Geocaching has changed

[+J Grouchy]

*sigh* Please refrain from that. Groundspeak does not value "soggy film pots behind signs" as a trade-off for gaining profits. Staff have repeatedly stated that they love the pastime, they love geocaching, and they love the community. So please stop claiming they don't care about anything but profits.

And yet they have repeatedly made business decisions that indicate otherwise.

 

No, many players have repeatedly shown that they are unable or unwilling to take care and maintain cache quality, or cache owners have repeatedly shown that they don't care about their cache's quality.

That is not Groundspeak. Please show Goundspeak's business decisions encourage "soggy film pots behind signs" in exchange for profits.

Their community communications clearly advocate quality, fun, adventure, respect, community. How that plays out is entirely up to the player. Not Groundspeak.

 

"Their community communications clearly advocate quality, fun, adventure, respect, community."

 

Please explain how their implementation of mobile geocaching apps promotes "quality, fun, adventure, respect, community."

 

I repeat: it's very easy to SAY anything. Their actions - the actual design of the site and the apps - speaks far louder.

 

The touchy-feely email newsletters and blogs are meaningless when they don't even bother getting new users to confirm emails.

 

Yep, my local council talks about how the teams who collect the rubbish and recycling are encouraged to clear up after themselves and put containers back where they found them. It doesn't mean I don't regularly need to complain that they left the place a mess and my recycling box went missing, again.

 

The words talk a good game about how to be a responsible member of the caching community. The actions say something else, letting people with a track record of non-maintenance continue to publish new caches and allowing people to register without ever visiting the site and without ever providing an email address.

 

The words talk of quality, fun, adventure. When so many film pots behind signs are published it's hard to see how the reality ties up with the talk.

 

So when faced with a conflict between words and actions, I'll look at the actions.

 

I'd have a real issue if they started grilling me about the nature of the container and approving/disapproving it based on that. It would add work, add a lot to time to the review process with probably at least one or two back-and-forth communications and would generally tick a lot of folks off. Some containers that are crappy in one place or environment may be the perfect choice in a totally different environment. I suspect Groundspeak is pretty hands-off for this reason. Best they can do is make suggestions and give examples...like they do in various parts of the GC site (for example).

[+thebruce0]

"Their community communications clearly advocate quality, fun, adventure, respect, community."

 

Please explain how their implementation of mobile geocaching apps promotes "quality, fun, adventure, respect, community."

Creating a mobile app itself does not "promote" anything on that list, except raise awareness to a new demographic.

How they sell it, how they communicate, how they encourage people to use it -- that is what is relevant.

 

I repeat: it's very easy to SAY anything. Their actions - the actual design of the site and the apps - speaks far louder.

How does the design not promote "quality, fun, adventure, respect, community"?

Rather, how does the design promote "sub-par" caches, or "soggy film pots"?

 

People do that stuff.

Groundspeak communications (look at the blog) are ALL about promoting anf highlighting "quality, fun, adventure, respect, community". If people ignore the etiquette and themes that make geocaching enjoyable and fun for everyone, generally speaking, that is their fault. Groundspeak can only do so much.

So, what has Groundspeak done that promotes sub-par geocaching? That demonstrates their true lack of care for people and pastime? And a blog post that talks positively about nano caches doesn't count - many people have absolutely no problem with them. Your problem lies in how to define "sub-par" that is the same for everyone, otherwise it's one preference vs another.

 

Groundspeak may at any one point in time promote some aspect of geocaching that is enjoyable by one group of people, and less so for another group. That is not the same as Groundspeak favouring 'soggy film pots' in exchange for profit.

 

The touchy-feely email newsletters and blogs are meaningless when they don't even bother getting new users to confirm emails.

Two completely separate issues.

New user email confirmation has been raised in the forum, and is an ongoing, lengthy discussion. Of course I too hope that they deal with it and require new app users to confirm their email. That has zero effect on community-driven communications and encouraging positive geocaching experiences for the general public.

 

And I believe it's been mentioned in that thread that the portion of users/logs affected by that email confirmation is ridiculously tiny - yet vocal, because FORUMRANTS! That is to say, that one legitimate issue is far from being any indication that Groundspeak doesn't care about community or geocaching, let alone profit over than anything else.

[+thebruce0]

It used to be easy to select a single cache if I wanted to go for a nice walk of say 3-4 hours (the example also works for longer walks) and take the cache description with me.

I had to do not much planning as the cache description guided me through the walk.

...

... You can still do that.

Unless of course you've found all the caches (of any type) that require a 3-4 hour hike.

In that case... *shrug*

Around here, people clean out the region by caching all the time. They've got nothing left to find. That's no one's fault, certainly not Groundspeak's or the state of geocaching. It just means there's no more to find. Until people put more out.

 

Nowadays there are many short caches in my area.

So ignore them, if you don't want to do them.

Or target the one in the trail parking lot, but do the trail hike first, then find it. The cache doesn't tell you how you have to find it.

 

If I want to go for a four hours walk/hike/bike tour, I have to do a lot of planning and preparation (with respect to planning the walk/hike/bike tour and not with respect to selecting the caches).

So the caches are irrelevant for that process. How then has geocaching changed that process since your 'golden years'?

If you want to go for a four hour walk, it should be the same amount of work now as it was in your golden years, if caches are irrelevant.

 

It can well happen that along my tour once planned there will be a few short caches (some better suitable for me than others), but it is hardly the case that I can use the caches as a kind of all inclusive package for planning my trip.

Then don't. Plan a hike (irrelevant to caches if desired), and target only one cache (if there's one you feel you might want to get). Skip the rest. Make it a long one.

 

As a rule of thumb, I need about five times as many caches to keep me busy for the same time than a few years ago.

...

... you don't need caches to keep you busy. If your chosen tour is about the hike, and caches are irrelevant, then what are you doing letting caches dictate your enjoyment of the hike, whether there's 50 in a forest or 2 If there's 50, you can walk the entire trail and only find two. Effectively no difference than if those two were the only ones on the trail.

