree climb of mine, not a hard one, long ago from someone who stated that geocaches must be findable by everyone but they couldn't because they couldn't/wouldn't climb the tree).

 

Whose definition of "geocaching" should be implemented? The old? The young? The new? The veterans? The physically fit? The families? Really... Groundspeak lists... and encourages a minimum respect for nature and property, and for safety and each other - something everyone worldwide can understand; common sense. That's about all they can do without inciting huge amounts of drama from regional differences and preferences.

 

They provide a very, very flexible container for what constitutes a "geocache" according to their listing guidelines. How the community makes use of that, and what flavour of geocache is more popular in any one particular area -- is entirely up to the local community.

Link to comment
I'm afraid to say for some (maybe all?) of us "old schoolers", we don't see it as "it's all Geocaching". Call it arrogant or divisive, or whatever, but I'm afraid it's a fact.

 

"No true Scotsman" fallacy.

 

Also, very sanctimonious.

 

I've been caching since 2002, and I firmly reject the viewpoint that modern geocaching isn't true geocaching. I don't like all of it, but nobody made me God so I get to decide what is and is not "geocaching."

 

I don't think that having an opinion about a sport makes anyone a god, and it's a bit sanctimonious to decry those who dare to have opinions. Geocaching has changed, some don't like it, and most newcomers lose interest. As long as there are plenty of replacements I'm sure that TPTB don't mind.

 

It seems that for some people that if everybody doesn't accept their version of reality, that somehow invalidates it for them. Everybody must believe the same things they do.

Edited by 4wheelin_fool
Link to comment

Like you, i don't think that LPCs, at least the majority of them, should be listed as geocaches on this website. Most are placed without permission and therefore don't meet gc.com's own guideline. For some reason, these are ok in gc.com's eyes.

Most caches in parks or in wilderness areas are probably placed without permission as well. The story goes that if a a park or open space does not have a particular policy on geocaching its okay to place a cache there. Or at least that once there are caches placed in a park, if the managing agency doesn't complain it is assumed that caches are allowed. It seems some people are willing to accept some concept of adequate permssion for caches they like, but if it is some cache they don't like it's not a [legal] geocache.

 

With regards to Fizzy's No True Scotsmans fallacy, I actually looked it up and frankly the responses only make his point. The prototype tells of Angus McDonald who reads in the newspaper about the Brighton Slasher committing some horrible crime and saying "No Scotsman would do that". The next day he reads about the Glasgow Ripper commiting an even worse atrocity. "No true Scotsmans would do that". What you are doing is saying that a true geocache is whatever you define as a true geocache. While Groundspeak may list all sort of things on their site, these aren't true geocaches because they don't meet your definition. Whether or not fizzy is correct that it is arrogant for someone who doesn't like certain geocaches to define true geocaches to include only the cache they like, the point being is that you've only told us what geocaches you like or don't like. You haven't changed the definition of geocache.

 

BTW, I also looked up soft-serve ice cream. Guess what. It is ice cream. The difference is that soft-serve ice cream is whipped while it being frozen so that it has more air that regular ice cream, and it can freeze at slightly higher temperature. Italian gelato (which most ice cream afficinados would say is real ice cream) is actually a form of soft-serve (though it tends to have less air than the stuff that comes out of machines).

Link to comment

There is quite a big difference between public areas and privately owned areas open to the public. I don't think that private property would be less likely to require permission, but rather more likely. The TOU only protects the website from damages incurred by its own users. It doesn't protect private property owners from damage claims by geocachers or prevent property owners from filing claims against geocachers. Most of these areas are open for commercial use, not for playing frisbee, selling ice cream, or anything else.

Edited by 4wheelin_fool
Link to comment
Power trails placed solely to increase find count, where anything goes (3 cache monty, leap frogging, container swapping), are not geocaching in my book.
I agree that "shortcuts" like the three cache monte or leapfrogging are not really geocaching. (Likewise, cache vandalism and armchair logging aren't really geocaching either.) But that applies to the "shortcuts" used by the finders, not to the geocaches themselves.

