New vs. Old Geocaching

2.6k · November 25, 2014

It's just hard for me to see why anyone would be motivated to stop on the side of the road, hop out and grab a cache, hop back in the vehicle, drive 526 feet, then repeat this procedure multiple times. To say that plenty of people like PTs but are not doing it for the numbers doesn't make sense to me. Being that most power trails get placed so that people can pick up lots of smilies in a short period of time, why else would a person pick a power trail to do?

I've not done a trail like that, but I have found 100+ in a day, most of which were around a mile apart along a dirt road and were within 100 yards of the road. I can imagine it is similar for 1000+.

Why did I do it? I did it (with my brother-in-law) just to see if we could do it - find 100+ in a day. So yes for us, and I think most on a power trail, the number of caches is part of the challenge. How many can I do in a day? That doesn't mean their focus is on their find count. On the same vacation where we found 100 in a day, we spent a whole day on a single complex cache. I loved that too.

Anyway, we had fun. We had a competition between us who could find the most. We cached from sunrise to sunset. The caches were varied and in good condition - though most were micros hanging in trees. We still would have had fun if they were "soggy film pots", but they weren't. But we appreciated that the caches were good.

I started in 2009, so have no experience of the "old days". But I can imagine this scenario: The 3 closest unfound caches from home require a total of 500 miles driving. My brother-in-law thinks "hey, do you think we can find all three in one day"? Just for the fun of it. And so we do it. Are we focussed on the numbers because of "3"?

I've found 10 cache types in a day. Again, just because of the challenge of doing so. It was a long drive to get to the webcam for #10. 10 is a number... and yes the goal was 10 in a day. That doesn't make me a "numbers cacher" (in my view).

9k · November 25, 2014

I'm much less certain than you. If you just refer to traditional, multi etc and to micro, small, regular as cache types, then I agree.

If you looker closer to the design of the caches, I do not agree at all.

In my area, definitely. Again, maybe not in your area.

Without some universal metric for the worldwide database of caches, no one can whether one "style" of caching is growing or shrinking. I should reword my position - while I am certain there are more caches being placed of all types due to the enormous increase in caches, of course I can't say for a fact that there are for any particular type. But I can say it's a safer assumption that there are more being placed of every style of cache, than it is to assume that somehow the rate is dropping, globally, of the style you prefer. If only because that's not the case around here, by my experience.

6.8k · November 25, 2014

I'm much less certain than you. If you just refer to traditional, multi etc and to micro, small, regular as cache types, then I agree.

If you looker closer to the design of the caches, I do not agree at all.

In my area, definitely. Again, maybe not in your area.

Without some universal metric for the worldwide database of caches, no one can whether one "style" of caching is growing or shrinking.

I agree, but I tried to make a different point, namely that it appears to me that your understanding of cache types most probably

differs from mine.

But I can say it's a safer assumption that there are more being placed of every style of cache, than it is to assume that somehow the rate is dropping, globally, of the style you prefer.

I did not bring the "of the style you prefer" into play in my statement you replied to.

I have mentioned above that according to my observation in several different areas (not even all from the same country), the number of caches where some fuzzyness in the asked questions has been part of the design went down considerably as while most old timers in my area who are fans of multi caches appreciated the involved small intellectual challenge (of course only if the design was well done) while most newer cachers prefer to move on without any need for thinking which option is the only one that really makes sense. This is just one examples of many I could come up with.

The searching style of people has changed considerably. Much more cachers rely on their GPS-devices strictly than have done so 12 years ago. That and many other changes have quite an effect on the caches that are hidden and also how the descriptions look like.

There are lot of cache setups that I would not have had the slightest issue to use them 10 years ago that I would not use today by any means.

Sometimes I wonder whether someone who started to cache in 2009 (at least according to your account) will be able to understand what I'm trying to say.

Cezanne

Edited November 25, 2014 by cezanne

7.5k · November 25, 2014

It's just hard for me to see why anyone would be motivated to stop on the side of the road, hop out and grab a cache, hop back in the vehicle, drive 526 feet, then repeat this procedure multiple times.

"It's hard for me see anyone motivated to put one foot in front of the other, over and over, to complete a 5 mile hike. The only possible motivation must be so they can say they've hiked further than me."

Most new cachers i talk to ask how many. I go to an event and just about everyone talks about how many they have found. If someone announces that they have a large number then guess what, people clap and say "way to go" or something to that affect.

I don't deny that people look at the numbers, but I claim it's mainly because the numbers reflect experience, not because of numbers are considered valuable in themselves.

Most of these people can't even remember a specific cache that they found yesterday but ask them how many they've found and they'll give you their answer immediately.

Well, I guess this is my blind spot. I never know how many I've found, and I can recall most of my finds.

9k · November 26, 2014

Sometimes I wonder whether someone who started to cache in 2009 (at least according to your account) will be able to understand what I'm trying to say.

I do understand what you're trying to say. I'm saying that it's not nearly as widespread a problem as you seem to imply, which is based on your own observations. It may be true in some areas, but it's not a universal problem, as many of us chiming in here have very different experiences and observations than you. That's all

6.8k · November 26, 2014

Sometimes I wonder whether someone who started to cache in 2009 (at least according to your account) will be able to understand what I'm trying to say.

I do understand what you're trying to say. I'm saying that it's not nearly as widespread a problem as you seem to imply, which is based on your own observations. It may be true in some areas, but it's not a universal problem, as many of us chiming in here have very different experiences and observations than you. That's all

Apparently you did not understand what I was trying to say in my post where I told you that I do not agree with your statement. I was not referring to something which I'd call a problem. I do not mind if we do not agree on some topic, but you leave me with the impression that we two talk about two different things and that's unfortunate.

You still did not define what you have in mind when writing all types of caches.

9k · November 26, 2014

I'm not sure what we're disagreeing about then.

Are we in agreement that old vs new is about caching preferences (as opposed to an objective improvement or downfall of the geocaching activity)? Are we in agreement that different geocaching communities show favouring of different styles of geocaches and geocaching experiences? Are we in agreement that this distinction between "old" and "new" style caching has no clear definition because there are examples of people from all walks of life who enjoy either one or the other or both? Are we in agreement that the massive growth in popularity of geocaching worldwide has prompted more geocaches to be published than ever, an increase in count of all styles of geocaches and geocaching experiences? Are we in agreement that no one can speak for the hobby universally based solely on their localized regional observations, until there's a metric that lets us compare every listed geocache under a single "quality" standard?

Those are pretty much the only points I was defending.

You still did not define what you have in mind when writing all types of caches.

For the context of this thread, precisely what the OP, and many many previous pages, have been discussing - "old" vs "new" styles of caching, from physical containers to cacher habits and everything in between.

Edited November 26, 2014 by thebruce0

14k · November 26, 2014

Most new cachers i talk to ask how many. I go to an event and just about everyone talks about how many they have found. If someone announces that they have a large number then guess what, people clap and say "way to go" or something to that affect.

I don't deny that people look at the numbers, but I claim it's mainly because the numbers reflect experience, not because of numbers are considered valuable in themselves.

You can claim that but I'd contend that numbers alone is a pretty poor indicator of experience.

Someone could get 1000 finds in just a few days doing a power trail or two. All of the containers would likely be traditional micros, all hidden in a similar manner by 2-3 different cache owners, all along a couple of stretches of road with a nearly identical environment, and most so easy that there really isn't any searching involved.

Meanwhile, someone else might play the game for years, have hundreds of cache days, find a variety of hide styles using different containers of a variety of sizes from dozens of different hiders, and travel to many different states and/or countries to find them and only have half as many finds.

It's pretty obvious to me who has more experience.

7.5k · November 26, 2014

You can claim that but I'd contend that numbers alone is a pretty poor indicator of experience.

Someone could get 1000 finds in just a few days doing a power trail or two. All of the containers would likely be traditional micros, all hidden in a similar manner by 2-3 different cache owners, all along a couple of stretches of road with a nearly identical environment, and most so easy that there really isn't any searching involved.

