Jump to content

What is your favorite type of cache to find?


AKACRider
Followers 5

Recommended Posts

Virtuals and earthcaches would be my preference. Mainly because the are almost always in good locations.

 

Multis are my least favourite unless they take me on a scenic tour.

 

I enjoy puzzles. Even puzzles in places I don't expect to visit.

 

For medical reasons I'm not into long hikes or high terrain.

 

Our lampposts don't have skirts, so I enjoyed the only cache under a lamppost skirt I have found. I can see why they would pall after a while.

 

I didn't enjoy caching in urban canyons - really hard to get a GPS fix.

 

With just over 600 caches I'm still in the enjoy most caches phase, though. I've met very few I didn't enjoy.

Link to comment
Are you a traditional cache person? Multi, gadget, earth, virtual, mystery, Wherigo, event?;
Yes.

 

I'm pretty omnivorous when it comes to geocache types. The types I've found the most of are traditional (72%), then mystery/puzzle (18%), and then multi (5%), but that's more about the types of the available caches than anything else.

 

What size/difficulty/terrain? swag, no swag, trackables, no trackables?
When I come upon trackables, I enjoy moving them and helping them towards their goals. But I don't seek them out. And I enjoy trading for personal signature items left by other geocachers, but I don't trade for anything else. I don't see much point in cache containers larger than what is needed to hold small signature items or modest sized trackables. And caches smaller than that are fine too, because they're often more challenging (and therefore more interesting to me).

 

I enjoy challenging caches, although that usually translates to high difficulty rather than high terrain. And the high terrain caches I find tend to be the "special equipment" type. For example, I've found no T4 caches, but 19 T5 caches.

 

urban, rural?
Yes. Again, I'm pretty omnivorous. I tend to find caches wherever I am, and only rarely go somewhere just for geocaching, so I find urban caches when I'm in urban locations, rural caches when I'm in rural locations, and so on.

 

just seeing what the majority is into, just out of my own curiosity.
I don't think this thread will show you anything about what "the majority" enjoys. It might show you something about what the majority of forum regulars enjoy, but even then, there's a lot of self-selection and bias. You might get a better idea of what "the majority" enjoys by conducting a random sample of users, and evaluating their statistics.
Link to comment

First, I'll echo niraD's comment: I like them all. But you've asked which I'm fondest of, and I have to admit it's puzzle caches. I also enjoy multicaches, but they're much rarer and less predictable. Can't do Wherigo. Rarely attend events.

 

I try to remember to check for benchmarks and look for them when they're near my route.

 

I enjoy large caches just fine, but in general I prefer micros because they're easier to deal with, assuming they aren't hidden somewhere with millions of possibilities.

 

I don't mind difficult hides, but I prefer easy finds.

 

I enjoy having challenging terrain from time to time, but generally I'm more interested in walking that getting a workout or performing gymnastics.

 

I ignore swag and am just fine if there's none. I don't seek trackables but enjoy moving them when I stumble across them.

 

I enjoy both rural and urban just fine, but my preference is suburban because it tends to offer a lot more opportunity and flexibility.

Link to comment

I prefer Mystery caches as I enjoy solving puzzles. I have a 5 year old and swag is everything to him, so he prefers regular and large sized Traditional caches. We do multis if they have virtual stages only. I have never successfully found a multi that had physical stages as there seems to be one stage that is always missing.

 

After I am done with my current streak, I will only bother with micro/nano caches if it has a lot of favorite points or if it is a mystery cache with a really neat puzzle. I have no interest in Wherigo. I'll probably find one just to get the icon.

Edited by Zepp914
Link to comment

Type: All of them; quality is more important to me than type. Though I do like Puzzles (if I can solve them), and I like Wherigos (but there aren't many around). Many of my most favourite caches are Puzzle caches with a theme and multiple stages.

 

D/T: I'll try anything except ones which I judge too dangerous for my abilities. From time to time I like doing caches which push me to my limits, but in terms of numbers the vast majority are middle to low on the D/T scale.

 

Trackables: I like finding them and moving them along. I don't seek them out (often the cache page listing of trackables is not accurate anyway).

 

Size: Don't care too much; generally prefer not Micro unless the location can't support larger.

