Jump to content

Why Do Chachers "Fill in Gaps"?


CryptikFox
Followers 1

Recommended Posts

Here's my question: Why do geocachers "fill in gaps" by placing caches every couple hundred feet from each other? (Namely on hiking trails).

 

Here's why I ask:

 

  • These caches are fundamentally pointless.
  • Their only point is for the sake of filling geocaching maps covering every possible square foot in caches.

  • These caches have no value.
  • They are not placed in a special, unique, or interesting location. They are simply crammed in between each other for the sake of "filling gaps".

  • They are not a unique cache in general—there is no puzzle, no interesting container, no special hiding spot—they are the most basic caches imaginable.

 

Isn't geocaching meant to be about bringing people to unique locations? Isn't it about the journey there and maybe solving some intricate puzzle when you get there? Isn't it about finding a unique hiding spot or elaborate way of disguising a cache?

 

It seems geocaching has become more of a laundry list of finding every single possible pointless cache crammed in as close as possible to each other. At this point it seems this is more like glorified littering than something noteworthy and meaningful.

 

Sounds a lot more like geotrashing than geocaching.

Edited by CryptikFox
Link to comment

I think they are limited to .1 mile apart but the " gap fillers " can be as much fun to find as the one at the end of the trail that may be also unremarkable except it is the last one. Geocaching is primarily about FINDING CACHE CONTAINERS not running, hiking, canoeing, mountain biking, etc. although geocaching can be incorporated in to those activities. We enjoy FINDING CACHE CONTAINERS .....I guess that's why I rarely have anything to complain about on the forums.

Link to comment

Here's my question: Why do geocachers "fill in gaps" by placing caches every couple hundred feet from each other? (Namely on hiking trails).

 

Here's why I ask:

 

  • These caches are fundamentally pointless.
  • Their only point is for the sake of filling geocaching maps covering every possible square foot in caches.

  • These caches have no value.
  • They are not placed in a special, unique, or interesting location. They are simply crammed in between each other for the sake of "filling gaps".

  • They are not a unique cache in general—there is no puzzle, no interesting container, no special hiding spot—they are the most basic caches imaginable.

 

Isn't geocaching meant to be about bringing people to unique locations? Isn't it about the journey there and maybe solving some intricate puzzle when you get there? Isn't it about finding a unique hiding spot or elaborate way of disguising a cache?

 

It seems geocaching has become more of a laundry list of finding every single possible pointless cache crammed in as close as possible to each other. At this point it seems this is more like glorified littering than something noteworthy and meaningful.

 

Sounds a lot more like geotrashing than geocaching.

I agree with you. I don't like organised littering either, but geocaching spawned into a it's all about the numbers game long before the wave of phone cachers joined the game. :ph34r:

Link to comment

Here's my question: Why do geocachers "fill in gaps" by placing caches every couple hundred feet from each other? (Namely on hiking trails).

 

Here's why I ask:

 

  • These caches are fundamentally pointless.
  • Their only point is for the sake of filling geocaching maps covering every possible square foot in caches.

  • These caches have no value.
  • They are not placed in a special, unique, or interesting location. They are simply crammed in between each other for the sake of "filling gaps".

  • They are not a unique cache in general—there is no puzzle, no interesting container, no special hiding spot—they are the most basic caches imaginable.

 

Isn't geocaching meant to be about bringing people to unique locations? Isn't it about the journey there and maybe solving some intricate puzzle when you get there? Isn't it about finding a unique hiding spot or elaborate way of disguising a cache?

 

It seems geocaching has become more of a laundry list of finding every single possible pointless cache crammed in as close as possible to each other. At this point it seems this is more like glorified littering than something noteworthy and meaningful.

 

Sounds a lot more like geotrashing than geocaching.

 

It's the eternal race to the bottom, sadly.

 

I remember caching in some rural areas, planning walks around caches that were on the ridges where a 12-mile walk might take in four, maybe five caches. Looking at the route around the trails the caches were arguably little more than waypoints around the route but it was safe to assume they'd be worth hunting. And that was fine, finding five caches in a day while out hiking was something quite special.

 

I've tried a few trails and some of them are nice enough but sometimes it does get tedious stopping a walk every few hundred feet to find a film pot at the base of a post and move on. The obvious answer is not to bother with those, but as people say it's often hard to tell the ones that are interesting from the ones that aren't. If you're into finding 10 caches per mile of walking it's great, if you're more about the walk and the vista at the top than the dozens of lame micros along the way it's not so great.

Link to comment

Here's my question: Why do geocachers "fill in gaps" by placing caches every couple hundred feet from each other? (Namely on hiking trails).

 

Here's why I ask:

 

  • These caches are fundamentally pointless.
  • Their only point is for the sake of filling geocaching maps covering every possible square foot in caches.

  • These caches have no value.
  • They are not placed in a special, unique, or interesting location. They are simply crammed in between each other for the sake of "filling gaps".

  • They are not a unique cache in general—there is no puzzle, no interesting container, no special hiding spot—they are the most basic caches imaginable.

 

Isn't geocaching meant to be about bringing people to unique locations? Isn't it about the journey there and maybe solving some intricate puzzle when you get there? Isn't it about finding a unique hiding spot or elaborate way of disguising a cache?

 

It seems geocaching has become more of a laundry list of finding every single possible pointless cache crammed in as close as possible to each other. At this point it seems this is more like glorified littering than something noteworthy and meaningful.

 

Sounds a lot more like geotrashing than geocaching.

I guess that I don't understand the problem.

 

Was the first cache placed on the trail pointless? If not, what makes the next cache pointless?

 

Can't you choose to find whichever cache that you want to on the trail and simply not find the ones that you don't want to find?