 

But geocaching is more than just the geocaches themselves. It's how people play the game, the site technical infrastructure and how we interact with it, the interaction between members of the geocaching community (which, to me, includes finder/hiders *and* landmanagers). As I see it, the answer to "what is geocaching" has broadened. Yes, one can still play the game as it was played 10 years ago, but today there are many methods employed that would not have been considered acceptable, but those that employ them still want to say that they are geocaching.

 

I think that one of the reasons that people will suggest that doing power trails is not geocaching, is that many people that do them have created a variety of practices that they themselves would likely not consider doing if the caches they were finding were not part of a power trail. If people don't want to be characterized as playing a different game when they're doing power trails then perhaps they shouldn't be making up a different set of acceptable practices for power trails that are not considered acceptable for caches that are not part of a power trail.

Link to comment
Power trails placed solely to increase find count, where anything goes (3 cache monty, leap frogging, container swapping), are not geocaching in my book.
I agree that "shortcuts" like the three cache monte or leapfrogging are not really geocaching. (Likewise, cache vandalism and armchair logging aren't really geocaching either.) But that applies to the "shortcuts" used by the finders, not to the geocaches themselves.

 

But geocaching is more than just the geocaches themselves. It's how people play the game, the site technical infrastructure and how we interact with it, the interaction between members of the geocaching community (which, to me, includes finder/hiders *and* landmanagers). As I see it, the answer to "what is geocaching" has broadened. Yes, one can still play the game as it was played 10 years ago, but today there are many methods employed that would not have been considered acceptable, but those that employ them still want to say that they are geocaching.

 

I think that one of the reasons that people will suggest that doing power trails is not geocaching, is that many people that do them have created a variety of practices that they themselves would likely not consider doing if the caches they were finding were not part of a power trail. If people don't want to be characterized as playing a different game when they're doing power trails then perhaps they shouldn't be making up a different set of acceptable practices for power trails that are not considered acceptable for caches that are not part of a power trail.

 

In the American league there is a designated hitter, in the national league there is no designated hitter. What is strange both leagues claim they play baseball. Clearly one of them are playing a different game and the game they play is not baseball. Perhaps one league should not be making a different set of rules of acceptable baseball if it is not acceptable for baseball in a different part.

Link to comment
Power trails placed solely to increase find count, where anything goes (3 cache monty, leap frogging, container swapping), are not geocaching in my book.
I agree that "shortcuts" like the three cache monte or leapfrogging are not really geocaching. (Likewise, cache vandalism and armchair logging aren't really geocaching either.) But that applies to the "shortcuts" used by the finders, not to the geocaches themselves.

 

But geocaching is more than just the geocaches themselves. It's how people play the game, the site technical infrastructure and how we interact with it, the interaction between members of the geocaching community (which, to me, includes finder/hiders *and* landmanagers). As I see it, the answer to "what is geocaching" has broadened. Yes, one can still play the game as it was played 10 years ago, but today there are many methods employed that would not have been considered acceptable, but those that employ them still want to say that they are geocaching.

 

I think that one of the reasons that people will suggest that doing power trails is not geocaching, is that many people that do them have created a variety of practices that they themselves would likely not consider doing if the caches they were finding were not part of a power trail. If people don't want to be characterized as playing a different game when they're doing power trails then perhaps they shouldn't be making up a different set of acceptable practices for power trails that are not considered acceptable for caches that are not part of a power trail.

 

In the American league there is a designated hitter, in the national league there is no designated hitter. What is strange both leagues claim they play baseball. Clearly one of them are playing a different game and the game they play is not baseball. Perhaps one league should not be making a different set of rules of acceptable baseball if it is not acceptable for baseball in a different part.