Meanwhile, someone else might play the game for years, have hundreds of cache days, find a variety of hide styles using different containers of a variety of sizes from dozens of different hiders, and travel to many different states and/or countries to find them and only have half as many finds.

It's pretty obvious to me who has more experience.

Those things could happen, but they generally don't, so the numbers alone do make a pretty good first order indicator when you know nothing else. Since my claim is that people aren't basing their reputations on the numbers, that also means that they don't judge by the numbers, so it's not as if anyone is going to think cacher A is better than cacher B even when the numbers suggest that A has more experience.

I use the numbers to get an idea of how much experience someone has, most commonly on DNF logs to get a measure of how competent the search was likely to have been. But I'm still open to the possibility that someone's actions won't agree with the experience indicated by their numbers, although, to be honest, I've never encountered a case where there was a huge difference, despite your claims that it's a poor indicator.

And, by the way, "half as many" is an insignificant difference in this context. It's more orders of magnitude that matter.

November 26, 2014

<snip>

I hate ammo cans. All except one that I have found were rusted so badly it was almost impossible to open them without hitting them with a rock.

<snip>

I wonder about what's different in your area, because I've never found a rusted ammo can like how you're describing.

I suppose if a person put out an ammo can without sanding and painting it, the container could get rusty, but I've found a few of those and they're still openable.

Too bad, because I think they're the best sort of container.

November 26, 2014

Ditto ambrosia.....I found one recentley that was buried within an inch of the top in hard pan that was still totally in like new condition yet several years old. I am reluctantly holding on to some newish cans as micros have pretty much taken over in most of the areas I cache.

November 26, 2014

Wow, I didn't check on this thread for a few days and now I see it has blossomed into exactly what I was hoping it would. It's a great discussion with plenty of valid points on all sides, as well as a few rather lame ones. Let me first agree with whoever it was who said they really liked that Freudian typo "poopularity." Great word, intentional or not. Second, I was not in the least offended by being called an elitist jerk. I am proud to be called an elitist, since that logically mandates that the speaker considers me to be among the elite. Who wouldn't want to be consider elite? As for the jerk part, I have no doubt that you wouldn't have a hard time finding people who know me personally who would agree, although I hope not too many. But just to be clear, my stating what I like and don't like isn't a criticism of those who like other things. If I say I like TV show A but think show B is boring, and you like B, that doesn't mean you are boring or have bad taste, just that you have different taste. To be an elitist, that's just an example of De gustibus non est disputandum, or for the less elite, different strokes for different folks. You probably think show A is boring, or stupid or elitist. Don't take offense. (But this is the Internet after all, and that seems to be what everyone does these days.)

So if disputing taste is pointless, why did I post this thread? What I would like (but, sadly, don't really expect) is that relative newcomers, by reading what I and others like me, enjoyed about old caching, may pick up on some things that make the caching experience better for most people, including them. For example, maybe some newbies will write longer, better logs when they see how much those logs mean to some people and how much of an incentive they are to CO's to put out quality hides. Some may take the trouble to spell check and correct their cache description before posting so that people like me can actually understand what you meant to say instead of what you actually said. Hey, that wiggly red line is right there as you type; it only takes two seconds to fix. Some people may look a little longer for a better hiding spot than underneath the dumpster next to the weed patch with the dog crap and used condoms strewn all over.

Anyway, carry on. I'm enjoying the thread.

9k · November 26, 2014

So if disputing taste is pointless, why did I post this thread? What I would like (but, sadly, don't really expect) is that relative newcomers, by reading what I and others like me, enjoyed about old caching, may pick up on some things that make the caching experience better for most people, including them.

Then maybe the subject would have been better described as "What I love about geocaching that's more rare today" or something of that manner, rather than pitting "old" against "new" which isn't really the issue (or what, as you imply, you consider more valuable a discussion)

Anyway, carry on. I'm enjoying the thread.

It certainly does help to emphasize what sets geocaching apart from other location-based games and gaming mentalities. Don't know what kind of reach to the greater community this lowly thread might have, but hey when it's a respectable discussion and promotion of the good stuff instead of a rant-machine that incites offensive reception of opposing opinions, it's grrrrrreat! :laughing:

November 26, 2014

I've had a really fun time reading through this thread. Not only did I get to hear even more accounts of caching back in the day, but I also came up with a few ways to tweak my upcoming series to be even more enjoyable for people.

Happy caching all.

6.8k · November 26, 2014

I'm not sure what we're disagreeing about then.

About your statement that there are certainly more caches of any type today than back in the old days (the reason for my disagreement is not a regional one, I disagree also if we take all into consideration all caches worldwide).

For the context of this thread, precisely what the OP, and many many previous pages, have been discussing - "old" vs "new" styles of caching, from physical containers to cacher habits and everything in between.

I wonder how you are able to make statements about all cache types without having been around in the old days.

9k · November 26, 2014

I wonder how you are able to make statements about all cache types without having been around in the old days.

Because I have many geocacher friends who have been, who know what it was like, and also know what it is like now, and don't show nearly as much disdain as some people here for the current state of geocaching (while continuing to participate in it).

6.8k · November 26, 2014

I wonder how you are able to make statements about all cache types without having been around in the old days.

Because I have many geocacher friends who have been, who know what it was like, and also know what it is like now, and don't show nearly as much disdain as some people here for the current state of geocaching (while continuing to participate in it).

Note that I did not base my disagreement on any qualitative statements - so disdain does not play any role at all.

I know a considerable number of old timers who now have different preferences with respect to how a cache that shows a given set of locations (could be a single element set) should be set up than they had a decade ago (most use different technology and different approaches than back then which might be one of the reasons for such a change but not the only one). There are old timers however who still have a preference for certain ways of doing something which are not fitting well to the modern caching world and if someone sets a up a cache nowadays in this manner, the feedback will be much worse than it would have been many years ago. So of course changes like this influence which type of caches get hidden and how many. If you are going to deny that, then you are simply not understanding what I'm talking about.

Another example: Try to hide a traditional cache where it is the challenge to find a place to park and to find a legal approach to the cache without providing any hints and waypoints in 2014 in an area with many cachers. It will simply not work at all. At least 20% of the visitors will end up with trespassing, waving around with torches in the middle of the night in residential areas (despite whatever warnings the cache description might container) and many more will not stop asking for waypoints. Back then most cachers would have tried to find a legal approach and if they failed they went home and came again another time or gave up. Such caches might still be possible somewhere in the wilderness, but in more populated areas is just does not work out.

So of course hardly any such cache is hidden nowadays.

Try to hide a cache today where the coordinates are off, but where the hideout is completely obvious and even mentioned in the listing. You will get many annoyed complaints about 25m off while

back in the old times hardly anyone even noticed and cared even less.

There are many more examples like that and I really wonder how you can come up with your statement that more caches of all types are available today.

9k · November 26, 2014

I know a considerable number of old timers who now have different preferences with respect to how a cache that shows a given set of locations (could be a single element set) should be set up than they had a decade ago (most use different technology and different approaches than back then which might be one of the reasons for such a change but not the only one).

In many cases, caches can still be set up the way were a decade ago. So why aren't they? Likely due in part to reasons you mention - changes in technology and approaches. So, what will complaining about the way things are now do about it, especially if the issue at hand is not a restriction on the hobby?

Revive the "old" way! If it works today and people like it, it may catch on again. If not, oh well. That's why it's gone by the wayside; naturally.

There are old timers however who still have a preference for certain ways of doing something which are not fitting well to the modern caching world and if someone sets a up a cache nowadays in this manner, the feedback will be much worse than it would have been many years ago.