 

If it's a good trail, couldn't you choose to return at some later date to find other caches along it?

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
It's the eternal race to the bottom, sadly.

 

I remember caching in some rural areas, planning walks around caches that were on the ridges where a 12-mile walk might take in four, maybe five caches. Looking at the route around the trails the caches were arguably little more than waypoints around the route but it was safe to assume they'd be worth hunting. And that was fine, finding five caches in a day while out hiking was something quite special.

 

I've tried a few trails and some of them are nice enough but sometimes it does get tedious stopping a walk every few hundred feet to find a film pot at the base of a post and move on. The obvious answer is not to bother with those, but as people say it's often hard to tell the ones that are interesting from the ones that aren't. If you're into finding 10 caches per mile of walking it's great, if you're more about the walk and the vista at the top than the dozens of lame micros along the way it's not so great.

One solution is to simply not stop for ANY of the micros. Alternatively, you could look for every fifth cache. The next time that you are hiking that trail, go for every fourth cache. Then three, then two, then every one. You'll get to hike that great trail five times and each time find the number of caches that you like to find while hiking.

Link to comment

Here's my question: Why do geocachers "fill in gaps" by placing caches every couple hundred feet from each other? (Namely on hiking trails).

 

Here's why I ask:

 

  • These caches are fundamentally pointless.
  • Their only point is for the sake of filling geocaching maps covering every possible square foot in caches.

  • These caches have no value.
  • They are not placed in a special, unique, or interesting location. They are simply crammed in between each other for the sake of "filling gaps".

  • They are not a unique cache in general—there is no puzzle, no interesting container, no special hiding spot—they are the most basic caches imaginable.

 

Isn't geocaching meant to be about bringing people to unique locations? Isn't it about the journey there and maybe solving some intricate puzzle when you get there? Isn't it about finding a unique hiding spot or elaborate way of disguising a cache?

 

It seems geocaching has become more of a laundry list of finding every single possible pointless cache crammed in as close as possible to each other. At this point it seems this is more like glorified littering than something noteworthy and meaningful.

 

Sounds a lot more like geotrashing than geocaching.

Funny you use the word pointless. Some people say the value of a found cache is one point. Now, I agree that goal of geocaching shouldn't be to accumulate points. However it sees that a reasonable goal for some may be to find caches.

 

The 'point' of placing caches is for there to be caches for others to find. Not every cache that gets placed needs to be one that you, in particular, enjoys or finds a worthy secondary reason for the cache. Caches certainly do have be in unique locations, but that is defined as 528 feet apart. If you have another definition of 'unique' location please share it with us. But remember that virtual caches had a requirement to be in a 'Wow' location and nobody could agree on what that meant.

 

I can empathize with you. From where I sit at work I can gaze up at a mountain where back in 2003 I found a single cache. The effort is climbing that mountain, as well as determining the route for the ascent, was so enjoyable that the following week I returned to replace the container that had deteriorated with an ammo can. Now there are dozens of caches marking two differen routes up the mountain. Occassionally a new group of cachers goes up the hill and post about the great experience they had finding the cache that is now the oldest active cache in Los Angeles county. I simply roll my eyes knowing that their experience is not same as the one I had 11 years ago, and that if there were only the one cache, most of these people would not have even attempted the hike. But each individual is able to decide for themselves which caches they will go find and which caches they enjoy the most.

 

One the other hand, I have to look harder to find the lone cache when I can have an adventure instead of following bread crumbs of micros. And I am a little annoyed where many of the caches I have placed that were meant to be an adventure to find, are now sitting in the middle of a trail of bread crumbs.

Link to comment

Got to disagree. Placing caches along a trail every 1/10th a mile only encourages people to visit and WALK/BIKE the entire length of the trail. That is a good thing, not a bad thing. And in some areas like in Nevada, power trails have become a mini-industry with people planning, staying at hotels, and eating at restaurants adding money to the economy.

 

They got their place, there isn't a prize or standings table on who finds the most geocaches.

Link to comment

I can empathize with you. From where I sit at work I can gaze up at a mountain where back in 2003 I found a single cache. The effort is climbing that mountain, as well as determining the route for the ascent, was so enjoyable that the following week I returned to replace the container that had deteriorated with an ammo can. Now there are dozens of caches marking two differen routes up the mountain. Occassionally a new group of cachers goes up the hill and post about the great experience they had finding the cache that is now the oldest active cache in Los Angeles county. I simply roll my eyes knowing that their experience is not same as the one I had 11 years ago, and that if there were only the one cache, most of these people would not have even attempted the hike. But each individual is able to decide for themselves which caches they will go find and which caches they enjoy the most.

 

One the other hand, I have to look harder to find the lone cache when I can have an adventure instead of following bread crumbs of micros. And I am a little annoyed where many of the caches I have placed that were meant to be an adventure to find, are now sitting in the middle of a trail of bread crumbs.

 

Yep. Being much more of a hiker I definitely prefer the lone cache or two way up on some mountain or ridge that'll be an adventure to get to. I don't like the bread crumbs either.

 

Don't get me wrong, I can appreciate a nice puzzle (which may or may not be a micro cache), and have enjoyed several.

 

I however definitely prefer the lonesome cache atop a peak and it just looses some of that feel knowing there's a trail of bread crumbs leading up to it.

Link to comment
It's the eternal race to the bottom, sadly.

 

I remember caching in some rural areas, planning walks around caches that were on the ridges where a 12-mile walk might take in four, maybe five caches. Looking at the route around the trails the caches were arguably little more than waypoints around the route but it was safe to assume they'd be worth hunting. And that was fine, finding five caches in a day while out hiking was something quite special.