But in both leagues you must touch all the bases to score a run :P

 

I'd view it a little differently.

 

Since the online logs are really only a adjunct to the basic idea of finding geocaches, it should be expected that there will be differences as to when it is appropriate to post the find (or WIGAS) log. In addition, as this is an internet base activity, one should expect some people will use the online system is ways that have nothing to do with finding caches. Jeremy has said that he views some of the logging that goes on an abuse of the system. However, Groundspeak does not want to police the logs, nor could they. Instead cache owners have been given the responsibility for quality control of the posts to their cache pages.

 

What I think NYPaddleCacher is saying is that some owners of power trails are clearly allowing finds to be posted in situation he feels are not appropriate to count as finds. To him this is using the online logging system for something other than geocaching. My point of view is that what someone else does with online logs doesn't effect me, and I only care that a cache owner doesn't use their power to delete logs to delete my legitimate find. I'd be more upset if I DNF'd a cache on a power trail, and the cache owner deleted my DNF because "There are no DNFs on power trails".

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment

 

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! :D

 

You're talking about a business. Businesses that have a 'product' or 'service' for profit.

 

Groundspeak doesn't have a 'product' or a 'service'. They offer 'entertainment' and their profits are in the form of Premium memberships - which is hardly enough profit to compare to a regular business (as listed above).

 

We - the geocachers - are the ones who provide the entertainment. The only thing that a complaint will do - is educate Groundspeak to tighten up the guidelines even further, which limits the amount of entertainment we can provide - which ultimately (if you want to look at it from a business standpoint) will lose premium memberships.

 

:anitongue:

Edited by Lieblweb
Link to comment
Power trails placed solely to increase find count, where anything goes (3 cache monty, leap frogging, container swapping), are not geocaching in my book.
I agree that "shortcuts" like the three cache monte or leapfrogging are not really geocaching. (Likewise, cache vandalism and armchair logging aren't really geocaching either.) But that applies to the "shortcuts" used by the finders, not to the geocaches themselves.

 

But geocaching is more than just the geocaches themselves. It's how people play the game, the site technical infrastructure and how we interact with it, the interaction between members of the geocaching community (which, to me, includes finder/hiders *and* landmanagers). As I see it, the answer to "what is geocaching" has broadened. Yes, one can still play the game as it was played 10 years ago, but today there are many methods employed that would not have been considered acceptable, but those that employ them still want to say that they are geocaching.

 

I think that one of the reasons that people will suggest that doing power trails is not geocaching, is that many people that do them have created a variety of practices that they themselves would likely not consider doing if the caches they were finding were not part of a power trail. If people don't want to be characterized as playing a different game when they're doing power trails then perhaps they shouldn't be making up a different set of acceptable practices for power trails that are not considered acceptable for caches that are not part of a power trail.

 

In the American league there is a designated hitter, in the national league there is no designated hitter. What is strange both leagues claim they play baseball. Clearly one of them are playing a different game and the game they play is not baseball. Perhaps one league should not be making a different set of rules of acceptable baseball if it is not acceptable for baseball in a different part.

But in both leagues you must touch all the bases to score a run :P

 

I'd view it a little differently.

 

Since the online logs are really only a adjunct to the basic idea of finding geocaches, it should be expected that there will be differences as to when it is appropriate to post the find (or WIGAS) log. In addition, as this is an internet base activity, one should expect some people will use the online system is ways that have nothing to do with finding caches. Jeremy has said that he views some of the logging that goes on an abuse of the system. However, Groundspeak does not want to police the logs, nor could they. Instead cache owners have been given the responsibility for quality control of the posts to their cache pages.

 

What I think NYPaddleCacher is saying is that some owners of power trails are clearly allowing finds to be posted in situation he feels are not appropriate to count as finds. To him this is using the online logging system for something other than geocaching. My point of view is that what someone else does with online logs doesn't effect me, and I only care that a cache owner doesn't use their power to delete logs to delete my legitimate find. I'd be more upset if I DNF'd a cache on a power trail, and the cache owner deleted my DNF because "There are no DNFs on power trails".

