Geocaching: What's Changed?

[+NeverSummer]

And with so few caches and so few cachers--the hides weren't found often, just like a special one might not get found much today. The numbers cachers haven't really ruined anything--they take up the readily accessible places where the old-timers might not even want to put a cache leaving the 10-mile hikes as open as they ever were

 

Allow me to disagree.

I'm the owner of caches that used to get found and now don't.

The vast increase in cache numbers overwhelms the increase in cache seekers. And now, as not before, there's an expectation, a sort of calculus of find count per unit of effort/time/gas ...

I own caches that used to be found a couple of times a year that now haven't been found in 4 years. Many hides going on 2 and 3. This never used to happen.

 

I know that I can places caches that will be found once, and not again. One and done. It was NEVER like this before.

 

The numbers cachers block many useful cache sites. I'll mention that I see this in my reviewer role, where #89 guardrail hide blocks the novice cache in the park down the block. this happens over and over and over....

Same here. There are a handful of my former Oregon caches (now adopted out) that are just barely off the road or other "beaten path" and were found much more often than they are now. Any of my caches that are right on a road (that could possibly even be deemed "Park and Grab"-able) are the remaining caches that get any regular finds. Even the slightest hike or departure from a parking area may as well be ignored.

 

When I audit the logs, I can see that the remaining finders of those less-so P&G caches are "old timers", and the majority of finds on any of the more accessible caches are both the new and old geocachers.

 

Build up those numbers as quick as you can! Turn any road into a power trail--and don't bother pulling out to go for that 10-minute round trip hike to grab that ammo can down that path at the turnout. Amiright?

 

This is especially apparent here in Alaska, where most of the finds are summer-seasonal by vacationers. They very seldom hunt a cache that is even a short hike. I have a few here in Homer that are quick-and-easy finds, yet take you to a very nice spot, and happen to have small or regular sized containers with some space for trades and trackables. I'm lucky to see 1 find a year at this rate.

 

ETA: I'll also mention trackables. I remember feeling a great sense of accomplishment (and even some responsibility for) when I would help move a trackable along on its mission. People would really work at getting a trackable on to its next spot, take more photos, and be a bit more aware of the fact that each TB or coin likely had a very specific mission. Not one of my released TB/GCs have made it to their missions to this date, and most have more recently ended up in the circular cesspools and eddies one can call event-sharing and TB jails.

Edited November 10, 2014 by NeverSummer

[+KatnissRue]

This is especially apparent here in Alaska, where most of the finds are summer-seasonal by vacationers. They very seldom hunt a cache that is even a short hike. I have a few here in Homer that are quick-and-easy finds, yet take you to a very nice spot, and happen to have small or regular sized containers with some space for trades and trackables. I'm lucky to see 1 find a year at this rate.

That's really odd to me. The few times I've gone on vacation since starting caching I tried to go find the caches that were placed on a trail or out off the beaten path. I haven't found many, but I do try.

[+NeverSummer]

This is especially apparent here in Alaska, where most of the finds are summer-seasonal by vacationers. They very seldom hunt a cache that is even a short hike. I have a few here in Homer that are quick-and-easy finds, yet take you to a very nice spot, and happen to have small or regular sized containers with some space for trades and trackables. I'm lucky to see 1 find a year at this rate.

That's really odd to me. The few times I've gone on vacation since starting caching I tried to go find the caches that were placed on a trail or out off the beaten path. I haven't found many, but I do try.

Well, I suppose I did write this with a broad generalization...

 

There are, of course, exceptions. But I think that AK is very unique in that people have to spend a lot of resources to try and pack in as much as possible into a vacation that is 1-2 weeks long (just an estimate). This generally seems to add up to meaning that they cache along a route (0.10 miles from route, Anchorage to Denali or Anchorage to Seward, or Anchorage to Homer, e.g.), where they don't really have the time to get out and grab some of the more notably spectacular hikes or views along the way if they are to pack in all they set out to pack into their time here. (Which usually involves some fishing, some fly-in bear viewing, a cruise, etc.)

 

However, when I look at my former caches (adopted, which I have on watchlist, e.g.), I can see a trend where the more "urban" P&G-friendly caches get visited along the way, but the same cacher will ignore one that is just barely off the road with a higher T rating.

 

This makes me think about another thing that's changed: Refined, advanced searching. Between what Groundspeak provides (PQs, Attributes, Caches along a route) and GSAK, I think that targeted cache runs are much easier than they were when I started. As others have said, I kept printouts of caches within a search radius, and also searched and printed every cache that I was planning on searching as I drove somewhere for the weekend, or whatever other cache excursion I was planning.