 

Swag: I don't care or trade swag. I put swag oriented to children in my own caches.

 

Urban/Rural: If I am going out from home specifically to Geocache, I much prefer rural. This is most of the caching I do, and I like getting exercise walking in the countryside. If I'm travelling somewhere for other reasons, I fit in caching where I am (and this is more likely to be urban).

Link to comment

I'm big into extreme caches. 5/5 caches that involve any type of rope/rappel climb usually peak my interest. It's a shame that there's not more caches out there of the nature, but I understand why there are not.

I'm not above logging a 1/1 cache, though.

 

For me, most traditional caches are boring. The idea of going to the posted coordinates, finding a container and signing the log eventually became redundant for me and I began to expand my horizon. I mainly latched onto wherigos more than anything. I really enjoy the concept and I feel like a good Wherigo cartridge can make a cache much more fun. When I travel, that's the very first thing I look for wherever I'm going.

 

Either way, I enjoy non-traditionals of all sorts.....not just Wherigo. I'm not above seeking a traditional cache though as they account for about 54% of my finds.

Link to comment

Are you a traditional cache person? Multi, gadget, earth, virtual, mystery, Wherigo, event? What size/difficulty/terrain? swag, no swag, trackables, no trackables? urban, rural? just seeing what the majority is into, just out of my own curiosity.

I only do the traditional caches. I think the others are pretty cool, but I'm clueless, even after having read the forums, so I just leave those be. I prefer the large caches b/c I really like being able to leave "treasures" behind. I tend to like the simpler caches b/c I'm still newish and I have a hard time finding the more challenging hides. Terrain is whatever, I don't mind climbing or swimming or whatever :) Swag is fun, trackables are cool! I don't mind if it's urban or rural. Anything is an adventure! I think overall, though, I prefer the caches that take me to local parks b/c most of the time, it will be a small, out of the way place that I would have never known existed until I was brought there by a cache!

Link to comment

I'm big into extreme caches. 5/5 caches that involve any type of rope/rappel climb usually peak my interest. It's a shame that there's not more caches out there of the nature, but I understand why there are not.

I'm not above logging a 1/1 cache, though.

 

For me, most traditional caches are boring. The idea of going to the posted coordinates, finding a container and signing the log eventually became redundant for me and I began to expand my horizon. I mainly latched onto wherigos more than anything. I really enjoy the concept and I feel like a good Wherigo cartridge can make a cache much more fun. When I travel, that's the very first thing I look for wherever I'm going.

 

Either way, I enjoy non-traditionals of all sorts.....not just Wherigo. I'm not above seeking a traditional cache though as they account for about 54% of my finds.

 

Firstly,,, Bill, you might need to to think about changing your name! :P Just kidding of course..

 

I'm with you on the more challenging caches. Allthough i don't have the training to use rappelling equipment, i still usually figure out a way to get to the prize. Tree climbing caches are great. Swimming, diving, wading thorugh a swamp, and taking the yak out are some of my favorite ways to get to a cache. A cache that requires a hike into the woods is always good. Overall, i tend to like finding regular sized caches most but on the above, any size is fine as long as it's dry when i reach it.

 

I've enjoyed the wherigos that i've come across and i like challenge caches. Multis are great if they are in an interesting area.

Edited by Mudfrog
Link to comment

Traditionals, multis. Some mysteries and events.

Most "extreme" hides we head to are traditionals or multis.

Prefer longer hikes and/or higher terrain.

Cache size isn't as important as location. I went there for the area, the cache is secondary.

We leave swag when a dry container's able to hold extra. Rarely trade today.

Neither of us look for trackables anymore. Haven't even seen one in some time.

Link to comment

1. Virtuals and Earthcaches. When traveling, these are often the only caches on my pq.

 

2. Letterbox Hybrids and Wherigos. Looking for somethink different. A reason to use my stamp. LBHs cross listed on Atlas are always welcome

 

3. Traditional. Those in a location I otherwise am visiting; those with photo ops; kayak, hike, or bike caches. Ammo cans in the woods.

 

4. Multis. Offsets with some reason other than to find multiple containers.

 

5. Question Marks. Some challenges might interest me. Most puzzles do not.

 

On the bottom are micros in locations I have no interest in visiting or puzzles that require computer language skills, leaps of faith or twisted logic, higher math, tedious work, or the like.