 

I've tried a few trails and some of them are nice enough but sometimes it does get tedious stopping a walk every few hundred feet to find a film pot at the base of a post and move on. The obvious answer is not to bother with those, but as people say it's often hard to tell the ones that are interesting from the ones that aren't. If you're into finding 10 caches per mile of walking it's great, if you're more about the walk and the vista at the top than the dozens of lame micros along the way it's not so great.

One solution is to simply not stop for ANY of the micros. Alternatively, you could look for every fifth cache. The next time that you are hiking that trail, go for every fourth cache. Then three, then two, then every one. You'll get to hike that great trail five times and each time find the number of caches that you like to find while hiking.

 

The solution of not stopping for any micros is the one I've pretty much taken. It's just a shame that the game devolves to the level of instant gratification and not wanting to walk any distance without a whole stack of caches to find along the way.

 

I guess I just like remote places to be, well, remote. The reward is after making the effort, rather than endless little pats on the head along the way.

Link to comment

Isn't geocaching meant to be about bringing people to unique locations? Isn't it about the journey there and maybe solving some intricate puzzle when you get there? Isn't it about finding a unique hiding spot or elaborate way of disguising a cache?

No, geocaching is not about any of those things. Those are all things a CO can do to make a cache more interesting, but none of them are a required part of the caching experience.

 

For some reason, you're seeing these common caches as having a negative value. I don't know how you justify that. They may have very little value, almost none for you apparently, but that just means you shouldn't bother with them, not that they're something to complain about.

 

And filling in as tight as possible has nothing to do with it. Good caches can be just as densely packed as poor caches.

 

The bottom line is that you are complaining because there are too many caches. And I think that's a silly thing to complain about.

Link to comment

Here's my question: Why do geocachers "fill in gaps" by placing caches every couple hundred feet from each other? (Namely on hiking trails).

Ever go hiking with kids? For many after walking for 30 minutes the questions start coming... "How much farther?", "Are we there yet?", "I'm tired."

 

Those caches keep the little ones motivated. It gives them something to find along the way, and it gives us older folks a break for a few minutes. When I do a trail like that, especially if it is an out and back, I'll do every other cache on the way out and then the skipped ones on the way back.

Link to comment

Isn't geocaching meant to be about bringing people to unique locations? Isn't it about the journey there and maybe solving some intricate puzzle when you get there? Isn't it about finding a unique hiding spot or elaborate way of disguising a cache?

No, geocaching is not about any of those things. Those are all things a CO can do to make a cache more interesting, but none of them are a required part of the caching experience.

 

For some reason, you're seeing these common caches as having a negative value. I don't know how you justify that. They may have very little value, almost none for you apparently, but that just means you shouldn't bother with them, not that they're something to complain about.

 

And filling in as tight as possible has nothing to do with it. Good caches can be just as densely packed as poor caches.

 

The bottom line is that you are complaining because there are too many caches. And I think that's a silly thing to complain about.

 

Geocaching used to be more about the location. I remember a guideline for hiding a cache which was to ask why you'd take someone to the cache location. If it was just to find the cache, or that there wasn't a cache within 528 feet, maybe it wasn't a good spot. A lot of trails seem to be little more than endless random points around a trail rather than each being an interesting location in its own right.

 

Now the idea of having a single cache as the destination seems to be dying, because it appears unacceptable to hike a couple of miles without at least a dozen caches along the way.

Link to comment

Here's my question: Why do geocachers "fill in gaps"?

 

Climbers climb mountains "because they are there." Cachers fill gaps because they are there.

 

Willie Sutton robbed banks because "because that's where the money is." Cachers fill gaps because that's where the caches ain't.

 

Pretty straightforward when you think about it. :)

Link to comment

Got to disagree. Placing caches along a trail every 1/10th a mile only encourages people to visit and WALK/BIKE the entire length of the trail. That is a good thing, not a bad thing. And in some areas like in Nevada, power trails have become a mini-industry with people planning, staying at hotels, and eating at restaurants adding money to the economy.

 

They got their place, there isn't a prize or standings table on who finds the most geocaches.

 

Yes. That does seem to be true.

 

But I'm one of the few that find a trail filled with pill bottles (or any free leaky micro container that will never be maintained) for miles and miles is no incentive to go walking on that trail.

 

And it irritates me that a perfectly fine trail has been ruined by leaky cheap containers that were placed for the numbers. And if your cache happens to have been placed anywhere on the trail first or nearby, you can forget about getting any decent logs from then on. They'll all be cut and paste "Found xxx caches today. I can't remember which one was yours. Thanks for the smiley."

 

Link to comment

But I'm one of the few that find a trail filled with pill bottles (or any free leaky micro container that will never be maintained) for miles and miles is no incentive to go walking on that trail.

That one cache on the mountain that I talked about before was place by someone who seems to have been a on weekend wonder. He hid that cache and then stopped geocaching. The container deteriorated and despite being reported that it needed maintenance the owner was MIA. I supposed instead of replacing it I could have trashed out the remains and posted an NA.

 

Since that time the other caches have encouraged somewhat regular visits by cachers who in addition to filling in the gaps on the trail have help maintained the original cache. Sure many of the gap fillers are pill bottles and they sometime go missing or the logs get wet. But most are in far better shape than the tupperware I found in 2003.

 

e635148a-8821-47d7-941e-7748bb03bfe2.jpg

Link to comment

They aren't my cup of tea, but my main gripe is that there's no easy way to exclude them when I put geocaches into my GPS. I'd rather walk by them and find a couple of good quality caches along a trail. I have no need to stop 150 times along a bike path so I can find one of twenty-five throw-downs that are littering a 50 foot radius around the GZ.