 

If you might enjoy finding a 50 stage multi on the trail instead of 2 single traditionals, then how is that practically different than finding 50 single caches on that route?

[+thebruce0]

When so many film pots behind signs are published it's hard to see how the reality ties up with the talk.

You want Groundspeak to police every cacher's caching habits to guarantee that you'll never again have to find a soggy film pot? That seems to be what you're advocating. That won't happen.

Groundspeak will deal with legitimate problems before they deal with complaints in regards to player preferences or inconvenience. And they will encourage and let the community do all of that 'policing' stuff themselves.

[+dprovan]

Do I understand you correctly that you first choose the walk and then look at the caches that exist there?

I do first choose the walk on days when the quality of the walk is my priority. But my point was more to suggest that people like you choose the walk and go enjoy it. If there's a cache to find at the end of it -- and there probably will be -- enjoy the cache as something which adds pleasure to the walk. Stop pretending that the number and quality of caches along the way could possibly make the walk less enjoyable, since the worst case is that you have to ignore the caches, leaving the walk as enjoyable as it ever was.

 

I used to use geocaching to choose the walk and that worked much better some years ago than it does now.

I often look at geocaches to help suggest a walk, and it works fabulously for me. But that's because I'm as happy with a 3 mile walk through a neighborhood I've never been to before as I am with a 3 mile walk through the wilderness.

 

There are definitely not more new caches out there in the area of the type I enjoy the most than in the golden years.

It used to be easy to select a single cache if I wanted to go for a nice walk of say 3-4 hours (the example also works for longer walks) and take the cache description with me.

I'm very sorry for you. I doubt there's a single place within 100 miles of me where one could take a hike that leads away from parking for 3 or 4 hours without finding at least one ammo can in a nice location. Although you'd also have to put up with 10 or 20 lesser caches along the way.

[+fizzymagic]

It may be a tiny bit of effort for you. For me there are well over 1000 caches I haven't found within 10 miles of home (from what I recall of my last PQ if you increase the radius to 25 miles the count rises to many thousands). I don't mind a little planning effort, I just can't be bothered to dredge through so many geocaches to figure out which ones might be somewhere interesting and which ones are "me too" caches placed because "my girlfriend used to live near here, so I hid a keysafe behind the road sign" or some such.

 

If there were a few dozen caches and I was trying to figure out which ones might be interesting I'd be more likely to look through them. But when there are literally thousands of them within easy striking distance I grew increasingly disillusioned with hunting what turned out to be another film pot in a tree, and lost the inclination to read so many cache listings to see which ones might be in an interesting location.

 

I live in one of the most cache-dense areas of the world. Yet I still have no trouble finding good caches (such as the ones you describe).

 

Perhaps you are not familiar with some of the features that the website provides to help you?

 

There are two fields, "terrain" and "difficulty," that let you know how much effort it takes to get to and to find a cache. There is another field called "container size" that allows you to eliminate all the tiny caches. Using those three together, you can easily cut down the number of caches to consider by a huge factor.

 

Then there is the cache map, which didn't exist in 2003. On the cache map, parklands often show up as green areas. You can find a trail in a parkland quite easily and investigate the caches within it. Indeed, using Open Street Maps for the cache map,you can often see the trails displayed. Another neat feature of the map is that it allows you to quickly and visually identify power trails so that you can ignore them.

 

There are also these things called "favorite points." On each cache page you can get a list of the people who awarded the cache a favorite point. If those people are people who you know enjoy the same caches as you do, then it's a good indication that you will enjoy the cache.

 

I highly recommend that you look into the features I have just described. I think that you will find that they quickly and efficiently reduce the number of caches you need to investigate from thousands down to a few tens.

[+narcissa]

"Their community communications clearly advocate quality, fun, adventure, respect, community."

 

Please explain how their implementation of mobile geocaching apps promotes "quality, fun, adventure, respect, community."

Creating a mobile app itself does not "promote" anything on that list, except raise awareness to a new demographic.

How they sell it, how they communicate, how they encourage people to use it -- that is what is relevant.

 

I repeat: it's very easy to SAY anything. Their actions - the actual design of the site and the apps - speaks far louder.

How does the design not promote "quality, fun, adventure, respect, community"?

Rather, how does the design promote "sub-par" caches, or "soggy film pots"?

 

People do that stuff.

Groundspeak communications (look at the blog) are ALL about promoting anf highlighting "quality, fun, adventure, respect, community". If people ignore the etiquette and themes that make geocaching enjoyable and fun for everyone, generally speaking, that is their fault. Groundspeak can only do so much.

So, what has Groundspeak done that promotes sub-par geocaching? That demonstrates their true lack of care for people and pastime? And a blog post that talks positively about nano caches doesn't count - many people have absolutely no problem with them. Your problem lies in how to define "sub-par" that is the same for everyone, otherwise it's one preference vs another.

 

Groundspeak may at any one point in time promote some aspect of geocaching that is enjoyable by one group of people, and less so for another group. That is not the same as Groundspeak favouring 'soggy film pots' in exchange for profit.

 

The touchy-feely email newsletters and blogs are meaningless when they don't even bother getting new users to confirm emails.

Two completely separate issues.

New user email confirmation has been raised in the forum, and is an ongoing, lengthy discussion. Of course I too hope that they deal with it and require new app users to confirm their email. That has zero effect on community-driven communications and encouraging positive geocaching experiences for the general public.

 

And I believe it's been mentioned in that thread that the portion of users/logs affected by that email confirmation is ridiculously tiny - yet vocal, because FORUMRANTS! That is to say, that one legitimate issue is far from being any indication that Groundspeak doesn't care about community or geocaching, let alone profit over than anything else.

 

Horsefeathers.

[+thebruce0]

Horsefeathers.

Good one, I actually had to look that up.

 

I fully support your right to disagree with the interpretation of the observations of Groundspeak's actions over the last decade.

[+tozainamboku]

Horsefeathers.

Good one, I actually had to look that up.