Edited by geodarts
Link to comment

My personal preference is for your traditional cache, ideally a half reasonable sized container you can fit a trackable in. I had a travel bug for a year as I kept finding caches that were too small for it to fit in.

 

I don't like puzzle caches, and I am not a fan of most multi caches. For many a multi cache, I would rather a series of caches with a bonus, rather than several stages of a multi, several times I've got 6 out of 8 stages into a multi only to find that the 7th is missing, and I've had to DNF the cache. Conversely, I did a series + bonus, where one of the series was missing, I sat down in a cafe with the info I had from the caches I had found, and plotted the 10 possible locations for the bonus cache, 7 of them were out to sea, so I could check the remaining 3. I got lucky and found it on the first I picked.

 

But, of all the things I detest most of all about a geocache, it's an unhelpful clue... "tree" for a cache in a forest is in no way shape or form, useful.

 

J

Link to comment

Traditionals: still my favourite, and lately getting more and more into the more extreme (T3+) ones.

Multis: only short ones. Medical reasons there...

Mysteries: seems like I'm ignoring these more and more. All too often, the puzzles are just not that well put together. I certainly have a look at the # of favourites before going for one of these.

Virtuals & webcams: really wish there'd be more of those around here (Netherlands). They're cool! Why they've stopped allowing these is beyond me...

Link to comment

I like them all but find myself gravitating more to non-traditional caches. We have a challenge series (Challenge of the Century) that pushed me to go after the non-traditionals and I've found that I have a tendency to like them more. If I had to choose one, I'd choose the multi. Although they can be quite frustrating (mostly due to missing stages), I like the satisfaction I get when I manage to get through each stage, arrive at the final, and sign the log to complete my journey. It's more work for a single smiley, but I find it to be worth it.

Link to comment

Last month I was trying to find a cache every day, so I did a lot of easy, PNG, urban caches. This month I've been trying new things, so I have gotten a bit of a better idea of what I prefer.

 

My favorite ones involve a nice walk through not-too-tough terrain. I take my kids with me, and I am often carrying the baby, so I don't want to have to hack my way through. (But at the same time, caching in parking lots or other urban areas with a bunch of small kids is not ideal.) The hope is to find at least a regular-sized container (sometimes a small), with swag, trackables, and/or pathtags. So far I have enjoyed traditionals, letterboxes, virtuals (although it feels like cheating when I'm visiting a place I'd go anyway *and* I get a smiley just for being there!), Earthcaches, and multis. I have solved quite a few puzzles and enjoyed that, but for me the most important part is the actual finding of the cache, and a lot of times the puzzle solution is somewhere I don't really want to go. I haven't tried a Wherigo yet. I haven't tried anything harder than 3.5/3.5 D/T.

Link to comment

I've experimented with geocaching on-and-off since the summer of 2013, and I've come to realise that for me it's all about the trackables. Once the initial novelty of geocaching wore off, I came to realise that most micros are pointless, and most swag in larger caches is just wothless little bits of plastic/rubber that only little kids might find interesting (pencil sharpeners, bouncy balls, etc.). But trackables, I really like trackables. Especially beautiful geocoins. But I like most trackables, because I like to see where they've been and then help them on their journey.

 

Sorry, for most geocaches that don't contain trackables, I just don't get it. Not anymore. Okay, so geocaching can take you to interesting places, I will admit that. But you don't really need geocaching for that. Just look at a map or find out about interesting places and just go there. Also, sometimes you do get really interesting caches that are hidden in unique containers or are hidden in a really clever way that makes it kind of fun, but let's be honest, those are in the minority. Most of the time you're just using your GPS and hunting skills to find a rolled up piece of paper in a tree or lamp post. Nope, sorry, I'm missing something there. You're not actually finding anything of any value. I mean, geocaching is supposed to be a high-tech treasure hunt, right? But without anything to actually find, isn't the hunt kind of meaningless?

 

Trackables, trackables, trackables. That's what it's all about (for me). With trackables there's an actual purpose to the hunt. You are intercepting an interesting object on its unique journey and helping it on its way. In my mind, trackables are what geocaching was invented for. You can't really have one without the other, it doesn't really make sense otherwise.