Likely because there are legitimate reasons, problems, concerns, with the setup now. Not because it's not "liked". That is to say, if there is no problem with the listing, then it will be published. If people don't like it, then, well, hey at least it's still out there for other people who still prefer that type of cache, right? Surely someone will still enjoy that type of cache, right? (really, I would be absolutely shocked if a cache that is published today, using a style or preference that seems "outdated" would not still gain the attention of cachers who want to find it)

So of course changes like this influence which type of caches get hidden and how many. If you are going to deny that, then you are simply not understanding what I'm talking about.

Who denied that? Certainly not I. Popular caches and experiences will be proliferated. If people don't like them, for whatever reason, they won't proliferate. So what type of cache experience can you say, worldwide, has been in decline? Not just relatively speaking in your region compared to other cache styles, but by numbers, are being placed less than they used to be?

Another example: Try to hide a traditional cache where it is the challenge to find a place to park and to find a legal approach to the cache without providing any hints and waypoints in 2014 in an area with many cachers.

...if you are referring to the issue of cache saturation, that's a natural growth of the popularity of the hobby. Inevitable, if the hobby is successful. Yep, things changed.

...if you are referring to the idea of providing informational waypoints, that's something people tend to prefer, and likely won't take away from their caching experience. If it's a requirement for any reason, it's in place for a reason. Either way, there's no reason you need to even look at any additional "spoiler" waypoints like parking or trailhead, other than the posted coordinates. And there's no reason that those caches can't still be placed, apart from saturation or property issues. If your region is too populated with caches, well, I'm sorry to hear that. It's not that way everywhere though.

>> It will simply not work at all.

Where you are, apparently.

At least 20% of the visitors will end up with trespassing, waving around with torches in the middle of the night in residential areas (despite whatever warnings the cache description might container) and many more will not stop asking for waypoints.

Please, do not presume this is the universal case. Sure, it's a situation that can occur, unrelated to "old" vs "new" caching styles. But "20%" is pulled from the air based on observing your local region. And many would say that a cache so close to residential areas is questionable in the first place. No one (read, with common sense - not 'old' vs 'new') wants to go poking around at night in the woods next to some house's back yard.

Back then most cachers would have tried to find a legal approach

You live in an awful area if most cachers attempt first to find access ignorant to local laws and are willing to trespass. That is most certainly not the case around here.

Such caches might still be possible somewhere in the wilderness, but in more populated areas is just does not work out.

Then your hiders need to be more observant to local laws, and where it is legal, provide instructions on how to legally access the cache.

...if you're reminiscing about a time when perhaps it was more likely people could place the same types of caches as today (eg in residential areas) and not have to provide parking/access coordinates because magically said people were more bound to abiding by laws than today, then that's not a problem with geocaching - that's a problem with local culture. Whether or not a trailhead waypoint is provided, cachers need to understand and abide by trespassing laws. IF the cache is in a public and accessible place (this can be presumed if the cache was approved and published), and there's no other access information, then they'd need to find a legal access. If they can't, they're welcome to skip it and share about their concern in an online log. That type of cache CAN still be published today. So, bring back the "old" if you consider that an "outdated" caching thing. If people still trespass, then it just doesn't work for you. If people complain because they want a trailhead waypoint, that's not a problem with geocaching, that's a result of changing times and likely even local culture (hey, don't go poking around playgrounds right? Even if it was more likely to be acceptable without suspicion in some other ancient time, things have changed)

>> So of course hardly any such cache is hidden nowadays.

In your region, apparently.

Try to hide a cache today where the coordinates are off

No, please do not do this. That is not geocaching. That's scavenger hunting. Or letterboxing, presuming there starting instructions. Intentionally bad coordinates are misleading and not appropriate in a game where the idea is to find caches by using your GPS. If you miss that because it used to be allowed, well that's one I can't sympathize with.

but where the hideout is completely obvious and even mentioned in the listing. You will get many annoyed complaints about 25m off while back in the old times hardly anyone even noticed and cared even less.

Yep. Good thing that's no longer acceptable.

There are many more examples like that and I really wonder how you can come up with your statement that more caches of all types are available today.

I still stand by that.

Anything explicitly disallowed, is not allowed for good reason, due to whatever experiences may have occurred, and lessons learned. Not just someone's random preference.

Edited November 26, 2014 by thebruce0

8k · November 26, 2014

There are many more examples like that and I really wonder how you can come up with your statement that more caches of all types are available today.

I still stand by that.

Anything explicitly disallowed, is not allowed for good reason, due to whatever experiences may have occurred, and lessons learned. Not just someone's random preference.

So one of the things that is disallowed are virtual caches. I think cezanne may be from the "Waymarking" school of geocaching. (I know he doesn't care much for waymakrking ) What I mean is that there has alway been a segment of geocachers for whom geocaching is not primarily about finding caches but about the places you go in order to find a cache. Virtual caches (especially once the "wow" requirement was put in place) were tha epitome of this. "Since the reward for a virtual cache is the location, the location should “WOW” the prospective finder".

In addition to virtual caches, some people created multicaches that were meant to take you on tour of some area and point out sites of natural, cultural, or historic significance along the way. There would be a physical cache at the end, but the real reward for many was the tour. Such caches seem to be particularly popular in Europe, but I know at least two of my favorite caches in Los Angeles would fit this category. A lot of effort went into setting up such complex multicaches and it could take a whole day to do one of them (a few might take several days and require long trips). I'm certain that people are still creating caches like these, but my guess is that there are fewer like this than in the past because the tend to not get visited. People who set these up would probably find it better to set it up on some other site. If Groundspeak were to do something with Waymarking or Wherigo and promote this as way for people to set up their own tours of interesting sites you might find a way to create a community where these sorts of multis could succeed.

6.8k · November 26, 2014

In many cases, caches can still be set up the way were a decade ago.

Yes, in many, but not in all and that's makes me object against your "certainly statement".

To disprove something, a single counter example suffices and here there are much more than one.

Revive the "old" way! If it works today and people like it, it may catch on again. If not, oh well. That's why it's gone by the wayside; naturally.

But now you contradict yourself. If something (for whatever reason) goes by the wayside), it is not any longer there and so your statement about a larger number of all cache types is clearly false.

I have designed some of my new caches in a deliberate different manner than I would have done 10 years ago, but not because I prefer the new set up but because it was the only reasonable compromise between old and new.

Likely because there are legitimate reasons, problems, concerns, with the setup now. Not because it's not "liked". That is to say, if there is no problem with the listing, then it will be published.

Yes, it will be published.

If people don't like it, then, well, hey at least it's still out there for other people who still prefer that type of cache, right?

Surely someone will still enjoy that type of cache, right? (really, I would be absolutely shocked if a cache that is published today, using a style or preference that seems "outdated" would not still gain the attention of cachers who want to find it)

Of course someone will like it, but most cache hiders do not want to end up with troubles or mainly negative comments that they could foresee.

It's nice to provide the challenge to find a legal approach for those who enjoy it, but those who then end up with trespassing intentionally and argue it's the fault of the hider and insist on waypoints make most cache hiders react by realizing that what was feasible back then is infeasible today.

Who denied that? Certainly not I. Popular caches and experiences will be proliferated. If people don't like them, for whatever reason, they won't proliferate. So what type of cache experience can you say, worldwide, has been in decline? Not just relatively speaking in your region compared to other cache styles, but by numbers, are being placed less than they used to be?

I start to wonder whether you understand what your statement that today there are more caches of any type than ever means.

...if you are referring to the issue of cache saturation, that's a natural growth of the popularity of the hobby. ...if you are referring to the idea of providing informational waypoints, that's something people tend to prefer, and likely won't take away from their caching experience.

No, the example linking the absence of waypoints and trespassing is completely unrelated to cache saturation. I was not talking about preferences either.

If it's a requirement for any reason, it's in place for a reason. Either way, there's no reason you need to even look at any additional "spoiler" waypoints like parking or trailhead, other than the posted coordinates. And there's no reason that those caches can't still be placed, apart from saturation or property issues. If your region is too populated with caches, well, I'm sorry to hear that. It's not that way everywhere though.