 

I fully support your right to disagree with the interpretation of the observations of Groundspeak's actions over the last decade.

Certainly, if geocaching has changed it is the geocaching community that has changed it. But one clear thing is that community has moved from being primarily composed of outdoor enthusiasts who already owned a GPS unit for hiking, backpacking, hunting, bicycling, etc. to a community primarily composed of people using smartphones and not necessarily having any interest io other outdoor activities. This demographic change gets reflected somewhat in terms of what gets hidden. Sure there are still outdoor enthusiast who hide "old school" caches, but they account for a small percentage of caches, even in many spots that would have previously seen only old school style hiking caches.

 

It is no wonder that some old school cachers see the effort of Groundspeak to grow the demographic of geocaching to be more reflective of the general population as contributing to what they perceive as negative change. While Groundspeak may continue to represent geocaching as an outdoor activity, in truth is has become more urban and more local. It is probably the case that you can ignore most urban hides and plan your caching around travel and being outdoors, but some people have a natural problem with having to proactively cache this way when a long time ago they simply could go after some caches and usually find something they enjoyed.

[+Lieblweb]

Wow...just wow.

 

 

Umm, regarding what, exactly?

 

I think they were crying out for their mom, mom, while standing on their head.

 

Yes....Reading this thread makes me want to cry out to my mom while standing on my head and try to get a beer out of the refrigerator with my toes and gulp it down in world record time.

[cezanne]

Unless of course you've found all the caches (of any type) that require a 3-4 hour hike.

In that case... *shrug*

Around here, people clean out the region by caching all the time. They've got nothing left to find. That's no one's fault, certainly not Groundspeak's or the state of geocaching. It just means there's no more to find. Until people put more out.

 

No, I have not cleared out my area at all. My statement was meant to say that the number of newly hidden caches that require a 3-4 hour hike has been going down considerably.

 

 

So ignore them, if you don't want to do them.

Or target the one in the trail parking lot, but do the trail hike first, then find it. The cache doesn't tell you how you have to find it.

 

Of course I can ignore the short ones, but then I typically end up with being inactive. What I'm doing often as the only wayout is clustering together several short caches

in order to end up with an activity time of 4 hours. This typically requires to move my car in between or to ride my bicycle in between along inattractive routes.

My area is not like a typical larger park in the US or Canada. It is not as easy as driving to a trail parking lot and doing a hike first.

Often there are residential areas in between and the route to be taken needs to be cleverly chosen in order to lead along forest trails, meadow trails etc

and not to end up with trespassing issues or a high tarmac proportion etc.

 

If a cache can be done as drive in and as a 3 mile attractive hike and it is obvious which trail to take, then that's an easy case, but that's not the typical case.

 

 

 

So the caches are irrelevant for that process. How then has geocaching changed that process since your 'golden years'?

If you want to go for a four hour walk, it should be the same amount of work now as it was in your golden years, if caches are irrelevant.

 

It has changed insofar that previously I selected a cache that led me to a parking lot and then kept me busy for four hours until I returned to the car.

I had no work at all with choosing the target for my walk, finding out which route to take, researching about the difficulty of the terrain etc

 

I typically had say 10-20 printouts of caches at home and I selected one of them as the target for my next weekend hike.

 

Plan a hike (irrelevant to caches if desired), and target only one cache (if there's one you feel you might want to get). Skip the rest. Make it a long one.

 

That's exactly the point. Previously I probably invested 10 minutes for planning the hike and could easily decide. Now it could happen that after 3 hours I have not yet decided for a target and then it is too late to leave. Of course that's my fault and not the fault of the geocaching community, but still it's the result of the change and not a question about

my cache selection.

 

... you don't need caches to keep you busy. If your chosen tour is about the hike, and caches are irrelevant, then what are you doing letting caches dictate your enjoyment of the hike, whether there's 50 in a forest or 2 If there's 50, you can walk the entire trail and only find two. Effectively no difference than if those two were the only ones on the trail.

 

If you might enjoy finding a 50 stage multi on the trail instead of 2 single traditionals, then how is that practically different than finding 50 single caches on that route?

 

First, I do not enjoy finding a 50 stage multi where I need to search for things at the stages.

Second, with only two waypoints I would need to choose and find my route on my own which requires a lot of preparation work in my situation while the multi will serve as a kind of

virtual companion for me along my way. Have a look at a cache like my recent hide (I use it as example as it has an English description)

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC4Z9E0_forget-your-sorrows-lets-walk-around-kumberg?guid=9738a5ba-4f6a-4dea-8c4a-5accb82f2362

 

In case of a series of 30 caches that define a tour, I still need to upload all 30 caches which is much more work than uploading a single cache and printing out a single description.

 

Cezanne

[team tisri]

When so many film pots behind signs are published it's hard to see how the reality ties up with the talk.

You want Groundspeak to police every cacher's caching habits to guarantee that you'll never again have to find a soggy film pot? That seems to be what you're advocating. That won't happen.

Groundspeak will deal with legitimate problems before they deal with complaints in regards to player preferences or inconvenience. And they will encourage and let the community do all of that 'policing' stuff themselves.

 

People publish caches that meet the guidelines. Groundspeak control the guidelines. If the saturation rule was changed, or the guidelines were such that endless film pots were discouraged, or if people who had had a dozen caches archived by the reviewer for non-maintenance were restricted from putting out more caches, the game might be more enjoyable.

 

It's hard to see how the community can do the "policing" stuff given we don't control what gets published and what gets archived. And as with anything else, if the demographic of the population shifts so what was once the majority becomes the minority, maybe the best thing to do is find something else to do.

 

What do you see Groundspeak doing (as opposed to hearing Groundspeak saying) that improves the game of geocaching?

[cezanne]

I do first choose the walk on days when the quality of the walk is my priority. But my point was more to suggest that people like you choose the walk and go enjoy it. If there's a cache to find at the end of it -- and there probably will be -- enjoy the cache as something which adds pleasure to the walk. Stop pretending that the number and quality of caches along the way could possibly make the walk less enjoyable, since the worst case is that you have to ignore the caches, leaving the walk as enjoyable as it ever was.