 

So what your saying is you think my use of a designated log is not geocaching?

Link to comment

This thread made me remember how much I dislike urban micros. And inspired me to go out in 100 degree heat today to hide four more small/regular caches in our area along a beautiful trail just outside the nearby wildlife refuge that has no caches on it. So, there you go. You've made a difference, people!

4 caches in one area by the same CO? Sounds like a power trail. At least, I haven't figured out why Cezanne wouldn't consider it a power trail and, hence, be unable to enjoy it.

 

Heh. Yeah, a powertrail with two letterboxes and a multi that takes you almost a mile round trip. You got me. :anibad:

Link to comment
Groundspeak doesn't have a 'product' or a 'service'.

 

Wrong. Geocaching.com is a cache listing service They do, in fact, provide a service.

 

They offer 'entertainment' and their profits are in the form of Premium memberships - which is hardly enough profit to compare to a regular business (as listed above).

 

Wrong again. I don't know but I am quite confident that premium memberships are not their largest source of revenue.

Link to comment

 

Wrong. Geocaching.com is a cache listing service They do, in fact, provide a service.

 

Wrong, GS is in the business of publishing quasi caches AKA lab caches as well as listing normal caches, they also sell products as in geocoins, TBs, etc.

Edited by Roman!
Link to comment

Oh but cezanne, the respect is there. The majority of comments defending the current state of caching respect and understand that a variety of caching styles exist, and encourage you to cache how you like.

 

I agree that the respect is there that are different caching styles, but not that's the issue I'm facing. The issue is that there are not enough caches of the type I like and that I have still not succeeded to find a decent replacement for what I used geocaching for.

 

No one is calling for a removal or denial of old/classic/hiking/multi/lengthy/large/tradeable/etc geocaches often touted to be the cream of the crop, or 'old school'.

 

I would not refer to them as the cream of the crop, but that's just a side remark.

I did not claim that anyone calls for the removal of such caches. I only described how the community has changed and which effects this changes had on me.

 

So, "please be so kind and respect that preferences differ"

 

I have stressed this many times. Otherwise I could not have written something like that geocaching has changed to the better for many.

 

Then find those caches you enjoy! Maybe even more than once! Or go out and be active without finding caches. You don't have to find caches to be physically active.

 

From my experience I know that I end up much too less active if I do not go for caches. I have visited many caches more than once, but at some point the motivation is not big enough any longer, in particular not on bad days.

 

What? Nothing interrupts your hike except what you let interrupt your hike. You do not have to search for 12 traditionals while you're on a hike.

If you want the hike, target the last traditional at the end of the trail/series, and skip the rest. Seriously. As you say: "In [sic] often have left caches unfound along my way." So do this more often. Or, all the time, if it annoys you so much - for your own good.

 

I still need to upload twelve caches (as I need the waypoints to guide my way) and check whether one or more of the cache pages contain something I need and there is still the logging issue I've mentioned before.

All solutions that come to my mind are far worse than a multi cache along the trail or 1-2 traditionals which describe and rate an entire hike. It also makes logging so much more convenient for me and the same applies to reading the logs by others.

 

But your repeated explaining is coming off like your view is the only right/valid view. That's what is being inferred, even if that's not what you mean. If someone explains an alternative view exists, you repeat yours as if to imply that it does not matter that someone else has a different view.

 

It is not about views for me. Somehow many of the replies to my comments make me believe that what I wrote was completely misunderstood. I'm the only person who can judge how geocaching has changed for me as an individual.

 

Please understand: your community is what has changed, not geocaching. Geocaching has allowed the increase of a style of a caching which you do not prefer. So change your community.

 

Actually, I've observed the very same development in a lot of other regions as well.