There is no such requirement, but as explained above the cache hiders do not risk under these conditions (and I would not either) to not provide waypoints.

Cache dense areas just come into the play because that typically means that many cachers live in the area.

Please, do not presume this is the universal case. Sure, it's a situation that can occur, unrelated to "old" vs "new" caching styles. But "20%" is pulled from the air based on observing your local region. And many would say that a cache so close to residential areas is questionable in the first place. No one (read, with common sense - not 'old' vs 'new') wants to go poking around at night in the woods next to some house's back yard.

[snip ... deleted to cut down the number of quotes]

Then your hiders need to be more observant to local laws, and where it is legal, provide instructions on how to legally access the cache.

I do not live in Canada. Around here you have to expect the nearness of at least one house somewhere on the way almost everywhere except in very remote locations.

This is called Zersiedelung in German (urban sprawl is not the proper translation in my setting as it does not refer to areas close to cities, but to areas in the country side).

Of course the 20% were an estimate, but it does not play a role whether 20% or 1%. In any case it keeps nearly everyone who ever heard about such experiences from refraining to provide additional waypoints in 2014.

That's not an issue of law. The issue is that to some it is a nice challenge to find a legal approach (of course assuming that at least one such exists)

while the majority meanwhile does not want to be bothered with such issues (they are not carefully preparing their only cache they are going to visit).

So the only reasonable consequence is to provide waypoints and take the nice challenge away from the minority like TheRat.

No, please do not do this. That is not geocaching. That's scavenger hunting. Or letterboxing, presuming there starting instructions. Intentionally bad coordinates are misleading and not appropriate in a game where the idea is to find caches by using your GPS. If you miss that because it used to be allowed, well that's one I can't sympathize with.

I was not talking about intentionally bad coordinates. I do not see a reason why a cacher who wants to hide a nice cache in a gorge at the only meaningful location should buy a new GPS just to come up with slightly more accurate coordinates? Why should this person have to wait 1 hour or revisit the location 3 times just to make the coordinates slightly better for a cache where everything is about the location and even an almost blind person will immediately know where the acche is located.

It keeps many people from hiding caches in areas with bad coverage that would be worthwhile to visit.

I still stand by that.

Anything explicitly disallowed, is not allowed for good reason, due to whatever experiences may have occurred, and lessons learned. Not just someone's random preference.

None of my examples was about anything disallowed or changed guidelines.

Cezanne

9k · November 26, 2014

>> In many cases, caches can still be set up the way were a decade ago.

Yes, in many, but not in all and that's makes me object against your "certainly statement".

What part of it? I said certainly there are more of every (allowable) cache style being created worldwide. I never said that was verified, nor verifiable, because there is no metric. I said it's safe to assume that this is case because of the enormous growing popularity of geocaching worldwide. So yes, I am certain that this is the case.

>> To disprove something, a single counter example suffices and here there are much more than one.

...one what? Counter example of what? The only counter example to my certainty would be a worldwide numeric report of how many caches of a certain style are being placed now compared to some arbitrary period in the past, showing that there exist fewer now than then.

>> Revive the "old" way! If it works today and people like it, it may catch on again. If not, oh well. That's why it's gone by the wayside; naturally.

But now you contradict yourself. If something (for whatever reason) goes by the wayside), it is not any longer there and so your statement about a larger number of all cache types is clearly false.

What style of cache/caching, which is still allowable today, no longer exists, is no longer being placed, or is even in decline, verifiably?

My "going by the wayside" was in context to any region where it appears that some preference is not as prolific as it used to be. If it's still allowable, and it's still enjoyable, then Revive it there! There is no reason why it needs to appear to be in decline.

If people leave because they no longer have caches they wish to find near them, then those caches - even though they are allowed and supposedly people are still around who enjoy them - will, of course, appear to dwindle in that area, if they are archived faster than being placed. But that's a self-supporting statement - 'geocaching isn't the way it used to be because all of us who enjoy it are leaving and not keeping it around'.

I have designed some of my new caches in a deliberate different manner than I would have done 10 years ago, but not because I prefer the new set up but because it was the only reasonable compromise between old and new.

If you chose to do that it that way, not because you were required to do so, then that's your own choice, and the decline of what you chose not to do is not the fault of "the new geocaching".

Of course someone will like it, but most cache hiders do not want to end up with troubles or mainly negative comments that they could foresee.

So, punish the people who enjoy them who log the way the CO prefers, by not creating them, archiving them, and letting them disappear from the local region?

How about find ways to change the face of your local geocaching community to encourage the style and geocaching ethic you prefer?

If that's not possible, then that's quite unfortunate for your area, and I am sympathetic to your situation.

It's nice to provide the challenge to find a legal approach for those who enjoy it, but those who then end up with trespassing intentionally and argue it's the fault of the hider and insist on waypoints make most cache hiders react by realizing that what was feasible back then is infeasible today.

Problematic cachers have always been around. They need to be taught about proper geocaching etiquette, discouraged from doing things illegally, and encouraged to enjoy the hunt, which quick and easy or lengthy and adventurous. There may appear to be more today relatively speaking, but there are also more who are not that way. This issue is spawned from a growth in popularity of the hobby, and the perception that 'bad' ethic is somehow more populous than good.

as explained above the cache hiders do not risk under these conditions (and I would not either) to not provide waypoints.

Good, that means they have an idea of the type of local culture that exists in their area, and have judged that it is safer and more acceptable to provide guidance in the form of optional waypoints for people who choose to view them.

>> Then your hiders need to be more observant to local laws, and where it is legal, provide instructions on how to legally access the cache.

I do not live in Canada. Around here you have to expect the nearness of at least one house somewhere on the way almost everywhere except in very remote locations.

This is called Zersiedelung in German (urban sprawl is not the proper translation in my setting as it does not refer to areas close to cities, but to areas in the country side).

Of course the 20% were an estimate, but it does not play a role whether 20% or 1%. In any case it keeps nearly everyone who ever heard about such experiences from refraining to provide additional waypoints in 2014.

Unless you can prove that 0% of cachers worldwide would at any point be willing to trespass to find a cache, then the point is irrelevant. In your region, whether now or then, there would always been the possibility that someone would break a local law to find a cache if they really wanted it. Even if it's more likely today, it was and still is the choice of the CO to provide that waypoint guidance or not. There is no requirement to do so. It is not the CO's responsibility to make sure that finders do nothing illegal, if the cache is properly created and placed - the assumption and the requirement is that cachers, whether finding or hiding, do nothing illegal.

Once again, the change from 'then' to 'now' is due to increased popularity and success of the hobby, with increased player counts, yet still reliant on the makeup of any particular local region's culture in regards to abiding by their laws, which may also change over time.

That's not an issue of law. The issue is that to some it is a nice challenge to find a legal approach (of course assuming that at least one such exists)
while the majority meanwhile does not want to be bothered with such issues

Again, "majority". How do you know that "the majority does not want to be bothered with [issues of abiding by law]"? I find that ludicrous. But I'm in not in your area. So again, if it's like that in your area, I really am sorry, because that's awful for your culture.

I do not see a reason why a cacher who wants to hide a nice cache in a gorge at the only meaningful location should buy a new GPS just to come up with slightly more accurate coordinates? Why should this person have to wait 1 hour or revisit the location 3 times just to make the coordinates slightly better for a cache where everything is about the location and even an almost blind person will immediately know where the acche is located.

So you long for the days when GPS devices were less accurate?

either a] ...so technology has improved, meaning we can rely on our GPS's more accurately for location, yet it's discouraging the fact that now people are more likely to be upset that coordinates aren't as accurate as they could be?