 

I use the caches to choose the walk and this works less and less well. CHoosing walks without caches also does not work well for me.

 

I doubt there's a single place within 100 miles of me where one could take a hike that leads away from parking for 3 or 4 hours without finding at least one ammo can in a nice location. Although you'd also have to put up with 10 or 20 lesser caches along the way.

 

That's not surprising as more wilderness areas are around in your case and what is called urban sprawl even in rural areas is not really in issue where you live.

Multi caches have been more popular in countries like Germany and Austria for a good reason.

[+dprovan]

Perhaps you are not familiar with some of the features that the website provides to help you?

In addition to the useful features fizzymagic mentions to help an individual filter out "bad" caches, one could also use the forums and bookmark lists to create a community that maintains lists of "good" caches. Yeah, that would require some effort, but I don't have much patience for people complaining about how many bad caches there are and then expecting someone else to do the work of deciding which caches are which.

[+L0ne.R]

Now it could happen that after 3 hours I have not yet decided for a target and then it is too late to leave.

 

That's interesting that you should say that. I thought I was the only one. I spend an hour looking for a target cache. I usually spend only an hour, more than that and I give up on geocaching that day. I usually have only about 4 hours to spare on a good day to go geocaching (2 hours usually spent driving to get to and from the target cache area).

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Horsefeathers.

Good one, I actually had to look that up.

 

I fully support your right to disagree with the interpretation of the observations of Groundspeak's actions over the last decade.

Certainly, if geocaching has changed it is the geocaching community that has changed it. But one clear thing is that community has moved from being primarily composed of outdoor enthusiasts who already owned a GPS unit for hiking, backpacking, hunting, bicycling, etc. to a community primarily composed of people using smartphones and not necessarily having any interest io other outdoor activities. This demographic change gets reflected somewhat in terms of what gets hidden. Sure there are still outdoor enthusiast who hide "old school" caches, but they account for a small percentage of caches, even in many spots that would have previously seen only old school style hiking caches.

 

I think you've hit on something that many seem to be missing.I don't know why, but it seems that a common theme in this thread is, if one agrees with the premise that geocaching has changed (and I just can't take anyone serious that claims that it hasn't), that the change can be attributed to a single cause. The community has contributed to change. Groundspeak, due to changes in the guidelines, have contributed to change. The devices we use have contributed to change. To me, it's not that there are N more caches today than there were 5 or 10 years ago. It's not that the average geocacher daily/yearly/total find count has gone up. It's the general approach to the game and what many geocachers today are trying to get out of it. As you suggest, the demographic has changed and that has had a significant impact on not only the types of caches that get hidden to the number of caches as well. Today, more and more are looking for the easy, quick find. Success is measured in numbers. Instead of a game where on might drive to a general area then go off one a several hour hike to grab a few caches, it's become more commonly about driving from one place to another where on can leave the vehicle for five minutes or less before getting back into that vehicle. The way people play the game has had an impact on the number of types of caches available and the number and types of caches available has had impact on the way more and more people play the game. Sure, there will be some that will, "but it's not like that in my area", but single examples do not refute the trend in how the game is being played.

 

 

 

[+Mudfrog]

Debates can be constructive but not in this thread. The original poster stated that geocaching had changed for them. I wholeheartedly agree!

 

I would guess that most newer people have no idea that geocaching has even changed. They get a phone app, turn it on, go find the nearest cache, then if it's fun for them, go hide a cache just like the one they found. Unfortunately, the cache they probably found was not one that a person who desires creativity, quality, uniqueness, or nice location, would enjoy. Repeat this process with even newer people coming in and pretty soon we have an onslaught of caches that aren't appealing to us "old timers".

 

Yes, there are good caches out there but they definitely aren't getting placed as often these days and are becoming fewer and far between.

[+3_dogs]

I exclude micros in my PQ's. I make use of the ignore list. If I don't want to find a cache, I don't. If you place a cache I like I will take the time to write you a nice log entry. If you just threw something out I'll make the same effort when writing my log.

 

I am fortunate to have a group of local cachers who like to make that 6 mile hike that includes climbing a mountain for a single . We get together once a month for dinner. It's not an event. There's no given. It's just getting together, talking about caches we've found (rating them as good, mediocre, or garbage), planning the next group hunt, and discuss whatever else we like.

 

I play the game my way. I don't care what you think.

Edited July 24, 2014 by 3_dogs

[+larryc43230]

I exclude micros in my PQ's. I make use of the ignore list. If I don't want to find a cache, I don't.

I'd love to exclude micros in pocket queries, but I love to visit old, historic cemeteries, and most caches in those cemeteries are micros.

 

If there were a way to exclude all micros except for those in old cemeteries, I would be a very happy camper.

 

--Larry

[+captnemo]

I exclude micros in my PQ's. I make use of the ignore list. If I don't want to find a cache, I don't.

I'd love to exclude micros in pocket queries, but I love to visit old, historic cemeteries, and most caches in those cemeteries are micros.

 

If there were a way to exclude all micros except for those in old cemeteries, I would be a very happy camper.

 

--Larry

the answer is GSAK and a little work. I also often run PQ one with and one without for the same area that way I have the best of both as I feel.

[+larryc43230]

the answer is GSAK and a little work. I also often run PQ one with and one without for the same area that way I have the best of both as I feel.

GSAK is precisely how I've done it for the past several years, and how I'll continue to do it until Groundspeak provides us with better filtering tools. I'm not holding my breath on that.

 

--Larry

Edited July 24, 2014 by larryc43230

[+dprovan]

Now it could happen that after 3 hours I have not yet decided for a target and then it is too late to leave.

That's interesting that you should say that. I thought I was the only one. I spend an hour looking for a target cache. I usually spend only an hour, more than that and I give up on geocaching that day. I usually have only about 4 hours to spare on a good day to go geocaching (2 hours usually spent driving to get to and from the target cache area).