What certainly is a regional bias is that in my area almost all cachers who started out in the early years liked to go for a hike and did not regard geocaching as a game. If I had started to geocache in another area, I might never have got hooked.

 

I neither can nor do I want to change the community. I cannot bring back those who left geocaching and I do not want to change the preferences of the mass of currently active cachers.

The issue is not the increase in the style of caching I do not prefer, but rather the decrease of the style I enjoy.

 

Like... hiking.

Join (or create) a hiking group. Try meetup.com and look for hiking groups. Target one cache and pretend it's a multi. You could bring others into geocaching who more prefer the physical activity.

 

That does not work for me as I'm much slower and more restricted in what I can accomplish as those sort of people.

It would end up as a severe punishment for the other members of the group to have me taking part.

The advantage of geocaching was that I did not need to slow down anyone else and that I could profit from the experience and knowledge of people whom I never could join for a joint hike.

 

 

But if your first goal is physical activity, don't put all your eggs in one basket; don't rely on geocaching alone to give you physical activity, blaming the game when it doesn't suit your preferences.

 

I just stated that for several years geocaching has been by far the best fit for me (the whole package - including using the logs as a structured diary of my activities).

Geocaching solved a problem I had also years before I started to geocaching, but in the recent years

the solution becomes worse and worse for me, but I did not find a new one that beats geocaching.

What you write is true in principle and I have been aware of it before. It does not change what I stated above about the past and the future. My experience would not be that much different in another area, except of course if there I were not dependent on only newly hidden caches.

 

Most of the alternatives are not feasible any longer for me - for example, I had to give up running.

Without the special circumstances I would have left geocaching just in the same way as most of those who started out in my area at the same time have already done.

 

If you want to be physically active, find a pastime that will promote that without requiring everyone else in your area to change in order to make you happier.

 

If it were as easy as that ..............

BTW: I did not require anyone to change. I'm just sad about the changes that made most of those whose caches I enjoy leave geocaching. I accept their decision and I did not ask anyone who does not like hiking to go for a hike. I'm even very reluctant to join for example a group hike during an event in order not to make others change their pace and walking rhythm.

 

I believe that the statement that everyone still can enjoy geocaching in the same way as he/she could back 10 years ago is what causes my frustration as I do not think that selecting the right caches is a solution for everyone.

 

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

This thread made me remember how much I dislike urban micros. And inspired me to go out in 100 degree heat today to hide four more small/regular caches in our area along a beautiful trail just outside the nearby wildlife refuge that has no caches on it. So, there you go. You've made a difference, people!

4 caches in one area by the same CO? Sounds like a power trail. At least, I haven't figured out why Cezanne wouldn't consider it a power trail and, hence, be unable to enjoy it.

 

Me, I'm happy with any caches you decide to place.

 

I would not refer to the 4 newly hidden caches as powertrail for several reasons.

Each of the caches has an independent cache description and is not of the type cache AB #1 until cache AB #x.

Moreover, four caches and three of them being non traditionals does not make me believe that the main reason for

coming up with four caches instead of one is providing four smilies instead of four.

I can easily imagine that some cachers will just select a subset of the four on one day and I do not think that copy and paste logs will be the dominant log type for these caches. I also do not think that it will be very common to log a find for one of the four if it goes missing just because one hiked along the trail and found the remaining ones.

 

What's true of course is that if I were the cache owner, I had turned everything into a single cache, but I'm fully aware that for the majority the chosen solution is to be preferred.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

cezanne, I'm sorry that in your area geocaching has lost what it once had for your own enjoyment. And I honestly believe that it won't get better for you given how much, and how often you complain about the relative lack of geocaches that you enjoy. I believe very much that you should unlatch from geocaching as a requirement for your physical activity, if all it's doing is upsetting you that you can't do it the way you preferred to before. Things change. You can find something else to replace it, even if it's hiking by yourself, or creating a group for people like you (does not have to be extreme hikers), and getting outdoors.