 

I know this view is probably going to irritate many people, and maybe even anger some. But the question was asked, and I'm answering honestly.

 

Oh, but wait, there's one more thing:

 

I don't even bother signing paper logs anymore. Yeah I know, ouch! Awkward confession, but I'm afraid it's true. Nope, I just swap trackables, maybe photograph them, then move on. Paper log signing is wasted time for me, serves no purpose, life's too short. I bet most people don't bother reading them anyway.

 

I just seem to have invented my own version of the same and seem to play to my own rules these days...

Edited by Laughing at the Sky
Link to comment
I mean, geocaching is supposed to be a high-tech treasure hunt, right? But without anything to actually find, isn't the hunt kind of meaningless?
That's why I avoid describing geocaching as a "treasure hunt". I prefer the term "scavenger hunt" because in a scavenger hunt, the things you search for are essentially worthless; the value is in the hunt itself.
Link to comment

Earthcaches are prolly our favourites and those we get most annoyed about if not done well.

 

Followed by all rare types.

 

We do like scenic long hikes.

 

Also like ? and mysteries if done well. A multi just for the sake of having a multi or a boring pyzzle seen many times before is boring.

 

Wegenerally like to cache abroad though found just out that caching in bangkok is seriously boring. We could easily do dozens is a day but don't want to find the same bottle cap magnet behind a tourist info sign again and again. We did go to the zoo today though for a virtual- andbecause we were in the area anyway.

 

Mes terratin.

Link to comment

Oh, but wait, there's one more thing:

 

I don't even bother signing paper logs anymore. Yeah I know, ouch! Awkward confession, but I'm afraid it's true. Nope, I just swap trackables, maybe photograph them, then move on. Paper log signing is wasted time for me, serves no purpose, life's too short. I bet most people don't bother reading them anyway.

 

Some cache owners go through their logs and check everyone who's signed the log to make sure that the log entries on the website match those in the paper log. This has cost me a few finds where I forgot the pen, or the log as damp. I normally take a photo in each case. But I find it kinda infuriating.

 

Personally, I don't audit my cache logs. If you want to log my cache as found when you've not, it doesn't bother me. Logging false DNF's on the other hand...

 

J

 

PS Apologies for the thread necromancy...

Link to comment

just seeing what the majority is into

I think the best way to get a representative sample of "what the majority is into" is to look at which caches in an area receive the most favorite points. If you look at several different areas, you will see that it's not about the type of cache, but more about bringing cachers to a really cool location (which is why some Virtuals and EarthCaches garner so many favorite points) and/or placing a creative cache (why some traditional, multi-, LBH, Wherigo, and mystery caches garner so many favorite points). Edited by Ladybug Kids
Link to comment

Oh, but wait, there's one more thing:

 

I don't even bother signing paper logs anymore. Yeah I know, ouch! Awkward confession, but I'm afraid it's true. Nope, I just swap trackables, maybe photograph them, then move on. Paper log signing is wasted time for me, serves no purpose, life's too short. I bet most people don't bother reading them anyway.

 

Some cache owners go through their logs and check everyone who's signed the log to make sure that the log entries on the website match those in the paper log. This has cost me a few finds where I forgot the pen, or the log as damp. I normally take a photo in each case. But I find it kinda infuriating.

 

Personally, I don't audit my cache logs. If you want to log my cache as found when you've not, it doesn't bother me. Logging false DNF's on the other hand...

 

J

 

PS Apologies for the thread necromancy...

 

I think a good step forward would be to abolish paper logs. Instead, you could simply have a code that the geocacher logs, just like when you find a TB or GC. This would make geocaching totally paperless, and save on pens, and would therefore be better for the environment. It would also be quicker. Just note the number and move on. It would also save time for the cache owners as they wouldn't need to check.

Link to comment

I think a good step forward would be to abolish paper logs. Instead, you could simply have a code that the geocacher logs, just like when you find a TB or GC. This would make geocaching totally paperless, and save on pens, and would therefore be better for the environment. It would also be quicker. Just note the number and move on. It would also save time for the cache owners as they wouldn't need to check.