You guys should really stop worrying about geocaching, 'cuz it's obviously just getting in your way. Look at a map, pick a place to hike without looking at geocaches, download a PQ for that area if you need a fresh one, and go there. Don't look at the caches until you get there. If there aren't any caches -- seems unlikely to me, but maybe things are that much worse in your area -- then have a lovely walk without any caches. If there are caches there, gravy! If there are caches like you really want to find there, jackpot! It almost seems like you're using geocaches as an excuse not to take a hike. The absolute last thing you should do is waste 1 or 3 hours of hike time fretting about where the good geocaches are.

[+L0ne.R]

If you place a cache I like I will take the time to write you a nice log entry. If you just threw something out I'll make the same effort when writing my log.

 

That reminds of what has changed since the olden golden days. Power caching has made it less satisfying to be a cache owner who tries to create nice cache experiences for finders.

 

I have a cache in a forest, nice walk, a small swag-size container, a funny container, maintained (twice a year). About once a month power cachers come through and I get a lot of logs that look like this (one month I got 35 logs from one group that were all similar to the 2 below):

 

On an weekend trip with JoeCacher and Gunner402. We found many caches with many different D/T and sizes. This is one cache we found this weekend.

and

Out on camping and caching trip with Gunner402 and JaneCacher. Found over 200 caches. Our target today was the nearby power trail. Thanks for adding to our fun.

Back in the early 2000s that didn't happen. Every log addressed each specific cache. Power caching, in all its forms, has changed the pastime dramatically and made cache ownership less satisfying. It's the people who do write a nice log entry about a specific cache that make it worthwhile. As the leisurely pastime morphs into a competitive game, that's getting increasingly uncommon.

Edited July 24, 2014 by L0ne.R

[+wmpastor]

And yeah I'm guilty of putting two six cache series out on a tree farm. I put the caches at least .25 miles apart so others could still place caches. I get lots of positive logs from these series so I guess most folks like them. And incidentally, I did my first six cache series back in 2008 so they have been around for quite a while, not a recent phenomenon.

 

You're right that the cache series isn't a recent phenomenon. I remember a small series I did a few years ago based around a park where there were three or four caches named after wild animals that lived in the park (things like hedgehogs and squirrels), where the clue was little more than "think like a squirrel". Each one had a number and when you had all the numbers you could find the bonus, which was also named after the park's wildlife. The caches were well spaced, I think they were all regular sized, they were hidden in places relevant to the animal (even down to one cache being hidden under the footbridge over the river, and named after the fish that lived in the river), and they were in a nice place.

 

That's a very different situation to a six mile trail containing 50 film pots behind posts where finding the caches means spending more time fussing around looking for film pots, signing logs, trying to replace sticks and stones to vaguely cover the film pot, hoping the strange smell isn't dog urine all over the film pot, and moving on, than enjoying the hike.

I agree. It's so much more exotic when the squirrels and hedgehogs do it to the cache!

[+tozainamboku]

Horsefeathers.

Good one, I actually had to look that up.

 

I fully support your right to disagree with the interpretation of the observations of Groundspeak's actions over the last decade.

Certainly, if geocaching has changed it is the geocaching community that has changed it. But one clear thing is that community has moved from being primarily composed of outdoor enthusiasts who already owned a GPS unit for hiking, backpacking, hunting, bicycling, etc. to a community primarily composed of people using smartphones and not necessarily having any interest io other outdoor activities. This demographic change gets reflected somewhat in terms of what gets hidden. Sure there are still outdoor enthusiast who hide "old school" caches, but they account for a small percentage of caches, even in many spots that would have previously seen only old school style hiking caches.

 

I think you've hit on something that many seem to be missing.I don't know why, but it seems that a common theme in this thread is, if one agrees with the premise that geocaching has changed (and I just can't take anyone serious that claims that it hasn't), that the change can be attributed to a single cause. The community has contributed to change. Groundspeak, due to changes in the guidelines, have contributed to change. The devices we use have contributed to change. To me, it's not that there are N more caches today than there were 5 or 10 years ago. It's not that the average geocacher daily/yearly/total find count has gone up. It's the general approach to the game and what many geocachers today are trying to get out of it. As you suggest, the demographic has changed and that has had a significant impact on not only the types of caches that get hidden to the number of caches as well. Today, more and more are looking for the easy, quick find. Success is measured in numbers. Instead of a game where on might drive to a general area then go off one a several hour hike to grab a few caches, it's become more commonly about driving from one place to another where on can leave the vehicle for five minutes or less before getting back into that vehicle. The way people play the game has had an impact on the number of types of caches available and the number and types of caches available has had impact on the way more and more people play the game. Sure, there will be some that will, "but it's not like that in my area", but single examples do not refute the trend in how the game is being played.

I'll have to disagree if that how you interpret what I said.

 

The fact is that there have always been different cachers who enjoy different aspects of the game. There have always been those who wanted more caches to find - regardless of where or how they were hidden - and others who were quite happy with fewer caches but ones that gave them a particular experience they enjoyed. Surely as the demographic have changes so has the ratio of players who prefer one way to the other. For some it can see like a losing battle, in spite of the fact that there are almost surely more of the caches you like then were around in the "old days". There are also more tools provided by Groundspeak to help you find these caches. I can see that in some people may remember a time when the ratios favored the cachers they like and they didn't have to use tools to weed out the many caches they find "lame". When I began in early 2003, the L.A. area was already becoming an urban caching area. Because of our geography I was able to use the maps (at that time on third party site as Groundspeak's early maps were atrocious) to find hiking caches. So I've always had to select caches, but I think we were one the first areas to see this shift to urban caching.

 

As far as guideline changes. In the early years, Groundspeak quite frankly stated that the purposes of the saturation guideline was to encourage caches in new places. The idea was that you should be looking in places without many caches when placing new ones. I really think the dropping of the so called power trail rule was because caches had spread to just about everywhere. In some urban areas is was hard for new cachers to find places unless they placed caches in parking lots or on random street signs. If anything, power trails encouraged people to find rural spots for a series of caches and encouraged urban cachers to at least get out and drive some back roads. Sure, Groundspeak may have been blind sided by series with 1000+ caches; then pleasantly surprised by the reaction they got - both from cachers traveling great distances to do these trails, and from the local rural communities who liked the uptick in business from all these cachers. It's just another type of cache you and I would avoid.