 

Your reliance on geocaching-as-you-remember-it is having you join most every thread discussing the pastime and, though you claim you're ok with how it is better for the masses, and you claim you're not trying to change anything, your repetition of your concerns about caching in your area is coming off as fruitless complaining to many... What you enjoy does exist elsewhere, in other regions; it's still alive and active. It's your region, and perhaps a few others in the world, that have the issue you dislike, so it's not geocaching itself that is the cause of your grief, but your local community.

 

All I can say is to please try to find some way to enjoy geocaching again, despite the reduction of quality in your area that you personally enjoy, for your own benefit (that is, which doesn't also involve repeatedly complaining about the same things that no one can help you with, being specific to your area).

 

There are solutions to your dilemma. But I'd wager that most answers aren't ones you'd prefer, or are not likely to happen.

Link to comment

cezanne, I'm sorry that in your area geocaching has lost what it once had for your own enjoyment. And I honestly believe that it won't get better for you given how much, and how often you complain about the relative lack of geocaches that you enjoy. I believe very much that you should unlatch from geocaching as a requirement for your physical activity, if all it's doing is upsetting you that you can't do it the way you preferred to before. Things change. You can find something else to replace it, even if it's hiking by yourself, or creating a group for people like you (does not have to be extreme hikers), and getting outdoors.

 

Your reliance on geocaching-as-you-remember-it is having you join most every thread discussing the pastime and, though you claim you're ok with how it is better for the masses, and you claim you're not trying to change anything, your repetition of your concerns about caching in your area is coming off as fruitless complaining to many... What you enjoy does exist elsewhere, in other regions; it's still alive and active. It's your region, and perhaps a few others in the world, that have the issue you dislike, so it's not geocaching itself that is the cause of your grief, but your local community.

 

All I can say is to please try to find some way to enjoy geocaching again, despite the reduction of quality in your area that you personally enjoy, for your own benefit (that is, which doesn't also involve repeatedly complaining about the same things that no one can help you with, being specific to your area).

 

There are solutions to your dilemma. But I'd wager that most answers aren't ones you'd prefer, or are not likely to happen.

 

I too agree with cezanne in that i don't care for where geocaching is heading. I've been caching a while now and can safely say without a doubt, that geocaching has changed. Like her, the kinds of caches i "grew up with" are few and far between these days. Yes, i will express my concern about this at times but that doesn't mean that i need to give up geocaching and find something else to do. Besides running across the occasional cache that actually does have some thought put into it, there are other aspects of our hobby which keep me interested.

Link to comment

I too agree with cezanne in that i don't care for where geocaching is heading. I've been caching a while now and can safely say without a doubt, that geocaching has changed. Like her, the kinds of caches i "grew up with" are few and far between these days. Yes, i will express my concern about this at times but that doesn't mean that i need to give up geocaching and find something else to do. Besides running across the occasional cache that actually does have some thought put into it, there are other aspects of our hobby which keep me interested.

Unlike you, cezanne has recognized the change, and said "I did not require anyone to change. I'm just sad about the changes that made most of those whose caches I enjoy leave geocaching." The problem is cezanne is always stating the same 'sadness' over and over again. It seems more like cezanne is in mourning, rather than seeking a way to either change things or move on - because the main draw to geocaching, by cezanne's own words, was the physical activity/hiking aspect of many caches, which to cezanne, is in decline in that region.

 

I beg to differ that this - the specific case of cezanne - is a worldwide problem, nor a problem with geocaching as a pastime in general. It is specific to that region, and perhaps pockets of other regions.

 

Yes, geocaching "has changed" over time. It is not what it once was. It is now more to many, and less to others. Who is right? Who is better? Whose opinion is more important?

When it comes to determining what has changed, we must look at how things are now.