Unfortunately, this has proven not to be viable based on the experience with Lab Caches. Some cachers compile Lab Cache code lists and exchange them with other cachers to log, even though the other cachers may not even be on the same continent.

 

There is another game that uses a smart phone to log the location and even allows one to purchase a "bomb" to log many other locations without actually visiting them.

Link to comment

 

I think a good step forward would be to abolish paper logs. Instead, you could simply have a code that the geocacher logs, just like when you find a TB or GC. This would make geocaching totally paperless, and save on pens, and would therefore be better for the environment. It would also be quicker. Just note the number and move on. It would also save time for the cache owners as they wouldn't need to check.

 

Then you will run into the issue of people passing out the codes for a bunch of caches and others logging them without visiting. And it's not like "paperless" in this case is a grand idea of conservation...we're talking a few small log sheets or books. I kept my log book from my first placed cache because it was full of stories, stamps, drawings, and other fun stuff.

 

Anyway, to the original topic:

Traditionals in a nice location are my fave, but anything that takes me to an interesting place. I dig earth caches, but there aren't that many nearby.

Link to comment

Oh, but wait, there's one more thing:

 

I don't even bother signing paper logs anymore. Yeah I know, ouch! Awkward confession, but I'm afraid it's true. Nope, I just swap trackables, maybe photograph them, then move on. Paper log signing is wasted time for me, serves no purpose, life's too short. I bet most people don't bother reading them anyway.

 

Some cache owners go through their logs and check everyone who's signed the log to make sure that the log entries on the website match those in the paper log. This has cost me a few finds where I forgot the pen, or the log as damp. I normally take a photo in each case. But I find it kinda infuriating.

 

Personally, I don't audit my cache logs. If you want to log my cache as found when you've not, it doesn't bother me. Logging false DNF's on the other hand...

 

J

 

PS Apologies for the thread necromancy...

 

I think a good step forward would be to abolish paper logs. Instead, you could simply have a code that the geocacher logs, just like when you find a TB or GC. This would make geocaching totally paperless, and save on pens, and would therefore be better for the environment. It would also be quicker. Just note the number and move on. It would also save time for the cache owners as they wouldn't need to check.

 

It would also take all of two weeks before a massive registry of find codes was created where anyone could go to get the find code for almost any cache. Like it or not, the physical log provides tangible physical evidence that one has at least visited the cache location or was likely with someone that did.

Edited by NYPaddleCacher
Link to comment

I am into interesting caches/places - that involves a hike of a mile or more or at least involve some exercise to an interesting place. Need a view, a cave a waterfall, a bike ride, - something with features about it. Take me somewhere. I don't care for Roadside, Series, Mini-s, Guardrail, Lamppost, neighborhood, residential, or business caches. Earthcaches and historical are great a well. The hide should be at least as difficult so a blind person couldn't find - should take 15 to 20 minutes to find it and maybe some thought behind it. Love to trade and want something in there. Caches with good trade item are really fun! Location LOcation location! I do a few puzzle caches and enjoyed them - but I have to be in the mood and still want to go somewhere interesting! My participation has really dropped off due to lack of good caches and other outdoor interest taking up my time!

Link to comment

Oh, but wait, there's one more thing:

 

I don't even bother signing paper logs anymore. Yeah I know, ouch! Awkward confession, but I'm afraid it's true. Nope, I just swap trackables, maybe photograph them, then move on. Paper log signing is wasted time for me, serves no purpose, life's too short. I bet most people don't bother reading them anyway.

 

Some cache owners go through their logs and check everyone who's signed the log to make sure that the log entries on the website match those in the paper log. This has cost me a few finds where I forgot the pen, or the log as damp. I normally take a photo in each case. But I find it kinda infuriating.

 

Personally, I don't audit my cache logs. If you want to log my cache as found when you've not, it doesn't bother me. Logging false DNF's on the other hand...

 

J

 

PS Apologies for the thread necromancy...

 

I think a good step forward would be to abolish paper logs. Instead, you could simply have a code that the geocacher logs, just like when you find a TB or GC. This would make geocaching totally paperless, and save on pens, and would therefore be better for the environment. It would also be quicker. Just note the number and move on. It would also save time for the cache owners as they wouldn't need to check.