 

I'll accept that power trails may have some impact on the old (or even new) caches that are placed in the rural area to share some interesting location or tidbit of history. I don't really care that the power trail cachers leave a short log, so long as people who enjoy the unique caches in interesting places can still visit. But I can't discount that some people may leave throw downs as if these caches were just another one in the power trail. For the most part however these caches have survived side-by-side with power trails. I just looked at one and it is still getting long logs and plenty of gallery photos.

[+dprovan]

That reminds of what has changed since the olden golden days. Power caching has made it less satisfying to be a cache owner who tries to create nice cache experiences for finders.

 

I have a cache in a forest, nice walk, a small swag-size container, a funny container, maintained (twice a year). About once a month power cachers come through and I get a lot of logs that look like this (one month I got 35 logs from one group that were all similar to the 2 below):

 

On an weekend trip with JoeCacher and Gunner402. We found many caches with many different D/T and sizes. This is one cache we found this weekend.

and

Out on camping and caching trip with Gunner420 and JaneCacher. Found over 200 caches. Our target today was the nearby power trail. Thanks for adding to our fun.

I don't get it. If there weren't power cachers, which seems to be what you want, then you wouldn't have these two logs. I don't understand why not having these logs at all would satisfy you more than having them and ignoring them. In fact, since they did find your cache, and you know your cache is fun to find, shouldn't you be more satisfied with two more people having fun finding your cache even if they didn't write anything about it in their log?

 

I don't mind you asking for better logs, and I think cut&paste logs are particularly lame, but that equates to a better log being more satisfying than a lame log, not a lame log being less satisfying than no log.

[+fizzymagic]

I don't mind you asking for better logs, and I think cut&paste logs are particularly lame, but that equates to a better log being more satisfying than a lame log, not a lame log being less satisfying than no log.

 

For me, no log is better than a cut-and-paste log.

 

It's the whole "casting pearls before swine" thing.

[cezanne]

You guys should really stop worrying about geocaching, 'cuz it's obviously just getting in your way. Look at a map, pick a place to hike without looking at geocaches, download a PQ for that area if you need a fresh one, and go there. Don't look at the caches until you get there. If there aren't any caches -- seems unlikely to me, but maybe things are that much worse in your area -- then have a lovely walk without any caches. If there are caches there, gravy! If there are caches like you really want to find there, jackpot! It almost seems like you're using geocaches as an excuse not to take a hike. The absolute last thing you should do is waste 1 or 3 hours of hike time fretting about where the good geocaches are.

 

Picking a place to hike and to choose a route is the difficult part for me and just looking on a map definitely does not do the job for me (for several reasons). Even using hiking guide books and internet sites that list hiking routes does not provide me with all the information I need to decide whether a more challenging hike is manageable for me.

 

Of course, there exist alternative methods to choose a target which do not make use of geocaching. My message is that geocaching for several years was the method that worked

best for me and that due to the changes of geocaching this method works worse and worse for me while I have not found an alternative method that really satisfies me.

Another issue is that I use my logs as a kind of diary of my hiking/biking/walking activities.

 

I know that nothing can bring back the old times.

[cezanne]

I don't mind you asking for better logs, and I think cut&paste logs are particularly lame, but that equates to a better log being more satisfying than a lame log, not a lame log being less satisfying than no log.

 

For me no log is better too than a lame log. I think that many old school cachers see it that way.

[+Mudfrog]

I don't mind you asking for better logs, and I think cut&paste logs are particularly lame, but that equates to a better log being more satisfying than a lame log, not a lame log being less satisfying than no log.

 

For me no log is better too than a lame log. I think that many old school cachers see it that way.

 

It kinda depends on the lame log. I sort of cringe when i see a tftc, a short cut and paste, or a "that's one more cache for me" log come through on one of my caches. I know i'm stereotyping but the first thought that comes into my mind is that my cache may have been compromised in some way.

 

Tftcs have been around for a long time but back in the day (i know, i'm living in the past ) there weren't as many of them. I would say that most cachers took more time at each cache, wrote more into a logbook, and put the cache back like they found it. They weren't in such a big rush to get as many smilies as they could.

[+giddeanx]

I don't mind you asking for better logs, and I think cut&paste logs are particularly lame, but that equates to a better log being more satisfying than a lame log, not a lame log being less satisfying than no log.

 

For me no log is better too than a lame log. I think that many old school cachers see it that way.

 

It kinda depends on the lame log. I sort of cringe when i see a tftc, a short cut and paste, or a "that's one more cache for me" log come through on one of my caches. I know i'm stereotyping but the first thought that comes into my mind is that my cache may have been compromised in some way.

 

Tftcs have been around for a long time but back in the day (i know, i'm living in the past ) there weren't as many of them. I would say that most cachers took more time at each cache, wrote more into a logbook, and put the cache back like they found it. They weren't in such a big rush to get as many smilies as they could.

I have only seen more than signature and date in a physical log three times: One at the end of a multi, one in a letterbox (that I accidentally found), and one down the entire side of a micro log. I wasn't aware that people left more than that in them.

[+thebruce0]

Picking a place to hike and to choose a route is the difficult part for me and just looking on a map definitely does not do the job for me (for several reasons). Even using hiking guide books and internet sites that list hiking routes does not provide me with all the information I need to decide whether a more challenging hike is manageable for me.

 

Of course, there exist alternative methods to choose a target which do not make use of geocaching. My message is that geocaching for several years was the method that worked

best for me and that due to the changes of geocaching this method works worse and worse for me while I have not found an alternative method that really satisfies me.

Another issue is that I use my logs as a kind of diary of my hiking/biking/walking activities.