Link to comment

As long as they can maintain them Ive got no problem with it. It helps to have multiple caches in close proximity to lure people.to somewhere they might not otherwise go. me? so far im not into micros but could see myself hiting a power trail in the right mood.

 

i exclude them by filtering out all micros when doing pocket query... easiest way though there are some clever nano hides.

Edited by sholomar
Link to comment

These caches can be good for those in wheelchairs, but what's wrong with having gap fillers for those that like the numbers aspect? The best part about this game is that it has a little something for everyone. One man's trash is another man's treasure. One man's favorite point'd cache is on another's ignored list.

Link to comment

 

The solution of not stopping for any micros is the one I've pretty much taken. It's just a shame that the game devolves to the level of instant gratification and not wanting to walk any distance without a whole stack of caches to find along the way.

 

I guess I just like remote places to be, well, remote. The reward is after making the effort, rather than endless little pats on the head along the way.

 

I'm glad I don't cache where you cache because those geocaches must have some magical powers that cause you to swerve off the trail and hunt for them against your will. It's not hard to walk past them. Just keep going and go find that cache after a 12 mile hike. NOTHING is stopping you from doing that except yourself. That way you'll only get one little pat on your head.

 

I've never understood why anyone would get angsty just because there is a trail full of caches when they only wanted to find the one at the end of the trail. Does it really bother you to know they are there? Does that somehow take away from the scenery or the remoteness? Look for the caches you want to find, skip the rest.

Link to comment

Got to disagree. Placing caches along a trail every 1/10th a mile only encourages people to visit and WALK/BIKE the entire length of the trail. That is a good thing, not a bad thing. And in some areas like in Nevada, power trails have become a mini-industry with people planning, staying at hotels, and eating at restaurants adding money to the economy.

 

They got their place, there isn't a prize or standings table on who finds the most geocaches.

 

Yes. That does seem to be true.

 

But I'm one of the few that find a trail filled with pill bottles (or any free leaky micro container that will never be maintained) for miles and miles is no incentive to go walking on that trail.

 

And it irritates me that a perfectly fine trail has been ruined by leaky cheap containers that were placed for the numbers. And if your cache happens to have been placed anywhere on the trail first or nearby, you can forget about getting any decent logs from then on. They'll all be cut and paste "Found xxx caches today. I can't remember which one was yours. Thanks for the smiley."

Seems to me that the only way for this to happen is if you were the first to place a leaky cheap container like everyone after you. If you make a good hide, you'll get good logs. If you place a small lock&lock behind the log, or pill bottle in the stump, or a bison tied to a tree limb, you guessed it, "can't remember anything about yours. TFTC"

Link to comment
I have no need to stop 150 times along a bike path so I can find one of twenty-five throw-downs that are littering a 50 foot radius around the GZ.

We'd love to see the photo of the 25 throwdowns! That would be a classic.

 

Also, let's say that getting on and off a bike burns 10 extra calories. 10 x 150 = 1,500 calories. I'm going to that trail immediately!

Link to comment

Got to disagree. Placing caches along a trail every 1/10th a mile only encourages people to visit and WALK/BIKE the entire length of the trail. That is a good thing, not a bad thing. And in some areas like in Nevada, power trails have become a mini-industry with people planning, staying at hotels, and eating at restaurants adding money to the economy.

 

They got their place, there isn't a prize or standings table on who finds the most geocaches.

 

Yes. That does seem to be true.

 

But I'm one of the few that find a trail filled with pill bottles (or any free leaky micro container that will never be maintained) for miles and miles is no incentive to go walking on that trail.

 

And it irritates me that a perfectly fine trail has been ruined by leaky cheap containers that were placed for the numbers. And if your cache happens to have been placed anywhere on the trail first or nearby, you can forget about getting any decent logs from then on. They'll all be cut and paste "Found xxx caches today. I can't remember which one was yours. Thanks for the smiley."

Seems to me that the only way for this to happen is if you were the first to place a leaky cheap container like everyone after you. If you make a good hide, you'll get good logs. If you place a small lock&lock behind the log, or pill bottle in the stump, or a bison tied to a tree limb, you guessed it, "can't remember anything about yours. TFTC"

Nope.

I usually pass all the carp to get to the original placed far-end of a trail and many times have seen awesome hides with logs thanking the "series" creator (pill bottle every .1), instead of the CO of the awesome (usually older) hide.

So busy collecting "points" they never noticed the change in COs.

Guess they thought the ammo can at the end was the finale...

Edited by cerberus1
Link to comment
I have no need to stop 150 times along a bike path so I can find one of twenty-five throw-downs that are littering a 50 foot radius around the GZ.

We'd love to see the photo of the 25 throwdowns! That would be a classic.

 

Also, let's say that getting on and off a bike burns 10 extra calories. 10 x 150 = 1,500 calories. I'm going to that trail immediately!

 

Again, different strokes. Getting on and off a bicycle every 160 metres is not fun for me. All I want is a better way to filter out these power trails so I can see the caches that are worthwhile for me. As it is, they generally get lost in the rest of the trail unless I spend a lot of time with third-party software.

Link to comment
I have no need to stop 150 times along a bike path so I can find one of twenty-five throw-downs that are littering a 50 foot radius around the GZ.

We'd love to see the photo of the 25 throwdowns! That would be a classic.

 

Also, let's say that getting on and off a bike burns 10 extra calories. 10 x 150 = 1,500 calories. I'm going to that trail immediately!

 

Again, different strokes. Getting on and off a bicycle every 160 metres is not fun for me. All I want is a better way to filter out these power trails so I can see the caches that are worthwhile for me. As it is, they generally get lost in the rest of the trail unless I spend a lot of time with third-party software.