 

Groundspeak can make it even easier. Strip geocaching down to it's easiest, maintenance-free essence. No need for even a container. Create a Virtual-style cache that only requires you to be at a spot on the earth. When you're there the app will tell you you can log the find. Hit the Found button, get your smiley and move on to the next. It's quick, it's easy, there's nothing to maintain. The pastime becomes completely about points.

Link to comment
Groundspeak can make it even easier. Strip geocaching down to it's easiest, maintenance-free essence. No need for even a container. Create a Virtual-style cache that only requires you to be at a spot on the earth. When you're there the app will tell you you can log the find. Hit the Found button, get your smiley and move on to the next. It's quick, it's easy, there's nothing to maintain. The pastime becomes completely about points.

 

Sounds like Waymarking to me.

Link to comment
It would also take all of two weeks before a massive registry of find codes was created where anyone could go to get the find code for almost any cache. Like it or not, the physical log provides tangible physical evidence that one has at least visited the cache location or was likely with someone that did.

 

Good point.

 

I can't help but think anyone doing that would just be cheating themselves though. For me, it was* about the process of getting out and about, not the numbers. But I totally take your point though.

 

But do cache owners really trawl through their logs and check them against the online logs and then remove those that aren't in the physical logs? They really have that much spare time on their hands?

 

* Past tense. I'm not geocaching at the moment. I'm back on here due to receiving an email notification for this old thread.

Link to comment
Groundspeak can make it even easier. Strip geocaching down to it's easiest, maintenance-free essence. No need for even a container. Create a Virtual-style cache that only requires you to be at a spot on the earth. When you're there the app will tell you you can log the find. Hit the Found button, get your smiley and move on to the next. It's quick, it's easy, there's nothing to maintain. The pastime becomes completely about points.

 

Sounds like Waymarking to me.

 

Waymarking requires a log to be written, and often a photograph to be taken and posted...

Link to comment
But do cache owners really trawl through their logs and check them against the online logs and then remove those that aren't in the physical logs? They really have that much spare time on their hands?
Some do. Some don't. Some are like me, checking the physical log only occasionally, when something in the online log seems odd.
Link to comment

Clever containers in urban environments are my favorite. I love caches that are clearly visible. You see them when you are searching and immediately dismiss them, then something that looks off makes you look once more and find it. The really good ones make you think "nah, it couldn't be... But maybe... Nah, no way... Oh. There it is!" Even better are the ones that take some tinkering to open. These are few and far between, but finding these is what really keeps me going. Bigger is better, but I don't mind log only micros if they are truly clever hides. I've only found a half a dozen or so of these in my career, but the ingenuity is inspiring enough to keep me trudging through the dozens of uninspired caches I find in the city in between the great hides.

 

Cool locations are second on my list. Heck, I learned I had a tiny little park tucked away that was less than a half a mile from my house. Geocaching is a great tool to help you learn about, and your way around a new city.

 

Least favorites: needle-in-a-haystack hides and hides in thorny bushes. I'll spend about two minutes crawling on a rock covered embankment looking for a rock shaped cache "hidden" among the hundreds of other rocks that are within the accuracy radius of my GPSr. A bison tube that was dropped into some evergreen landscaping at your neighborhood park? I won't even lift a branch of it. I probably won't even mark it DNF, as that would take more effort than was put into the "hide".

Edited by awdemuth
Link to comment

I love caches that take you to scenic places, preferably with a good size so that you can put SWAG or trackables into.

I especially love home made caches and admire the workmanship and creativity that has gone into it.

 

But I really love when a cache contains a trackable coin or TB.

I find them very attractive and enjoy seeing where they have come from.

I usually always take a photo of them at their hide and then where I drop them off.

Link to comment

I've only searched and found traditionals, multis, mysteries and small events.

 

I like good traditionals and nice mysteries although I am omnivorous.

 

Positive traits in any cache...

- has lured me into an interesting place I had no idea that it existed. Interesting place can be interesting, because of its history or there is something to see.

- a well-maintained sturdy cache in a decent hide while walking my dog (happens often enough) or stopping by on a trip (hasn't though happened yet).