I'm sorry, but geocaching isn't just a tool for you to find good hiking spots - that's not its primary reason for existing. You've been choosing to use it as a means to find good places to hike. I'm sorry it's not as good a tool as it used to be, for you, in your area, because people around you have changed.

So, please, what exactly is your purpose for constantly complaining about geocaching (in your area), over and over, with no feasible solution in sight?

 

Actually, I may stop criticizing the criticizers of geocaching in this thread... it's a topical thread for an open discussion about how geocaching has changed. It has no goal, no ultimate destination in mind, no intent to find a solution. Just an open thread to repeatedly agree or disagree, to wax nostalgic on the subject that "geocaching has changed" (which no one disagrees with - only whether it's good or bad)

*sigh*

 

I know that nothing can bring back the old times.

So you're in an endless cycle of mourning, then, for what you miss. I'm sorry that this is so. It would be better for you if you were not in this state. As I said before, I hope you find a way out, some kind of resolution.

Edited July 24, 2014 by thebruce0

[+tozainamboku]

Actually, I may stop criticizing the criticizers of geocaching in this thread... it's a topical thread for an open discussion about how geocaching has changed. It has no goal, no ultimate destination in mind, no intent to find a solution. Just an open thread to repeatedly agree or disagree, to wax nostalgic on the subject that "geocaching has changed" (which no one disagrees with - only whether it's good or bad)

*sigh*

You seldom see threads that say Geocaching is better. But as I said in post 11, the one thing that is constant are threads complaining about change. (I'm getting a kick from reading how a little change in the email notification is causing so man problems for some people. Nobody has thanked Groundpeak for the new email notifications, and I'm guessing that there are many people who actually prefer the new notifications.)

 

Individuals tend to remember the good experiences they had in the past and whether these experiences really are fewer today or it just seems that way doesn't matter. Threads in the forum are a good place to vent.

[+thebruce0]

You seldom see threads that say Geocaching is better. But as I said in post 11, the one thing that is constant are threads complaining about change. (I'm getting a kick from reading how a little change in the email notification is causing so man problems for some people. Nobody has thanked Groundpeak for the new email notifications, and I'm guessing that there are many people who actually prefer the new notifications.)

 

Individuals tend to remember the good experiences they had in the past and whether these experiences really are fewer today or it just seems that way doesn't matter. Threads in the forum are a good place to vent.

This is why on my part I try to focus on constructive criticism, rather than emotionalized backlashes which pretty much every site updated gets inundated with in these forums.

But I am guilty of not thanking for and commending updates I think are good, nearly as much as I can or should. But the vitriol that comes from these things here is often shameful.

 

This email update though, there are plenty of legitimate, practical issues with the update itself as well as its rollout. I commented that I don't mind the html - I get loads of html emails, that doesn't bug me. It's the subject line that's problematic, practically speaking; and some comments about the formatting of the content I think are solid criticisms.

 

Groundspeak devs need more encouragement, not vitriolic backlash that keeps them away from positive criticisms and actually very good suggestions that get lost in the noise.

[+emmett]

 

So, please, what exactly is your purpose for constantly complaining about geocaching (in your area), over and over, with no feasible solution in sight?

 

 

Actually, there are feasible solutions to a number of geocaching problems. It's just that GC.com does not care enough to raise the quality of the game. They do a great job in terms of technology with the development of the website and all the tools that come with it, but a lousy job interfacing with cache owners and establishing policies and procedures that address problems and/or cultivate improvements in the field.

 

It really is a great website, and keeps getting better, no question about it. Too bad the creative and intelligent minds that made the site have not applied their talent towards making geocaching a better, and constantly improving game.

 

This is why you continually hear complaints about the quality of the game degrading and cache owners walking away. We know there are solutions though I would agree that complaining is not productive, but hey, sometimes a good grumble makes a grumbler feel better, at least for a while. So sayeth this grumbler.

 

PS - Don't ask me to list the possible solutions. It's been done many times over. No point in speaking to deaf ears. Just trying to explain why the complaining keeps on coming and correct your premise that there are no solutions.

 

.

[+DragonsWest]

The main function of our complaints is catharsis.

 

If anyone among the lily pad, wayward cachers, ornery reviewers, mean muggles, overzealous security (public and private) or other readers actually took these words to heart -- why -- my monocle would pop right OUT!

[+dprovan]

Picking a place to hike and to choose a route is the difficult part for me and just looking on a map definitely does not do the job for me (for several reasons).

Oh, I get it. You want cache owners to do the job of finding places for you to hike, and then when they don't, you proclaim geocaching as a whole broken. That's really sad.

 

Anyway, it's good to know that at least you see it that way, so you must put out lots of caches with those qualities for other people. I bet they're a lot of fun. Maybe you should espouse more of that rather than criticizing the entire game.

 

It really is a great website, and keeps getting better, no question about it. Too bad the creative and intelligent minds that made the site have not applied their talent towards making geocaching a better, and constantly improving game.

I think geocaching is a better and constantly improving game. I wouldn't still be doing it if there were only 500 caches within 50 miles of me, each at the end of a 2 mile hike. For one thing, I never would have heard of the game. (If you just said "Good!", then you're one of the elitists I'm particularly down on.) Even if I had discovered it, I would have enjoyed many of those 2 miles hikes, but there'd soon be no more within convenient driving distance, so I would have returned to just hiking without geocaches.

 

This is why you continually hear complaints about the quality of the game degrading and cache owners walking away.

No, that's really not why we continually hear complaints. We continually hear complaints because of very vocal people that once used geocaching for something very specific -- like locating good places to hike -- and can't get used to the fact that the game's evolved into something more than the limited, special interest hobby they originally discovered.

[+thebruce0]

what dprovan said. Also...

This is why you continually hear complaints about the quality of the game degrading and cache owners walking away. We know there are solutions though I would agree that complaining is not productive, but hey, sometimes a good grumble makes a grumbler feel better, at least for a while. So sayeth this grumbler.

A grumbler who also selectively ignores the vast increase of enthusiastic players, who don't play the same way, who enjoy different things, who live in other parts of the world, who also pay for premium, etc etc...