Skip some then you don't have to find every cache. Instead you do one out of every 5, then the next time you come to the trail you will still have caches to grab.

Link to comment
It's the eternal race to the bottom, sadly.

 

I remember caching in some rural areas, planning walks around caches that were on the ridges where a 12-mile walk might take in four, maybe five caches. Looking at the route around the trails the caches were arguably little more than waypoints around the route but it was safe to assume they'd be worth hunting. And that was fine, finding five caches in a day while out hiking was something quite special.

 

I've tried a few trails and some of them are nice enough but sometimes it does get tedious stopping a walk every few hundred feet to find a film pot at the base of a post and move on. The obvious answer is not to bother with those, but as people say it's often hard to tell the ones that are interesting from the ones that aren't. If you're into finding 10 caches per mile of walking it's great, if you're more about the walk and the vista at the top than the dozens of lame micros along the way it's not so great.

One solution is to simply not stop for ANY of the micros. Alternatively, you could look for every fifth cache. The next time that you are hiking that trail, go for every fourth cache. Then three, then two, then every one. You'll get to hike that great trail five times and each time find the number of caches that you like to find while hiking.

 

The solution of not stopping for any micros is the one I've pretty much taken. It's just a shame that the game devolves to the level of instant gratification and not wanting to walk any distance without a whole stack of caches to find along the way.

 

I guess I just like remote places to be, well, remote. The reward is after making the effort, rather than endless little pats on the head along the way.

Why is this sad? Like others have posted, just ignore them and walk the desired distance you want. Isn't it like complaining about smut on TV. Don't watch it or unsubscribe to the channel.

Link to comment

Here's my question: Why do geocachers "fill in gaps" by placing caches every couple hundred feet from each other? (Namely on hiking trails).

Who knows?

 

Here's why I ask:

  • These caches are fundamentally pointless.
  • Their only point is for the sake of filling geocaching maps covering every possible square foot in caches.
  • These caches have no value.
  • They are not placed in a special, unique, or interesting location. They are simply crammed in between each other for the sake of "filling gaps".
  • They are not a unique cache in general—there is no puzzle, no interesting container, no special hiding spot—they are the most basic caches imaginable.

Certainly, that is one position. However not all "fill in gap" caches meet your definition and many many more non "fill in gap" caches meet the definition presented as well. In most cachers opinion a lame cache is a lame cache and for many more reasons than it just being a "fill in gap" cache.

 

Isn't geocaching meant to be about bringing people to unique locations? Isn't it about the journey there and maybe solving some intricate puzzle when you get there? Isn't it about finding a unique hiding spot or elaborate way of disguising a cache?

 

It seems geocaching has become more of a laundry list of finding every single possible pointless cache crammed in as close as possible to each other. At this point it seems this is more like glorified littering than something noteworthy and meaningful.

 

Those motivations work for a lot of cachers and yet there are many more motivations out there (and combinations of motivations as they are not constant over time); social walking, exercise, getting outdoors, and collecting to name many others.

 

Cachers dont have to find them all at once, the cache does not have to be the end point or even highpoint of the adventure. A 60 cache "fill in gap" trail with the right perspective means at least 60 hikes, 60 caches, and sixty adventures, if a cacher chooses to approach it that way.

Link to comment

I actually like to see a line on a map -- then I know there is a bike path or trail there! And a park with lots of caches in it.

 

Once I see that, then I can go and enjoy a walk, and pick them off as i see fit over however many visits I like.

(At least they are on a trail, and not in a parking lot!)

Link to comment

 

The solution of not stopping for any micros is the one I've pretty much taken. It's just a shame that the game devolves to the level of instant gratification and not wanting to walk any distance without a whole stack of caches to find along the way.

 

I guess I just like remote places to be, well, remote. The reward is after making the effort, rather than endless little pats on the head along the way.

 

I'm glad I don't cache where you cache because those geocaches must have some magical powers that cause you to swerve off the trail and hunt for them against your will. It's not hard to walk past them. Just keep going and go find that cache after a 12 mile hike. NOTHING is stopping you from doing that except yourself. That way you'll only get one little pat on your head.

 

I've never understood why anyone would get angsty just because there is a trail full of caches when they only wanted to find the one at the end of the trail. Does it really bother you to know they are there? Does that somehow take away from the scenery or the remoteness? Look for the caches you want to find, skip the rest.

 

When it got increasingly hard to figure the ones might hold some interest from among the ones that are unlikely to have any interest I found the easiest approach was to not bother with any of them. Problem solved.

 

Looking at the map it's harder to tell whether there's a single cache at a point of interest and a trail of garbage leading to it, or just a trail of caches because there was a trail to hike and nobody had put any caches along it. So the aspect of geocaching that helped find places of interest that might be worth a visit appears to be mostly dead. And since I'm not interested in finding caches just because someone hid them, my caching activity dropped off a cliff.

Link to comment
I have no need to stop 150 times along a bike path so I can find one of twenty-five throw-downs that are littering a 50 foot radius around the GZ.

We'd love to see the photo of the 25 throwdowns! That would be a classic.

 

Also, let's say that getting on and off a bike burns 10 extra calories. 10 x 150 = 1,500 calories. I'm going to that trail immediately!

 

You'd have to get off the bike hugely vigorously to burn 10 extra calories. Unless you're going fast up big hills you'll be burning under 40 calories per mile on the bike. You're not going to burn as much energy getting off the bike as you will in 1/4 - 1/2 mile of cycling.

Link to comment

Isn't geocaching meant to be about bringing people to unique locations? Isn't it about the journey there and maybe solving some intricate puzzle when you get there? Isn't it about finding a unique hiding spot or elaborate way of disguising a cache?