Sure, that may be some cachers. But I think the forums indicate that even veteran cachers complain about that at times. There's "no excuse" for soft coordinates, intended or not, if avoidable. People rant about "smartphones" being inaccurate, yet you miss the days when inaccuracy wasn't an issue? If you don't prefer accuracy of coordinates, then you don't have have to go right up to GZ. I don't grasp what your issue is with increased accuracy here... If coordinates are good, great! If coordinates are off, it shouldn't matter to you if you can be in the area and find a cache with intuition (which, by the way, is what I'm always recommending people do anyway).

or b] are you complaining that you can no longer place a cache without making due effort to ensure the coordinates are sufficiently accurate without inciting complaints from cachers who expect sufficiently accurate coordinates?

...

It keeps many people from hiding caches in areas with bad coverage that would be worthwhile to visit.

If there's bad coverage in hiding the cache, there's bad coverage in finding the cache. The listing can make that known. Many often do. I can't see how that's an issue of "old" vs "new". "New" is better accuracy and better coverage all around.

If you want the "old" finding experience, then pretend your device isn't as accurate.

If you want the "old" hiding experience, well you'll be intentionally pretending to have bad coordinates, and that, I would presume, has always been a Bad Idea, and if not, it is now, and that is a Good Thing, because otherwise it's deception which is against the whole idea of finding containers with gps.

Whether a place is worthwhile to visit is irrelevant to the issue here. There have always been, and still are many worthwhile places to visit where caches can be placed, even if requiring permission. If that's not the case in your region because of cache saturation, then I truly sympathize. But that issue would have been around in the past as well, where someone wants to place a cache somewhere but can't because there's already one nearby. So natural cache saturation is the issue; not "new" geocaching.

Certainly a valid point on which to reminisce.

>> None of my examples was about anything disallowed or changed guidelines.

Ok, so they were examples of:

...changes to geocaching brought about by natural growth and popularity and population of both geocaches and geocachers

...improved GPS technology and capability

...shifting local laws and cultural etiquette

...changes to the variety of people in your region who play

...cache styles that while allowed "back then" and still allowed today, appear to be less common relative to other cache styles in your region

None of those factors I will agree are "old vs new geocaching". It's just, you know, Change. In your area.

Reminisce about the past as much as you like! I'm all for that. I'm sure I will in the near future about what it's like today.

Don't blame geocaching. <--- this is my ongoing point for responding in this thread

Things in all areas of life change. We all have to deal with it. I see threads like this in other forums surrounding other hobbies and entertainment as well.

Thankfully, geocaching is still around, is more popular than ever, and 'old' ways of playing (that were not discontinued for good reason) are still viable and allowed - of course, that's speaking generally, not specifically for any region of the world (such as yours).

9k · November 26, 2014

there has alway been a segment of geocachers for whom geocaching is not primarily about finding caches but about the places you go in order to find a cache.

Their preference, if this is their primary reason for geocaching, was only part of what geocaching was about. It was always about containers. Virtuals were added as an optional type because of that 'wow' location desire, and you could still locate the waypoint by using a GPS. But the 'wow' factor proved to be problematic, after its growth in popularity (hey, that was an "old" "new" issue). So, things changed. They retreated from the non-physical aspect of geocaching to focus on the aspect it always has been - locating containers. They tried something, it didn't work out eventually, so they went back - allowing the remaining ones to persist as long as they owners keep them active.

Since then, they've also tried other things, and retreated from them. It always comes back down to the physical containers. That's geocaching, and that's what it's always been.

some people created multicaches that were meant to take you on tour of some area and point out sites of natural, cultural, or historic significance along the way. There would be a physical cache at the end, but the real reward for many was the tour. Such caches seem to be particularly popular in Europe, but I know at least two of my favorite caches in Los Angeles would fit this category. A lot of effort went into setting up such complex multicaches and it could take a whole day to do one of them (a few might take several days and require long trips). I'm certain that people are still creating caches like these, but my guess is that there are fewer like this than in the past because the tend to not get visited. People who set these up would probably find it better to set it up on some other site. If Groundspeak were to do something with Waymarking or Wherigo and promote this as way for people to set up their own tours of interesting sites you might find a way to create a community where these sorts of multis could succeed.

geocaching.com/play/geotours

And now I shall take a break from this thread. :laughing: :omnomnom:

Edited November 26, 2014 by thebruce0

6.8k · November 26, 2014

Part 2: (the forum software is really annoying)

Problematic cachers have always been around. They need to be taught about proper geocaching etiquette, discouraged from doing things illegally, and encouraged to enjoy the hunt, which quick and easy or lengthy and adventurous. There may appear to be more today relatively speaking, but there are also more who are not that way. This issue is spawned from a growth in popularity of the hobby, and the perception that 'bad' ethic is somehow more populous than good.

I would not refer to the big majority of newer cachers who simply expect that they are provided with explanations how to approach a location when it is not obvious as problematic cachers.

They are used to the presence of such waypoints and take them for granted.

Good, that means they have an idea of the type of local culture that exists in their area, and have judged that it is safer and more acceptable to provide guidance in the form of optional waypoints for people who choose to view them.

I do not think that the local culture is that much different in any area with a larger number of cachers and a population density comparable to all regions where I have cached so far.

What had been fun previously is to see how long it might take people to find a feasible approach and then later ask them which ways they took and compare.

This is ruined as soon as waypoints are provided (apart from the fact that they automatically are sent to the GPS devices of most cachers and they do not even realize any longer that finding a feasible approach might be a central part of a certain cache).

It's like writing the solution to a puzzle in the hint. One does not need to read it but even for those who enjoy puzzles a lot of enjoyment is lost - all those trivial find it logs that will arrive in the first days by those who have no worked on the puzzle .............

In your region, whether now or then, there would always been the possibility that someone would break a local law to find a cache if they really wanted it. Even if it's more likely today, it was and still is the choice of the CO to provide that waypoint guidance or not.

There is no requirement to do so. It is not the CO's responsibility to make sure that finders do nothing illegal, if the cache is properly created and placed - the assumption and the requirement is that cachers, whether finding or hiding, do nothing illegal.

There have been no such incidents and so hiders did not have to deal with the issue. Moreover, of course the number of cachers plays a role too (we agree on that).

I do not care at all whether someone for example gets a fine for trespassing. But when related to geocaching, it causes issues for the activity of geocaching.

So wise cache hiders will take into account that unfortunately the premises have changed.

Once again, the change from 'then' to 'now' is due to increased popularity and success of the hobby, with increased player counts,

Yes, that's of course also one important factor, but by far not the only one.

It does not matter however as even if the increased popularity is your major reason for the decline of certain types of caches, it still

would be the same result, namely that there are not more caches of each type as ever before.

Again, "majority". How do you know that "the majority does not want to be bothered with [issues of abiding by law]"? I find that ludicrous. But I'm in not in your area. So again, if it's like that in your area, I really am sorry, because that's awful for your culture.

Not issues with law, but with finding a suitable access to a location on their own. I know it from numerous discussions at events, meetings, internet forums etc

They simply think that it belongs to the responsibility of the cache owner to provide access information.

So you long for the days when GPS devices were less accurate?

Actually, I use many old devices. For example, my phone (which cannot be used for geocaching) is more than 10 years old.

I'm a fan of using any device as long as possible.

I'm very unhappy with the technological battle into which parts of geocaching have evolved.

Sure, that may be some cachers. But I think the forums indicate that even veteran cachers complain about that at times. There's "no excuse" for soft coordinates, intended or not, if avoidable. People rant about "smartphones" being inaccurate, yet you miss the days when inaccuracy wasn't an issue?

Not all humans have the same preferences. I prefer hideouts where I do not need any GPS-receiver once I'm in the area and I started to cache without a GPS-receiver and bought it later for other reasons. When I hide my own caches, I try to care as much as possible about the coordinates. When I search for caches I'm glad the less role the coordinates play.

toz is right, for me it never has been about containers and the search - just for the journey and for having a platform which provided me with much better suggestions, ratings and contacts to other persons who did those hikes than any other platform I have found even up to now.

If you don't prefer accuracy of coordinates, then you don't have have to go right up to GZ. I don't grasp what your issue is with increased accuracy here...