 

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) -- and that's not even counting the fact that this single service is providing a pastime for entire freaking world.

 

It's not perfect.

It never will be.

It will ALWAYS change.

There will, necessarily, be people who will have to move on as things stray from the way they used to be.

As I've said - Groundspeak (an imperfect organization, of course, but a very, very impressive one nonetheless) should deal with problems first, suggested improvements second, and arbitrary preferences last.

[cezanne]

Picking a place to hike and to choose a route is the difficult part for me and just looking on a map definitely does not do the job for me (for several reasons).

Oh, I get it. You want cache owners to do the job of finding places for you to hike, and then when they don't, you proclaim geocaching as a whole broken. That's really sad.

 

I never proclaimed geocaching as broken. I just repeatedly say that it does a much worse job for my purpose, nothing else. That's why I always stress that the changes have been to the better for many. What got me into geocaching was that back then it was exactly the intent of almost all hiders in my area to share hikes and locations with others.

 

Geocaching as it has been in the golden times was a perfect solution for a problem I had already before I started to geocache.

[+emmett]

 

This is why you continually hear complaints about the quality of the game degrading and cache owners walking away.

 

No, that's really not why we continually hear complaints. We continually hear complaints because of very vocal people that once used geocaching for something very specific -- like locating good places to hike -- and can't get used to the fact that the game's evolved into something more than the limited, special interest hobby they originally discovered.

 

That might describe some "complainers" but it describes none that I know. You'll need a better theory to explain away why the best cache owners this area has seen in the past ten years are almost all inactive today. Considering I have had those conversations and have considerable experience myself, I think I have a pretty good handle on it.

 

.

[+3_dogs]

I have only seen more than signature and date in a physical log three times: One at the end of a multi, one in a letterbox (that I accidentally found), and one down the entire side of a micro log. I wasn't aware that people left more than that in them.

You can change that in your area.

 

I've seen many logs with more than a date and signature. They're usually either old caches, caches that require effort to find, or well thought out caches. If I find a cache I really like I'll take time to write something in the log.

 

I enjoy reading logs when I do maintenance. I try to give other CO's that same enjoyment.

[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?

[+dprovan]

For me, no log is better than a cut-and-paste log.

 

It's the whole "casting pearls before swine" thing.

Unlike the swine the Bible warned you about, the power cachers did not destroy your cache, so your pearl hasn't been wasted. It's still there for the next cacher to enjoy. Furthermore, there's no reason for you to think the power cachers didn't value your pearl quite highly. They just didn't say anything about it in the log.

[+Car54]

 

For me, no log is better than a cut-and-paste log.

 

It's the whole "casting pearls before swine" thing.

 

^^

This

 

Mrs. Car54

[+J Grouchy]

I don't really buy into the notion that geocaching is all about a hike or getting "deep into nature". Yes, location is key...but a great location can just as easily be a PNG cache in an urban environment. I've personally discovered tons of great spots around Atlanta that I had previously never known about in my 30+ years living here. Yes, there are plenty of "why did they bring me here?" caches...more than enough of those. But then I look at the dates on many of those and see that a lot of them are six, seven, eight years old...sometimes older. Pardon the blunt question...but what's the cutoff for "back in my day" caches? Was the "golden age" of caching a brief year or two at the turn of the century and it's all gone downhill since then? I suppose I'm just wondering why all the "fondly looking backward" is going on. I don't think I ever would have been able to enjoy geocaching if all it was involved ammo cans tethered to trees at the end of a five mile hike. I believe the variety is key and I don't mind having ebbs and flows of creativity.

 

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

[+thebruce0]

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?

 

so many things about this comment... cannot compress...

[Pto]

Well in MN< the quality level has decreased, and the micro's on a pole have increased- and the MN approvers just keep approving them??

One series is a transit-way- micros stuck to poles along a transit route. Yippee.

Another series is (Get this) Dead End Streets!! All micros stuck in signs on dead end streets. Wow, and its a whole series!

 

Another few caches are hidden on empty lots in what I consider a shady part of town I wouldnt visit for fear of being attacked.

 

The location does not seem to matter to many these days. Its all about the numbers.

Just last week was my 11th year since joining, and I have a whopping 86 finds (logged here) I do it for the fun of it, getting out in the woods but finding a micro on a pole in a parking lot isnt fun regardless of what I call it. Geocaching isnt about finding a no parking sign, or at least thats not what I got into it for.

Those people can have thier "fun" and I will have mine- we just wont cross paths very often if ever.

 

I just got back from replacing my 8 year old ammo can cache down in the woods along the Mississippi. 1st time its gone missing in all that time. Only 15 DNF's - 259 smileys.

Mine is 1 of a series of 50, so the cachers are often the more dedicated cachers - Traveling the entire country hitting every state-

They take "Cache Across America" very seriously!

 

Just two kinds of people playing the same "game", but playing 2 completely different "games" in reality

[+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.

[+terrkan78]

There's no question but that geocaching has changed. I also think there's no question but that I have changed since I started in 08.

 

I found pretty much all geocaches amazing at first. I felt like I was on a big adventure when bushwhacking even a short distance. I hadn't been hiking for a couple of decades, so it was all new and exciting.

 

I still seek out caches that I believe will hold adventure, but now days it takes a lot to impress me. I don't consider that a good change in my attitude.

 

I can't stop my attitude/emotions from doing their thing, but what I have done is to stop and stare at random hills in the forest thinking, "You know, I could just make my way up to the top even though there's no cache up there." Because I wish there was a cache up there. I've also stuffed a .50 ammo can in my backpack (man, those suckers are heavy) just in case I want to deploy it at the top of one of those random hills. I think I can be content for a while searching for just the right spot for a (really heavy) ammo can. I find that I need a goal of some sort or I won't make it all the way to the top.

 

But...why doesn't everybody wanna plunk down ammo cans on hilltops??? What is wrong with people! I hate chocolate ice cream! Vanilla rocks!

[+jbbagley]

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.