No, geocaching is not about any of those things. Those are all things a CO can do to make a cache more interesting, but none of them are a required part of the caching experience.

 

For some reason, you're seeing these common caches as having a negative value. I don't know how you justify that. They may have very little value, almost none for you apparently, but that just means you shouldn't bother with them, not that they're something to complain about.

 

And filling in as tight as possible has nothing to do with it. Good caches can be just as densely packed as poor caches.

 

The bottom line is that you are complaining because there are too many caches. And I think that's a silly thing to complain about.

 

Well said and to the point....+1.

Link to comment

The bottom line is that you are complaining because there are too many caches. And I think that's a silly thing to complain about.

 

Certainly if there are too many caches you aren't enjoying you can be more selective about the caches you seek and continue to enjoy the game. But to argue that too many caches has no effect and therefore it's a silly thing to complain about is not quite right either.

 

When there are very few caches, one does not have to be selective. Even if most caches don't meet someone's personal standards, they know that they will eventually find those that are worthy. When you get to the point that you simply have to eliminate most caches (in an area) because you know you can't find thme all, people begin to worry that they will miss those relatively few caches that they enjoy. It's a lot of effort to eliminate caches you don't like and you can never be sure that you haven't missed a great cache in doing so. While you can adjust your caching to improve the likelihood that you will find caches you enjoy, it is not so easy-peasy as some claim, and some people will obsess that they many be missing something good if you they apply any of the common methods.

 

For cache owners, the argument is that more caches means that people who find your cache are likely to view it as just another generic cache find. Some have expressed dissapointment that they are more likely to see the cache logged as just one of several found that day, instead of gettting unique logs about their cache. While it may be naive to think that everyone who finds your cache will provide a personalized log, I can understand the enjoyment a cache owner gets when their cache is logged this way. Clearly when a cache that was originally place to bring someone to a new and unique hiking trail is now just one of many caches on the trail, the logs for that cache will get shorter and more generic.

Link to comment
I have no need to stop 150 times along a bike path so I can find one of twenty-five throw-downs that are littering a 50 foot radius around the GZ.

We'd love to see the photo of the 25 throwdowns! That would be a classic.

 

Also, let's say that getting on and off a bike burns 10 extra calories. 10 x 150 = 1,500 calories. I'm going to that trail immediately!

 

You'd have to get off the bike hugely vigorously to burn 10 extra calories. Unless you're going fast up big hills you'll be burning under 40 calories per mile on the bike. You're not going to burn as much energy getting off the bike as you will in 1/4 - 1/2 mile of cycling.

You would if you still pedal the same number of miles, right?

Link to comment

I remember being at an event (likely early 2006) and we were talking about one of our local parks that seemed to be loaded with caches. One of the fellows said "I want to find a spot right in between some other caches with just barely 161m on all sides and drop a cache there. I'd call it 'Infill Cache' or something."

 

We all laughed because the idea of placing a cache in an area already heavily loaded was absurd. Little did we know he was ahead of his time.

 

There's no need for trails maps anymore, the trails are all easy to spot on the map -- just look for the long lines of cache icons. I stop and Find them because it's a good way to get them off the map without resorting to an Ignore list that's several-hundred caches long.

Link to comment

Regardless if you hike to cache or cache to hike, it is odd that the mere thought of several caches placed along the way impacts the perception and enjoyment of the journey and adventure enough to avoid the journey or adventure or caching alltogether.

 

When it got increasingly hard to figure the ones might hold some interest from among the ones that are unlikely to have any interest I found the easiest approach was to not bother with any of them. Problem solved.

 

Looking at the map it's harder to tell whether there's a single cache at a point of interest and a trail of garbage leading to it, or just a trail of caches because there was a trail to hike and nobody had put any caches along it. So the aspect of geocaching that helped find places of interest that might be worth a visit appears to be mostly dead. And since I'm not interested in finding caches just because someone hid them, my caching activity dropped off a cliff.

Link to comment

The bottom line is that you are complaining because there are too many caches. And I think that's a silly thing to complain about.

 

Certainly if there are too many caches you aren't enjoying you can be more selective about the caches you seek and continue to enjoy the game. But to argue that too many caches has no effect and therefore it's a silly thing to complain about is not quite right either.

 

When there are very few caches, one does not have to be selective. Even if most caches don't meet someone's personal standards, they know that they will eventually find those that are worthy. When you get to the point that you simply have to eliminate most caches (in an area) because you know you can't find thme all, people begin to worry that they will miss those relatively few caches that they enjoy.

This dilemma is covered in the book "The Paradox of Choice: Why More is Less."

 

It's not that more choices are bad, it's the worry that you'll overlook the best. Stop worrying! Look at favorite points. Set parameters (location, size, difficulty, etc.). Go find caches, & don't look back. As with golf, caching can involve too many head games.

Link to comment
I have no need to stop 150 times along a bike path so I can find one of twenty-five throw-downs that are littering a 50 foot radius around the GZ.

We'd love to see the photo of the 25 throwdowns! That would be a classic.

 

Also, let's say that getting on and off a bike burns 10 extra calories. 10 x 150 = 1,500 calories. I'm going to that trail immediately!

 

You'd have to get off the bike hugely vigorously to burn 10 extra calories. Unless you're going fast up big hills you'll be burning under 40 calories per mile on the bike. You're not going to burn as much energy getting off the bike as you will in 1/4 - 1/2 mile of cycling.

You would if you still pedal the same number of miles, right?