- has a theme

- has original hide/camo (hunting tubes hanging in a tree or lunch boxes under the rocks is OK for me but those are like bread, very ordinary. I like to see variation.)

- lets me think but is not too difficult or otherwise frustrating.

- can require walking into the woods or exercise me otherwise, but I do not like caches in high up in trees because I do not climb.

- I prefer woods, parks and other places where it is easy to blend in as a plain dog walker. Urban caches are very difficult for me. One urban cache was though cool because it had a good hint and it could be picked up pretending to be a silly tourist.

 

I am not sure what I should think about difficulty though. Too easy caches are a little boring, but too difficult hides may be camouflaged so that I fear disturbing its environment while searching for it and still not find it (I've dropped a search for this reason a couple of times). I'd like to find a cache in an area with plenty of good hiding places and send my dog to find it to challenge her nose instead of letting her check the first three holes she sees.

 

I'd like to see my area with high concentration of nice traditionals (since there are few historically interesting places near me, they have to be good in some other field like camo or theme) and a handful of mysteries and multis. This has brought up the idea of setting my own hide but I cannot decide what kind of box and where to hide one.

 

Trackables? I like the idea. I have a dog with a code so people can discover her but I do not hunt for trackables. I think that if I still do caching when her time has ran out I'll release a traditional travel bug carrying her code to wander from cache to cache.

 

Swag does not interest me. And there isn't much. Most caches I've found are rather small and our climate is not the easiest to keep the inside of the box clean and dry.

 

A field puzzle would be nice to find! I haven't ran into one yet. I guess they are not easy to maintain.

Link to comment

Oh, but wait, there's one more thing:

 

I don't even bother signing paper logs anymore. Yeah I know, ouch! Awkward confession, but I'm afraid it's true. Nope, I just swap trackables, maybe photograph them, then move on. Paper log signing is wasted time for me, serves no purpose, life's too short. I bet most people don't bother reading them anyway.

 

Some cache owners go through their logs and check everyone who's signed the log to make sure that the log entries on the website match those in the paper log. This has cost me a few finds where I forgot the pen, or the log as damp. I normally take a photo in each case. But I find it kinda infuriating.

 

Personally, I don't audit my cache logs. If you want to log my cache as found when you've not, it doesn't bother me. Logging false DNF's on the other hand...

 

J

 

PS Apologies for the thread necromancy...

 

I think a good step forward would be to abolish paper logs. Instead, you could simply have a code that the geocacher logs, just like when you find a TB or GC. This would make geocaching totally paperless, and save on pens, and would therefore be better for the environment. It would also be quicker. Just note the number and move on. It would also save time for the cache owners as they wouldn't need to check.

 

I think that would pretty much be the end of Geocaching but if you still think it's a good idea there is a website that rhymes with funzee that you may like.

Link to comment

Are you a traditional cache person? Multi, gadget, earth, virtual, mystery, Wherigo, event? What size/difficulty/terrain? swag, no swag, trackables, no trackables? urban, rural? just seeing what the majority is into, just out of my own curiosity.

 

I like earth/virtual caches - always take you to something interesting! But what I tend to go after most are traditional caches, especially ones that are hidden in or around cemeteries.

 

I'm not really a fan of urban caches. I like the ones that take me out to someplace quiet. I personally don't care for puzzle caches or multis... I like things to be pretty straightforward. :)

 

I like regular sized containers. Swag isn't important (though I like seeing what people leave, especially people who make their own trademark item to leave in caches! I love travel bugs! I found my first one without knowing what it was till I followed the instructions and logged it. Now, I'm hooked! I don't specifically seek them out, but if I come across one, I will almost always grab it and move it along.

Link to comment

My favorite type of cache has to be the Multi-Cache. I guess it's the sense of accomplishment; and the whole finding WP's before the final. Sadly MC's are kind of rare in my general area.

 

Mystery Caches are also cool, though I am not the sharpest when it comes to solving them. But most of the ones that I have solved were awesome hikes into woods and such.

 

More information.. favorite container is easily the ammo can. I love finding pathtags, and my least favorite type of cache are LPC's. They are easy finds and that's cool, but I look like a straight up criminal with them. I am quite paranoid of being caught dealing with these heh

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 5
×
×
  • Create New...