 

I would very much recommend cezanne move to my area - there are LOADS of excellent hiking caches, amazing locations, views, trails, even groups that are not extreme hikers, but casual enthusiasts, and an absolutely wonderful community! It's unfortunate that cezanne's region, that local community, is now more populated by players who enjoy the types of caches that cezanne does not. But that problem is not one of geocaching's nor Groundspeak's.

 

My recent points are not about geocaching as a whole, but looking at cezanne's repeated concerns with geocaching in cezanne's local region (as always emphasized), in the hopes of guiding cezanne towards some solution. But if cezanne can find no solution, my hope is that the response is not to fruitlessly return to the forum and complain about the local geocaching community and its state of geocaching as if it were true the world over.

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment

I agree, I have been Geocaching less than three years. I started after watching a short 30 minute show on PBS TV. Oh BOY was I in for a surprise.

 

What I found was empty cans and wet logs. Even the ones under lamp posts had wet logs. It was the ones that took me to cool places that kept me in the game. I try to place quality logs and do maintenance on the ones I do have out there so others don’t suffer. I even hid one for the kids called the good news. (GC3JNK4) because of all the sorry Caches around here.

Link to comment

Like her, the kinds of caches i "grew up with" are few and far between these days.

I feel compelled to point this out every time someone brings it up: the kinds of caches you grew up with have always been few and far between. Now there are many additional caches between the few and the far.

Link to comment

My family is new to this GAME. Here are a few observations I have noticed in the last week. Yes one whole week of seeking and finding.

 

Just because a cache is not interesting to YOU does not mean it isn't interesting to someone else.

 

Just because YOU did not find a particular search fun, does not mean someone else did not enjoy the search.

 

Just because YOU didn't like or find the cache, thought it was too small, large, hard, easy, etc doesn't mean the person who spend time and effort to place that cache didn't think it was and interesting cache or placement and had fun creating and placing it.

 

The GAME has two sides, the finder and the seeker. Each has their own excitiement and enjoyment.

 

Stop trying to tell the 6 million people who have geocached how it "should be" or what it is "all about" according to YOUR own biases and YOUR own experiences.

 

Relax, it's a game. People from 3 to 100 year old can play it.

Smart people can play, stupid people can play, fit athletes can play, wheelchair bound people can play, singles can play, families can play, nice people can pay, jerks can play.

 

There are 3 million caches posted, you like some, you don't like some. So what.

 

Hide what you enjoy, chances are someone else might too. Chances are others will hate it too.

Stop telling people what is a good cache or not. hide what you like where you like (within the hiding guidelines and law obviously)

 

What makes a cool cache, hide and location to you, can be a terribly annoying, lame cache, hide, and location to someone else. And vice-versa.

 

If you've found a few caches, go hide some caches if that makes it interesting to you and gets you and some friends outside and exploring and wanting to play more. No you don't need to find 20, 50, 100 caches to "get it".

 

Come on people, at the end of the day it's GAME of exploring, observing, and thinking to find trinkets hidden in plastic boxes and a log book. Oh and a very nice BUSINESS for Groundspeak as well.

 

Don't tell someone they "don't get it". I would suggest you don't "get" their reason for trying the game and getting involved.

 

If you have found 1 cache, you are a geocacher!

Welcome and have fun!

 

Go search, go find, go hide stuff! If you enjoy it for a week, great. If you enjoy it for 10+ years that's great too.

 

Stop complaining... just go hide and find.

 

Feel free to private message me if you disagree and would like to pontificate on your own grand theory of geocaching and educate me on how it should be and what's "it's all about".

Link to comment

Like her, the kinds of caches i "grew up with" are few and far between these days.

I feel compelled to point this out every time someone brings it up: the kinds of caches you grew up with have always been few and far between. Now there are many additional caches between the few and the far.

 

... which is the reason I've pretty much given up - it's harder and harder to find the wheat among the growing tidal wave of chaff.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
Followers 9
×
×
  • Create New...