 

Only by virtue of the miles cycled. If you cycle 20 miles you'll burn 20 miles' worth of calories. If you cycle 20 miles but stop 150 times for caches you won't burn any more caches because you kept stopping. If you accelerate furiously and then brake hard you might be able to get some harder training in place but if you're stopping that frequently the chances are you'll never get up to any speed and so your overall calorie burn will be lower.

Link to comment

When it got increasingly hard to figure the ones might hold some interest from among the ones that are unlikely to have any interest I found the easiest approach was to not bother with any of them. Problem solved.

 

Looking at the map it's harder to tell whether there's a single cache at a point of interest and a trail of garbage leading to it, or just a trail of caches because there was a trail to hike and nobody had put any caches along it. So the aspect of geocaching that helped find places of interest that might be worth a visit appears to be mostly dead. And since I'm not interested in finding caches just because someone hid them, my caching activity dropped off a cliff.

Regardless if you hike to cache or cache to hike, it is odd that the mere thought of several caches placed along the way impacts the perception and enjoyment of the journey and adventure enough to avoid the journey or adventure or caching alltogether.

 

(I put your reply after my quote to make it easier to read)

 

The thought of many caches doesn't trouble me in the slightest. If I'm going for a specific cache I can quite happily walk or cycle past others and their presence makes no difference to me. The problem is when there is so much dross out there it's hard to sort the wheat from the chaff, to figure out which one I might be interested in finding while also figuring which ones to ignore. Hence I found the solution that works best for me is to ignore them all.

Link to comment
I have no need to stop 150 times along a bike path so I can find one of twenty-five throw-downs that are littering a 50 foot radius around the GZ.

We'd love to see the photo of the 25 throwdowns! That would be a classic.

 

Also, let's say that getting on and off a bike burns 10 extra calories. 10 x 150 = 1,500 calories. I'm going to that trail immediately!

 

You'd have to get off the bike hugely vigorously to burn 10 extra calories. Unless you're going fast up big hills you'll be burning under 40 calories per mile on the bike. You're not going to burn as much energy getting off the bike as you will in 1/4 - 1/2 mile of cycling.

You would if you still pedal the same number of miles, right?

 

Only by virtue of the miles cycled. If you cycle 20 miles you'll burn 20 miles' worth of calories. If you cycle 20 miles but stop 150 times for caches you won't burn any more caches because you kept stopping. If you accelerate furiously and then brake hard you might be able to get some harder training in place but if you're stopping that frequently the chances are you'll never get up to any speed and so your overall calorie burn will be lower.

 

That's not true, maintaining a speed is a lot easier than accelerating over and over again.

Link to comment

I remember being at an event (likely early 2006) and we were talking about one of our local parks that seemed to be loaded with caches. One of the fellows said "I want to find a spot right in between some other caches with just barely 161m on all sides and drop a cache there. I'd call it 'Infill Cache' or something."

 

We all laughed because the idea of placing a cache in an area already heavily loaded was absurd. Little did we know he was ahead of his time.

 

There's no need for trails maps anymore, the trails are all easy to spot on the map -- just look for the long lines of cache icons. I stop and Find them because it's a good way to get them off the map without resorting to an Ignore list that's several-hundred caches long.

 

We had two parks like that in my area, and they were "almost filled" by 2006 as well. But you know what? Our reviewer actually said publicly in a regional forum that he was contemplating closing them off to further cache placements. Seriously, they could do that then, and that statement really happened.

 

Another old time story, and I don't know if anyone cares about either, but it was apparently "bad etiquette" in my area to place a cache in the same park as someone else in 2001 or 2002. Then I came along, and was one of the first people to put the 2nd cache in a couple parks. I'm talking big parks that have 20 or more today. :lol:

Link to comment
I have no need to stop 150 times along a bike path so I can find one of twenty-five throw-downs that are littering a 50 foot radius around the GZ.

We'd love to see the photo of the 25 throwdowns! That would be a classic.

 

Also, let's say that getting on and off a bike burns 10 extra calories. 10 x 150 = 1,500 calories. I'm going to that trail immediately!

 

You'd have to get off the bike hugely vigorously to burn 10 extra calories. Unless you're going fast up big hills you'll be burning under 40 calories per mile on the bike. You're not going to burn as much energy getting off the bike as you will in 1/4 - 1/2 mile of cycling.

You would if you still pedal the same number of miles, right?

 

Only by virtue of the miles cycled. If you cycle 20 miles you'll burn 20 miles' worth of calories. If you cycle 20 miles but stop 150 times for caches you won't burn any more caches because you kept stopping. If you accelerate furiously and then brake hard you might be able to get some harder training in place but if you're stopping that frequently the chances are you'll never get up to any speed and so your overall calorie burn will be lower.

 

That's not true, maintaining a speed is a lot easier than accelerating over and over again.

 

Except if you're stopping every 200 yards the chances are you're never going to accelerate up to a meaningful speed. I'd say holding a consistent 20mph takes a lot more effort than accelerating from stopped to single-digit speeds only to stop again. And in 200 yards you're only going to get to a decent speed if you do the "accelerate furiously" thing I mentioned in my post.

Link to comment
I have no need to stop 150 times along a bike path so I can find one of twenty-five throw-downs that are littering a 50 foot radius around the GZ.

We'd love to see the photo of the 25 throwdowns! That would be a classic.

 

Also, let's say that getting on and off a bike burns 10 extra calories. 10 x 150 = 1,500 calories. I'm going to that trail immediately!

 

You'd have to get off the bike hugely vigorously to burn 10 extra calories. Unless you're going fast up big hills you'll be burning under 40 calories per mile on the bike. You're not going to burn as much energy getting off the bike as you will in 1/4 - 1/2 mile of cycling.

You would if you still pedal the same number of miles, right?