The most important reason is that it is linked to a tendency to not choose any longer the hideouts which stick out the most, but very uncharacteristic ones where precise coordinates

are important and are really valuable - otherwise every other log would be a DNF. The intuitive approach does not work good with the newer hiding styles.

Unlike TheRat I'm not enjoying the challenge of searching at all. I prefer to know from 30m distance where the cache will be going to be. Once in the area, the caching part is finished for me.

Signing the log book is just for being allowed to write a legitimate find out log which is then also easily accessible to other people (which is not the case for notes).

Some less important reasons:

It ruins many old caches that still exist and mainly get negative logs from newer visitors which mostly ends up in archived caches (the owners are annoyed).

Many old timers who hardly cache any longer did not buy more modern GPS-devices and are somehow disconnected from the chance to hide new caches which receive

logs which are comparable to the logs from the old times.

If there's bad coverage in hiding the cache, there's bad coverage in finding the cache. The listing can make that known. Many often do. I can't see how that's an issue of "old" vs "new". "New" is better accuracy and better coverage all around.

I can see a connection as in such areas more modern technology provides better results. Under optimal conditions, the difference is not that large.

None of those factors I will agree are "old vs new geocaching". It's just, you know, Change. In your area.

My comment was about there are certain types of caches of which nowadays a smaller number exists. What caused that does not play a role here.

Somehow it might sound strange, but I'd say that in my country the newer form of geocaching is closer to the North American approach to geocaching than the style of geocaching

which has been very popular in my country ten years ago (yes, that's indeed a regional statement).

I think that even with the input of your friends you cannot have the slightest idea what type of changes have happened around here. Caching in your area never has even be close to the kind of

caching that has been common for example in the area around Vienna (in quite a large cycle around).

The vast majority of North American old timers would never have enjoyed those caches, most local old timers however had completely different preferences.

6.8k · November 26, 2014

Part 1

What part of it? I said certainly there are more of every (allowable) cache style being created worldwide.

But that is wrong unless you just mean traditionals, multi caches, etc as cache types/styles (it already becomes wrong in your original formulation if you include virtuals but that was not my point).

I never said that was verified, nor verifiable, because there is no metric. I said it's safe to assume that this is case because of the enormous growing popularity of geocaching worldwide. So yes, I am certain that this is the case.

I'm convinced that it cannot be verified because it is wrong.

What style of cache/caching, which is still allowable today, no longer exists, is no longer being placed, or is even in decline, verifiably?

As I said for example the style of hiding (new) caches without providing parking coordinates, trail heads etc. (Search for caches with no additional waypoints which are not powertrail caches and not very urban ones.)

Another cache class that is in decline are long multi caches (many more series now).

My "going by the wayside" was in context to any region where it appears that some preference is not as prolific as it used to be. If it's still allowable, and it's still enjoyable, then Revive it there! There is no reason why it needs to appear to be in decline.

I provided you with many examples where there are reasons for not reviving what many old timers enjoy but almost none of the newer cacher and there are no separate

sites for these groups.

There is no way around making compromises when hiding new caches in 2014 when one does not want to end up with 95% of logs that tell you what you already have known in advance, namely that a different design is preferred.

If you chose to do that it that way, not because you were required to do so, then that's your own choice, and the decline of what you chose not to do is not the fault of "the new geocaching".

I was not blaming someone. I was providing you with examples of cache types the number of which decreased.

Of course it was my own decision. I do not enjoy to invest numerous hours to read in the logs what I have known before.

There needs to be a balance for me. I would not make a cache shorter just because some people do not like to hike.

But I will make compromises for example by offering check sums or hints I would not have offered ten years ago,

I'm providing waypoints I would not have provided in the old times etc

6.8k · November 26, 2014

some people created multicaches that were meant to take you on tour of some area and point out sites of natural, cultural, or historic significance along the way. There would be a physical cache at the end, but the real reward for many was the tour. Such caches seem to be particularly popular in Europe, but I know at least two of my favorite caches in Los Angeles would fit this category. A lot of effort went into setting up such complex multicaches and it could take a whole day to do one of them (a few might take several days and require long trips). I'm certain that people are still creating caches like these, but my guess is that there are fewer like this than in the past because the tend to not get visited. People who set these up would probably find it better to set it up on some other site. If Groundspeak were to do something with Waymarking or Wherigo and promote this as way for people to set up their own tours of interesting sites you might find a way to create a community where these sorts of multis could succeed.

geocaching.com/play/geotours

Geotours could not be farther from what those complex multi caches referred to above were about.

It nicely illustrates old vs new as I experience it in the regions where I have cached.

Edited November 26, 2014 by cezanne

9k · November 26, 2014

Yup.

I need to walk away for a bit to remain sane. :laughing:

:mmraspberry:

6.8k · November 26, 2014

Yup.

I need to walk away for a bit to remain sane.

It was not my intent to drive you insane. I'm driven insane by this annoying forum software which only allows 10 quotes.

Anyway, maybe if you have some spare time you might want for example have a look at the caches (in particular the multi caches such as this one

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC12YZ6_zahnradbahn) of this hider

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.aspx?u=GPearl

who unfortunately has lost the interest into geocaching

There are many other examples I could provide you with.

Then you might see that the caching style which has been en vogue back then in my country was very, very different from the mainstream in

North America. (That's not an issue of better or worse.)

In the old times prolific cache hiders in my country had much less hides than prolific hiders e.g. in the US, but a much higher proportion of complex caches where often the locations for

one caches would have made 5 or more caches somewhere else.

Edited November 26, 2014 by cezanne

9k · November 26, 2014

I'm well aware of many of the enormously complex caches that exist in some of the eastern countries such as yours.

I learned of them very shortly after I started caching, because of how amazing they were reported to be.

Linking to them is great - it may give more people ideas to continue to proliferate such styles of caches.

Which demonstrates why they are still around, and great examples of what I've been saying.

6.8k · November 26, 2014

I'm well aware of many of the enormously complex caches that exist in some of the eastern countries such as yours.

I learned of them very shortly after I started caching, because of how amazing they were reported to be.

It rather seems to me that in this context you might have heard about some underground caches or technically very complex caches - some of

them have been mentioned in Groundspeak's blog. I would be very amazed if you have heard about the type of caches I linked to.

But it does not play a role for this discussion.

December 16, 2014

As someone who has only been geocaching for a few weeks, with an iPhone app and no dedicated GPS device, here is my impression after 11 finds:

1. I love the thrill of finding a cache and participating in a "secret" game within a community of clever and creative people

2. I love the ability to explore new areas and learn things, or just experience scenery, and hike or go on walks

3. I feel grateful to the cache owners and always try to leave a minimum of a sentence or two, even if it's one of those parking lot nanos, though I don't enjoy those as much because I'd much rather the cache was in a location that was interesting and worth visiting. Those one word cache logs are disappointing to read even as another cacher; to me it feels sad. Cache logs are an integral part of the whole experience.

4. I feel disappointed that most of the non-nano caches I have found don't have anything in them but broken bits of trinkets, if anything, because it makes me think people are taking and not leaving, and that does not seem in the spirit of the game

5. I am grateful for the abundance of caches in my area, but would prefer that if people are caching, that they do it thoughtfully, with a desire to be a part of a community and with a desire to make the game enjoyable for the CO and future cachers

6. I am grateful for urban caches with lower difficulty ratings because it's a good way to get to know the game and learn what makes a good hide, or a good cache

7. I am uber grateful to the founders and the people in the early years for turning this into such a vibrant and interesting hobby, and also grateful also that it is accessible to people like me, who don't have a lot of money for high-end GPS equipment

I didn't know that geocaching existed a few months ago. I learned about it because I was thinking of creating a private treasure hunting game for friends where the end location would be in a difficult to get to location, with a box filled with interesting things that were somehow connected to the unfolding story. Then I decided to google it to see if anyone else had that idea, and I discovered the geocaching community. I love geocaching and I hope to become better at it so I can try some more complex caches. I have so many ideas for elaborate caches that I want to create! I love the idea of hiding a cache maybe even more than finding one, because the idea of creating a unique experience for someone to discover and enjoy is such a wonderful feeling.