 

It took a lot of work! Without the route search from Groundspeak, I'd have to scroll the map, click a cache, print it's description, and download the loc file for my GPS. Then I'd batch the loc files and load them into my trusty yellow eTrex, and have to sort through my binder of printouts each time I'd stop near a cache. Even then, I'd have to hand-calculate the ROT13 hints on the spot if I wanted to use them (couldn't print with hints decoded!). It was cumbersome, but I became acutely aware of the nuances and context of a cache's name, the D/T ratings, the attributes selected, the description, and the hint. It all came together, especially when you'd print the last 5 logs. It was a very comprehensive process, and each cache became a singular experience and goal unto itself.

 

Now you can have the app, the caches at your ready (with data signal, or if you download a PQ), and hints can be viewed with a simple tap on the encrypted letters. Totally easy. (Far too easy for hints, which kind of defeats the purpose of the encrypted hint, IMO) It all makes it secondary to read the title, the D/T, the attributes, and the description when you have the coordinates at the ready in the App. Why would anyone bother to read up on a cache, or invest more than a TFTC in the logbook when you aren't intimately aware of the details of that specific cache? What I'm saying is, I'd have to study--do my homework--for each and every cache I'd seek. Now I can just walk outside with a charged cell phone and find a cache on a whim. There's little connection to the process of seeking caches anymore when the research and study are removed.

 

So perhaps the lack of visitation for the caches "off the beaten path" comes down to how one can refine their searches to include on the the easier, closer-to-the-road caches along a route when heading to Alaska for a vacation including some geocaching. It really is all about logging some caches in another state, and preferably as many as possible. Any cache with a hike or higher rating for difficulty will be pushed aside--they take too much precious time when you're working on enjoying your vacation and as many caches as you can where you're visiting.

 

I don't know...that's reading into it a bit. But the parts about how searching for and determining what caches to seek really has changed a lot.

[vagabond]

Any old timers ever try USAphotomap it was a great program back in the early days

[+Uncle Alaska]

 

This is especially apparent here in Alaska, where most of the finds are summer-seasonal by vacationers. They very seldom hunt a cache that is even a short hike. I have a few here in Homer that are quick-and-easy finds, yet take you to a very nice spot, and happen to have small or regular sized containers with some space for trades and trackables. I'm lucky to see 1 find a year at this rate.

 

Are all the cruise ships running their passengers via train to Homer? Or are they going to Whittier to load/unload? There were several changes to the preferred location while I lived up there; as there were competing taxes by the opposing municipalities that would force a change (cruise lines are all about the bottom line). Couple of things come to mind with those tourists: Older and maybe less mobile, less likely to do the hiking thing (what you consider an easy/short hike may not be, or may not LOOK like short/easy). Location, is the cache near places where the tourists are dropped off and allowed to disperse? And time restrictions, tight schedules make for a decision to do easier hides before longer more difficult hides.

Edited November 11, 2014 by Uncle Alaska

[+colleda]

We cruise and cache. You don't get a lot of time so mostly we go for what's close by. Don't want to get stuck anywhere and not make it back on time.

[+nikcap]

Any old timers ever try USAphotomap it was a great program back in the early days

 

Yes it was!

 

GPX Spinner was another must have program.

[+NeverSummer]

 

This is especially apparent here in Alaska, where most of the finds are summer-seasonal by vacationers. They very seldom hunt a cache that is even a short hike. I have a few here in Homer that are quick-and-easy finds, yet take you to a very nice spot, and happen to have small or regular sized containers with some space for trades and trackables. I'm lucky to see 1 find a year at this rate.

 

Are all the cruise ships running their passengers via train to Homer? Or are they going to Whittier to load/unload? There were several changes to the preferred location while I lived up there; as there were competing taxes by the opposing municipalities that would force a change (cruise lines are all about the bottom line). Couple of things come to mind with those tourists: Older and maybe less mobile, less likely to do the hiking thing (what you consider an easy/short hike may not be, or may not LOOK like short/easy). Location, is the cache near places where the tourists are dropped off and allowed to disperse? And time restrictions, tight schedules make for a decision to do easier hides before longer more difficult hides.

No rails to get to Homer. Some cruise ships dock here. Most visitors are RV drivers, or people who have started or ended their trips in Anchorage, Seward, or Whittier and rented a car.

 

I think that cruise riders are different than the general vacationer in Alaska. Most cruises don't come to Homer or the lower Kenai Peninsula. Most cruise folks don't get a chance (or have the desire) to look for caches beyond where the normal shore day activities take them. Some devoted geocachers might rent a car and go out searching, but you're right--they'd only grab the easier caches. I do think you're right about the age demographics overall, but some of those cruises that include a train to Denali will attract all kinds of people. Cruise traffic, however, isn't the big feeder for geocache finds--RV and other driving vacationers seem to be.

 

But the point really is that I think the tools we have now for searches make it far too easy to rule out some caches a little more difficult or farther afield. Whereas you can now cache along a route with all traditionals within 0.10mi and a D/T less than 2, you used to have to search a map or list and pick the ones you'd want to visit. In my case, it often included a nice mix of close, easy caches and some more distant, difficult ones as well.

[+Ambrosia]

 

When I started most cachers were decrypting the hints manually at the cache location and only very few had access to the cache description on site. So hints like "see spoiler picture" hardly existed back then while they are now very popular as the majority of cachers is either equipped with the spoiler photos or can get access to them by mobile internet.

 

 

Interesting, I feel that I used to see "see spoiler picture" a lot more in the old days than I do now.

 

I've mentioned it before, though - I got to the point that I'd learned ROT13 so well that I could read it straight out. I've lost that ability, however.

[cezanne]

Interesting, I feel that I used to see "see spoiler picture" a lot more in the old days than I do now.

 

I think it is also to some extent a regional thing. Back then I sometimes encountered not helpful hints, but mostly they came from beginners and they were willing to change them if they got explained that their hints might not be very helpful. This has changed meanwhile at least in my area - it's now a small minority who has not access to the spoiler pictures right at the cache spot.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

If a guardrail cache blocks a cache in a park, that's a darn small park...

 

Even if a cache placed on a guard rail on the road next to a park doesn't block the entire park it still blocks a substantial amount of real estate. Sure, one can get a find by pulling over to the side of the road, jumping out and walking 20' to the guard rail, but that cache might block a cache placed along a nice walking trail, near a public art display, or someone other spot that has more going for it beyond the fact that there isn't another cache within 528'

[+Tazicon]

Nevada in 2002 and it's 143 geocaches for the entire state. At least 20,000 today

 

I know this shouldn't be an issue but when I look at maps of the state (NV) and the amount of "Power Trails" now I just get sick. I know I shouldn't but I start to understand why some government jurisdictions look at caches as trash any more. There are far too many too close together. Like I have said on other forums to each their own. Everybody caches for different reasons and I will just do my caching the way I like and let others do theirs the way they like.

Edited November 13, 2014 by Tazicon

[+crazypig88]

And with so few caches and so few cachers--the hides weren't found often, just like a special one might not get found much today. The numbers cachers haven't really ruined anything--they take up the readily accessible places where the old-timers might not even want to put a cache leaving the 10-mile hikes as open as they ever were

 

Allow me to disagree.

I'm the owner of caches that used to get found and now don't.

The vast increase in cache numbers overwhelms the increase in cache seekers. And now, as not before, there's an expectation, a sort of calculus of find count per unit of effort/time/gas ...

I own caches that used to be found a couple of times a year that now haven't been found in 4 years. Many hides going on 2 and 3. This never used to happen.

 

I know that I can places caches that will be found once, and not again. One and done. It was NEVER like this before.

 

The numbers cachers block many useful cache sites. I'll mention that I see this in my reviewer role, where #89 guardrail hide blocks the novice cache in the park down the block. this happens over and over and over....

Same here. There are a handful of my former Oregon caches (now adopted out) that are just barely off the road or other "beaten path" and were found much more often than they are now. Any of my caches that are right on a road (that could possibly even be deemed "Park and Grab"-able) are the remaining caches that get any regular finds. Even the slightest hike or departure from a parking area may as well be ignored.

 

When I audit the logs, I can see that the remaining finders of those less-so P&G caches are "old timers", and the majority of finds on any of the more accessible caches are both the new and old geocachers.

 

Build up those numbers as quick as you can! Turn any road into a power trail--and don't bother pulling out to go for that 10-minute round trip hike to grab that ammo can down that path at the turnout. Amiright?

 

This is especially apparent here in Alaska, where most of the finds are summer-seasonal by vacationers. They very seldom hunt a cache that is even a short hike. I have a few here in Homer that are quick-and-easy finds, yet take you to a very nice spot, and happen to have small or regular sized containers with some space for trades and trackables. I'm lucky to see 1 find a year at this rate.

 

ETA: I'll also mention trackables. I remember feeling a great sense of accomplishment (and even some responsibility for) when I would help move a trackable along on its mission. People would really work at getting a trackable on to its next spot, take more photos, and be a bit more aware of the fact that each TB or coin likely had a very specific mission. Not one of my released TB/GCs have made it to their missions to this date, and most have more recently ended up in the circular cesspools and eddies one can call event-sharing and TB jails.

I would give up ten film canisters for one ammo can that takes an hour walk to get to. But sadly here In texas, they are mostly micros with some good caches mixed in

[+jellis]

A friend of mine and I were talking about this subject. I find going with the times a good thing. Better and more accurate GPSrs. PQs so you can load more. I remember having to load them in manually, no auto routing and printing out paper of cache pages.

Having cache containers that would fit the areas. Being creative but also having guidelines so COs don't go so crazy that they give the Geocaching a bad reputation.

But I don't care for power trails. I did a few and they are mindless and you don't have memory of them other then you have numbers to show for it. I do like using a stamp because of less excuses of not having a pen with me. We switched from writing long entries in the log book to ones on cache pages. I dont' like when cachers just use TFTC because it is like an insult to the cache. No matter how bad it is.

Edited November 19, 2014 by jellis