 

Only by virtue of the miles cycled. If you cycle 20 miles you'll burn 20 miles' worth of calories. If you cycle 20 miles but stop 150 times for caches you won't burn any more caches because you kept stopping. If you accelerate furiously and then brake hard you might be able to get some harder training in place but if you're stopping that frequently the chances are you'll never get up to any speed and so your overall calorie burn will be lower.

 

That's not true, maintaining a speed is a lot easier than accelerating over and over again.

 

Except if you're stopping every 200 yards the chances are you're never going to accelerate up to a meaningful speed. I'd say holding a consistent 20mph takes a lot more effort than accelerating from stopped to single-digit speeds only to stop again. And in 200 yards you're only going to get to a decent speed if you do the "accelerate furiously" thing I mentioned in my post.

 

I can accelerate to my comfortable speed in 20 to 30 meters and of the 200 meters the first 20 -30 is the hardest and takes more energy.

 

Even if it took 200 meters, that just means you're always accelerating, again using more energy.

 

I can't imagine any one needing anywhere near that to reach their normal speed.

Link to comment
I have no need to stop 150 times along a bike path so I can find one of twenty-five throw-downs that are littering a 50 foot radius around the GZ.

We'd love to see the photo of the 25 throwdowns! That would be a classic.

 

Also, let's say that getting on and off a bike burns 10 extra calories. 10 x 150 = 1,500 calories. I'm going to that trail immediately!

 

You'd have to get off the bike hugely vigorously to burn 10 extra calories. Unless you're going fast up big hills you'll be burning under 40 calories per mile on the bike. You're not going to burn as much energy getting off the bike as you will in 1/4 - 1/2 mile of cycling.

You would if you still pedal the same number of miles, right?

 

Only by virtue of the miles cycled. If you cycle 20 miles you'll burn 20 miles' worth of calories. If you cycle 20 miles but stop 150 times for caches you won't burn any more caches because you kept stopping. If you accelerate furiously and then brake hard you might be able to get some harder training in place but if you're stopping that frequently the chances are you'll never get up to any speed and so your overall calorie burn will be lower.

 

That's not true, maintaining a speed is a lot easier than accelerating over and over again.

 

Except if you're stopping every 200 yards the chances are you're never going to accelerate up to a meaningful speed. I'd say holding a consistent 20mph takes a lot more effort than accelerating from stopped to single-digit speeds only to stop again. And in 200 yards you're only going to get to a decent speed if you do the "accelerate furiously" thing I mentioned in my post.

 

I can accelerate to my comfortable speed in 20 to 30 meters and of the 200 meters the first 20 -30 is the hardest and takes more energy.

 

Even if it took 200 meters, that just means you're always accelerating, again using more energy.

 

I can't imagine any one needing anywhere near that to reach their normal speed.

 

I guess it would depend what sort of speed you're looking to reach, and whether there's any point accelerating hard if you're going to be stopping again just over there. If you're accelerating hard and decelerating hard you're back to the situation I already described.

 

The whole point of what I was saying is that the act of getting off your bike doesn't burn enough calories to be worth a mention. And from my post the "I'd say holding a consistent 20mph takes a lot more effort than accelerating from stopped to single-digit speeds only to stop again" is talking about accelerating to a gentle cycling pace rather than a faster pace.

Link to comment

Only by virtue of the miles cycled. If you cycle 20 miles you'll burn 20 miles' worth of calories. If you cycle 20 miles but stop 150 times for caches you won't burn any more caches because you kept stopping. If you accelerate furiously and then brake hard you might be able to get some harder training in place but if you're stopping that frequently the chances are you'll never get up to any speed and so your overall calorie burn rate will be lower.

I'm going to hit the report button on this, since the number of calories you burn stopping vs. not stopping a bicycle is not on topic for a geocaching forum. The moderator may think differently however.

Link to comment
I have no need to stop 150 times along a bike path so I can find one of twenty-five throw-downs that are littering a 50 foot radius around the GZ.

We'd love to see the photo of the 25 throwdowns! That would be a classic.

 

Also, let's say that getting on and off a bike burns 10 extra calories. 10 x 150 = 1,500 calories. I'm going to that trail immediately!

 

You'd have to get off the bike hugely vigorously to burn 10 extra calories. Unless you're going fast up big hills you'll be burning under 40 calories per mile on the bike. You're not going to burn as much energy getting off the bike as you will in 1/4 - 1/2 mile of cycling.

You would if you still pedal the same number of miles, right?

 

Only by virtue of the miles cycled. If you cycle 20 miles you'll burn 20 miles' worth of calories. If you cycle 20 miles but stop 150 times for caches you won't burn any more caches because you kept stopping. If you accelerate furiously and then brake hard you might be able to get some harder training in place but if you're stopping that frequently the chances are you'll never get up to any speed and so your overall calorie burn will be lower.

 

That's not true, maintaining a speed is a lot easier than accelerating over and over again.

 

Except if you're stopping every 200 yards the chances are you're never going to accelerate up to a meaningful speed. I'd say holding a consistent 20mph takes a lot more effort than accelerating from stopped to single-digit speeds only to stop again. And in 200 yards you're only going to get to a decent speed if you do the "accelerate furiously" thing I mentioned in my post.

 

I can accelerate to my comfortable speed in 20 to 30 meters and of the 200 meters the first 20 -30 is the hardest and takes more energy.

 

Even if it took 200 meters, that just means you're always accelerating, again using more energy.

 

I can't imagine any one needing anywhere near that to reach their normal speed.

 

Very true.....I ride 10 miles min. every day. Its far harder ( requires more work/HP )to repeatedly stop and start than to maintain a constant speed....its about potential and kinetic energy

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 1
×
×
  • Create New...