Edited December 16, 2014 by stickymice

December 16, 2014

As someone who has only been geocaching for a few weeks, with an iPhone app and no dedicated GPS device, here is my impression after 11 finds:

1. I love the thrill of finding a cache and participating in a "secret" game within a community of clever and creative people

2. I love the ability to explore new areas and learn things, or just experience scenery, and hike or go on walks

3. I feel grateful to the cache owners and always try to leave a minimum of a sentence or two, even if it's one of those parking lot nanos, though I don't enjoy those as much because I'd much rather the cache was in a location that was interesting and worth visiting. Those one word cache logs are disappointing to read even as another cacher; to me it feels sad. Cache logs are an integral part of the whole experience.

4. I feel disappointed that most of the non-nano caches I have found don't have anything in them but broken bits of trinkets, if anything, because it makes me think people are taking and not leaving, and that does not seem in the spirit of the game

5. I am grateful for the abundance of caches in my area, but would prefer that if people are caching, that they do it thoughtfully, with a desire to be a part of a community and with a desire to make the game enjoyable for the CO and future cachers

6. I am grateful for urban caches with lower difficulty ratings because it's a good way to get to know the game and learn what makes a good hide, or a good cache

7. I am uber grateful to the founders and the people in the early years for turning this into such a vibrant and interesting hobby, and also grateful also that it is accessible to people like me, who don't have a lot of money for high-end GPS equipment

I didn't know that geocaching existed a few months ago. I learned about it because I was thinking of creating a private treasure hunting game for friends where the end location would be in a difficult to get to location, with a box filled with interesting things that were somehow connected to the unfolding story. Then I decided to google it to see if anyone else had that idea, and I discovered the geocaching community. I love geocaching and I hope to become better at it so I can try some more complex caches. I have so many ideas for elaborate caches that I want to create! I love the idea of hiding a cache maybe even more than finding one, because the idea of creating a unique experience for someone to discover and enjoy is such a wonderful feeling.

Welcome!

You sound like you'll make an awesome cache hider. If you do decide to go for an elaborate hide someday, your efforts (and I don't doubt that elaborate hides take a huge amount of effort) will be greatly appreciated!

3.3k · December 16, 2014

There's certainly not a reduction in caches placed like they were in the "old days". But that point has been covered numerous times earlier in this thread. It's a perception. There are more caches now than ever before, and more caches being placed of all types. And of course this varies from region to region and community to community around the world.

I'm much less certain than you. If you just refer to traditional, multi etc and to micro, small, regular as cache types, then I agree.

If you looker closer to the design of the caches, I do not agree at all.

Even if there is a smaller percentage of "good" caches - whatever that means to a particular person - doubtful - the raw number of caches of all types is much higher. As for novel and creative designs, the numbers are way up, aren't they? My impression is that in the early days caches were on average larger than now, but the more complex, tricky and sophisticated caches are a much newer phenomenon.

14k · December 16, 2014

There's certainly not a reduction in caches placed like they were in the "old days". But that point has been covered numerous times earlier in this thread. It's a perception. There are more caches now than ever before, and more caches being placed of all types. And of course this varies from region to region and community to community around the world.

I'm much less certain than you. If you just refer to traditional, multi etc and to micro, small, regular as cache types, then I agree.

If you looker closer to the design of the caches, I do not agree at all.

Even if there is a smaller percentage of "good" caches - whatever that means to a particular person - doubtful - the raw number of caches of all types is much higher.

Suppose I have a box. A few times a week I'll put my pocket change into the box but only throw in quarters and dimes into the box. There aren't a lot of coins in the box but when I need a quarter I can just look in the box and easily grab two or three. Over time I start adding coins to the box more frequently and start putting more dimes and nickels, and about the same number of quarters. Most recently I don't even bother picking out the quarters and dimes when I add coins to box and occasionally add a hand full of pennies until the box is completely full. Yes, the raw number of coins in the box is much higher and there are more quarters in the box than when I first started but now I have to spend a lot of time digging in the box when I need a quarter.

An increase in the raw number of caches might benefit those that don't care what kind of cache they find, but if someone only wants to finds caches of a certain type they've got to sort through a lot of caches they aren't interested in to find the type they want.

December 16, 2014

3. I feel grateful to the cache owners and always try to leave a minimum of a sentence or two, even if it's one of those parking lot nanos, though I don't enjoy those as much because I'd much rather the cache was in a location that was interesting and worth visiting. Those one word cache logs are disappointing to read even as another cacher; to me it feels sad. Cache logs are an integral part of the whole experience.

The one word cache logs aren't as bad as the copy and paste logs. If you are going to leave dreck in your found it log, at least be brief.

I agree that it is really hard to come up with something to say about a magnetic nano attached to some metal next to a dumpster. I usually say I was in the area doing such and such, saw this was nearby, and thanks for the C&D.

4. I feel disappointed that most of the non-nano caches I have found don't have anything in them but broken bits of trinkets, if anything, because it makes me think people are taking and not leaving, and that does not seem in the spirit of the game

This is where reading the logs ahead of time helps. The swag in most caches is lacking or non-existent, so when good swag is found a cacher with a kid will most likely note it. Also, once you find a full cache, make note of the hider. He/she probably has other stocked hides nearby. Trade up or even of course.

I would say most cachers don't care about swag, but for those of us with kids, it is very important. When my son and I find an empty cache, I usually put a few things in so the next kid isn't disappointed.

9k · December 16, 2014

Suppose I have a box. A few times a week I'll put my pocket change into the box but only throw in quarters and dimes into the box. There aren't a lot of coins in the box but when I need a quarter I can just look in the box and easily grab two or three. Over time I start adding coins to the box more frequently and start putting more dimes and nickels, and about the same number of quarters. Most recently I don't even bother picking out the quarters and dimes when I add coins to box and occasionally add a hand full of pennies until the box is completely full. Yes, the raw number of coins in the box is much higher and there are more quarters in the box than when I first started but now I have to spend a lot of time digging in the box when I need a quarter.

Thankfully we have coin sorters that help us locate the coins we want (because different people may want different coins; and Canadians don't need pennies any more).

And it gets more useful the more coins there are in the box.

4.5k · December 16, 2014

Suppose I have a box. A few times a week I'll put my pocket change into the box but only throw in quarters and dimes into the box. There aren't a lot of coins in the box but when I need a quarter I can just look in the box and easily grab two or three. Over time I start adding coins to the box more frequently and start putting more dimes and nickels, and about the same number of quarters. Most recently I don't even bother picking out the quarters and dimes when I add coins to box and occasionally add a hand full of pennies until the box is completely full. Yes, the raw number of coins in the box is much higher and there are more quarters in the box than when I first started but now I have to spend a lot of time digging in the box when I need a quarter.

Thankfully we have coin sorters that help us locate the coins we want (because different people may want different coins; and Canadians don't need pennies any more).

And it gets more useful the more coins there are in the box.

Yep, geocaching is more useful for those who like everything. Like coins, for those of us who are choosey and are looking for certain ones, it's more work finding them. This is especially true since there probably aren't as many of the coins we're looking for in the box as there used to be. A coin sorter may work but let's face it, it's not going to return many of the coins we want because of the inundation of the other coins. The same goes for geocaching. I can filter, to an extent, for the types of caches i think may be interesting but the results returned will be dismal at best.

8k · December 16, 2014

Suppose I have a box. A few times a week I'll put my pocket change into the box but only throw in quarters and dimes into the box. There aren't a lot of coins in the box but when I need a quarter I can just look in the box and easily grab two or three. Over time I start adding coins to the box more frequently and start putting more dimes and nickels, and about the same number of quarters. Most recently I don't even bother picking out the quarters and dimes when I add coins to box and occasionally add a hand full of pennies until the box is completely full. Yes, the raw number of coins in the box is much higher and there are more quarters in the box than when I first started but now I have to spend a lot of time digging in the box when I need a quarter.

Thankfully we have coin sorters that help us locate the coins we want (because different people may want different coins; and Canadians don't need pennies any more).

And it gets more useful the more coins there are in the box.

Beat me to it. Coin sorter was the first thing that came to my mind as well.

Apparenently geocaching means selecting a cache at random and going to find it. :unsure:

14k · December 17, 2014

Suppose I have a box. A few times a week I'll put my pocket change into the box but only throw in quarters and dimes into the box. There aren't a lot of coins in the box but when I need a quarter I can just look in the box and easily grab two or three. Over time I start adding coins to the box more frequently and start putting more dimes and nickels, and about the same number of quarters. Most recently I don't even bother picking out the quarters and dimes when I add coins to box and occasionally add a hand full of pennies until the box is completely full. Yes, the raw number of coins in the box is much higher and there are more quarters in the box than when I first started but now I have to spend a lot of time digging in the box when I need a quarter.

Thankfully we have coin sorters that help us locate the coins we want (because different people may want different coins; and Canadians don't need pennies any more).

And it gets more useful the more coins there are in the box.

Beat me to it. Coin sorter was the first thing that came to my mind as well.

Apparenently geocaching means selecting a cache at random and going to find it.

It certainly doesn't now...but for "old geocaching", from what I've read from "old geocachers", one *could* just select a cache at random and there would be a good chance that you wouldn't find a penny.

Yes, we have the geocaching equivalent of a coin sorter, but I agree with Mudfrog that the results are often unsatisfactory.

The geocaching coin sorter doesn't stop dozens of notifications every time someone throws a handful of pennies in the box.

If the same person or people keep on coming back and dumping a handful of pennies into the box I have no way of ignoring all the coins those people are putting in the box.

There may actually be some pennies that I'd want from the box but because the sorter works based on the size it cant tell the difference between a 1 cent coin minted in 2006 and one minted in San Francisco in 1943 (which has sold for 60,000 at auctions).

3.3k · December 17, 2014

Beat me to it. Coin sorter was the first thing that came to my mind as well.

Apparenently geocaching means selecting a cache at random and going to find it.

My coin sorter works great for me. Fantastic, actually. I look at the favorites count and I read the description and a few logs.

That's all a low-numbers cacher needs. It's virtually foolproof. Medium numbers cacher can try a variation. High numbers cachers that load 1,000+ caches into their $800 GPSr for a weekend trip will have to invent Plan "B" - or come here to the forum & cry in their beer. :sad:

4.5k · December 17, 2014

Beat me to it. Coin sorter was the first thing that came to my mind as well.

Apparenently geocaching means selecting a cache at random and going to find it.

My coin sorter works great for me. Fantastic, actually. I look at the favorites count and I read the description and a few logs.

That's all a low-numbers cacher needs. It's virtually foolproof. Medium numbers cacher can try a variation. High numbers cachers that load 1,000+ caches into their $800 GPSr for a weekend trip will have to invent Plan "B" - or come here to the forum & cry in their beer.

That's how i do it as well. It seems to work fairly well for bringing up caches i'm interested in. Only thing is, using this method doesn't bring up much in our area.

3.3k · December 17, 2014

It was not my intent to drive you insane. I'm driven insane by this annoying forum software which only allows 10 quotes.

An outrageous limitation for a complex topic like this! :sad: I assume that Moun10Bike will have this solved by next week! :rolleyes:

December 21, 2014

Geocaches were almost always nice large ammo boxes or similar hiding styles in the remote woods or other non-urban areas.

And yet you own several micro caches. (13 of the last 20 you placed)

Complain about caches being to small, but hides small caches? I wonder why there's so many micros....

And something to think about- play how you want to play. If you like large caches, hide and find large caches. If you don't want to phone a friend, then don't. If you want to write out notes and print off maps instead of taking 3 seconds to download the info to a paperless GPS, go ahead and do that. Just remember you don't have to find every cache.

Exactly!

December 31, 2014

When I started caching in June 2011 I had a problem navigating the site. Also there should be a more extensive list of rules. One of the worst things I did was placing a cache and having people look for it and I hadn't placed it. There should be a rule that you have to have at least 100 finds and you must have found at least one micro, small and regular cache. And also have found at least one multi and mystery cache. That is not really that hard to do and it would keep geonoobs like me (when I started) from doing stupid stuff.

3.8k · December 31, 2014

When I started caching in June 2011 I had a problem navigating the site. Also there should be a more extensive list of rules. One of the worst things I did was placing a cache and having people look for it and I hadn't placed it. There should be a rule that you have to have at least 100 finds and you must have found at least one micro, small and regular cache. And also have found at least one multi and mystery cache. That is not really that hard to do and it would keep geonoobs like me (when I started) from doing stupid stuff.

Find count before hiding is really pointless. You said it's not hard to do, and it's not. I can get 300 mystery caches and 200 trade, micro sized in 24 hours. 500 of the same cache- nope not going to give you more experience than if you only found 5. And what about places with very few caches? Can't place more because I found all 47 within an hour of home even though they are all different?

December 31, 2014

And what about places with very few caches?

Completely correct. For example Kuwait does not even have nearly 100 caches. People have to remember that this is a global game and not everyone has 500 caches within 2 miles of there house.

14k · January 1, 2015

There should be a rule that you have to have at least 100 finds and you must have found at least one micro, small and regular cache. And also have found at least one multi and mystery cache. That is not really that hard to do and it would keep geonoobs like me (when I started) from doing stupid stuff.

It's not that hard if you live in an area that has a decent number of caches to be found. However, there are a lot of countries that have fewer than 100 caches in the entire country. The problem with setting a maximum number of finds before placing a cache is that areas which have very few caches, and could use more hides, wouldn't have anyone that would qualify to place new caches, while it would be very easy to qualify to place more caches in an area that is already saturated.

January 4, 2015

Ok than maybe just one or two so that way you can see what finding a cache is like and how one should be hidden.

3.3k · January 4, 2015

They say the swag was better before. Is it true?

7.5k · January 4, 2015

1420357575[/url]' post='5460692']
They say the swag was better before. Is it true?

From my experience there was a better variety of swag. Often a mix of kid and adult stuff. I remember finding a small plastic microscope that actually worked and a ship in a bottle knickknack and a couple of small porcelain door pulls. More garage sale small stuff than kid's toybox stuff.

1.5k · January 5, 2015

Ammo Cans: Here's one that has spent ten years in Prince William Sound, Alaska. Rusty on the outside, good on the inside: Barnacle9%20-%20GCKC3N.jpg

There is no way a plastic container would have survived intact in that climate for so long.

Cache Quality: One can easily find caching "the way it used to be" off the beaten path in Sitka, Alaska, and Maui and other places off the beaten path AND by filtering pocket queries for caches with several favorite points. Here at home in Anchorage, Alaska, there are more mountaintop caches than I could find during the next three years unless I quit work. I've had a blast working on the Texas County Challenge during business trips to Texas. I spent a day last month running around the countryside near Bremgarten, Switzerland, and found only one nano while visiting several interesting locations and VERY clever hides. I wrapped up that trip in Paris having a blast finding nanos and micros along the Champs-Élysées while enjoying the festive Christmas lighting and vendor booths. Quality and fun is where you look for it if you are willing to bypass all the microspew out there.

Swag: What goes around comes around. I still stock my containers with new swag and I still find swag I can't trade for because I left my swag bag behind. Normally, I have a bag full of pathtags, dollar coins, and other similar items for trade so I always trade UP or not at all.

Edited January 5, 2015 by Ladybug Kids

New vs. Old Geocaching

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment