New Caches Placed

[+edexter]

Here's what being placed in Southeast Massachusetts in 2015: 60 caches have been placed so far, with 25 micros, 23 small, 11 regulars and an earthcache.

Six of the caches are puzzles with unknown coordinates, leaving 54 where the location is evident. Of these, two thirds(36) are within 100 yards of pavement, including nine within ten feet of it, and you should be able to spot your car from about half the caches. Only a dozen caches send you more than quarter mile into the woods. Average d/t is 1.7/1.7 Hides predominate over woods walks.

edexter

[Keystone]

I'm not seeing a question here, so I am moving this topic of regional interest from the "How do I....?" forum to the Northeast forum.

[JASTA 11]

Here's what being placed in Southeast Massachusetts in 2015: 60 caches have been placed so far, with 25 micros, 23 small, 11 regulars and an earthcache.

Six of the caches are puzzles with unknown coordinates, leaving 54 where the location is evident. Of these, two thirds(36) are within 100 yards of pavement, including nine within ten feet of it, and you should be able to spot your car from about half the caches. Only a dozen caches send you more than quarter mile into the woods. Average d/t is 1.7/1.7 Hides predominate over woods walks.

edexter

 

It seems that more and more folks are employing the 'drive along and throw a micro out the window' method of placing caches these days.

 

Players who hide caches in the woods or at other interesting places are in the minority now.

[+nikcap]

This seems about right. It was a hash winter and many folks didn't venture out into the woods.

In Central Jersey, we can't hide caches in State Parks or Wild Life Management areas at the moment, so that take a big chunk of area off the board where we can hide caches that require a little walking in the woods.

 

In CNJ since the start of 2015:

97 caches have been placed so far,

- 29 micros, 16 Others, 14 Regular and 28 small.

- 21 caches are puzzles with unknown coordinates, 2 are challengesl

 

I don't know how many are within 100 yards of pavement, but I would guess most area. I've hidden two caches this year, and both are withing throwing distance of the road. I can can actually see from the nearby highway, it's an April's Fools puzzle, has 7 finds and 2 favorite points.

 

22 have received more than 2 favorite points (12 being the highest) and another 20 have received 1 favorite point.

 

48 of the caches are 1.0 or 1.5 terrain rating, I'm currently too lazy to actually average out the ratings.

 

I have no idea if this is good or bad, better or worst then last year, but my impression is that the cache quality and hiding has gotten a little better in the CNJ area. A few hand made crafty caches have inspired others to do the same. We have a couple of excellent cache hiders and cachers that go all out decorating ammo boxes or cache containers. We also had a cache that coordinated several cachers to place creative caches in an area we call the Geo-Farm. This has inspired a lot of people.

 

Cache hiding is very much monkey see, monkey do.

[+edexter]

In the past few weeks, I've started tracking the caches I get an "instant notification" email on (which are in the 50 mile radius from my home in Plymouth, MA.) and I've been categorizing them as either "hides" or "real caches" based on a single criteria, namely "the distance from the pavement". I've already found enough P&G's for one lifetime and would much rather spend my time walking in the woods than driving from coordinate to coordinate so doing this kind of presort is useful to me. A "real cache" requires at least a quarter mile walk (round trip) while a "hide" is located within 150 feet of the pavement which you can tell from just opening up the map.

So far it's pretty clear that in the 2015 version of this game of "electronic hide and seek" most folks are into hiding rather than seeking: of 11 placements 10 are hides and 1 is a real cache. Most of the hides are less than 50 feet from the pavement.

edexter

[JASTA 11]

Most of the hides are less than 50 feet from the pavement.

 

Giving the people what they want!

[+edexter]

...and that's the most curious thing: It does seem to be "what they want" and yet they don't like it very much. Of the 53 caches placed since 2015 in a 50 mile radius from my home where I can tell the distance from the pavement, there are 30 that are within 50 yards of pavement: five of the 499 logs include a favorite point (1%): none has more than 2. The 12 caches that are more than a quarter mile hike from the car have 129 logs and 21 favorite points (16%)

The averages breakout like this:

less that 50 yards: 16 logs and 0.01 fav points/cache

between 51 and 440 yards: 16 logs and 1.0 fav points/cache

More than 1/4 mile: 11 logs and 1.5 fav points/cache

That's a very strong correlation that says the closer to the road it is the more folks will hunt it and the fewer will like it much. Ah, the amazing power of the smilie; but I guess exercise really does make you feel better.

edexter

Edited April 28, 2015 by edexter

[+edexter]

Here's an update as of October 1st: For the 336 caches that list a location: 75% are within 100 yards of parking. 134 of them are with 50 feet of pavement and 64 (19%) are actually in the parking lot or on the sidewalk. To find the nearest 100 micros you have to walk an average of four feet...

There is no geo here...

Edited October 1, 2015 by edexter

[JASTA 11]

I see the game evolving, at least on this site.

 

Many who no longer feel an obligation to sign the paper log, or answer the questions for an earthcache or virtual. No interest in hiding or finding something away from a paved surface. This is what is becoming the norm.

 

One day soon we'll see something like this:

 

 

No need to get out of your car. Powertrails can be completed in a fraction of the time. It can even log caches you didn't even know are there.

 

But you were there, right? You're entitled to a smiley for being there, aren't you? Who cares if you found anything?

 

(edited for spelling)

Edited October 2, 2015 by JASTA 11

[+dprovan]

Here's an update as of October 1st: For the 336 caches that list a location: 75% are within 100 yards of parking. 134 of them are with 50 feet of pavement and 64 (19%) are actually in the parking lot or on the sidewalk. To find the nearest 100 micros you have to walk an average of four feet...

There is no geo here...

I can't speak to these specific caches, but just because you can drive to GZ doesn't mean you have to drive to GZ. As often as not, my geocaching adventures involve parking my car and walking around an area picking up caches that I could have driven right up to. It's a great way to explore a neighborhood...or a business park. The word is "geocaching", not "naturecaching" or "backwoodscaching". Sure, I enjoy caches that take me into parks and on nice walks, but I don't stick my nose up at caches that aren't like that. But I don't care if you skip them.

 

But you were there, right? You're entitled to a smiley for being there, aren't you? Who cares if you found anything?

I don't get these people, either (although I have to admit I don't actually see this in my area, I just hear about them here in the forums). I don't even understand why they would want the smiley, let along feel entitled to it.

 

But at the same time, I don't think people should feel entitled to caches of the kind they like. I think the OP is thinking that by complaining, he'll convince the people hiding roadside caches to hide backwoods caches. But, at best, he'll only convince them to not hide any caches. So he'd do just as well ignoring them instead of complaining about them.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

I see the game evolving, at least on this site.

 

Many who no longer feel an obligation to sign the paper log, or answer the questions for an earthcache or virtual. No interest in hiding or finding something away from a paved surface. This is what is becoming the norm.

 

One day soon we'll see something like this:

 

 

No need to get out of your car. Powertrails can be completed in a fraction of the time. It can even log caches you didn't even know are there.

 

But you were there, right? You're entitled to a smiley for being there, aren't you? Who cares if you found anything?

 

(edited for spelling)

 

You just described that other game that starts with an "M".

[+edexter]

I'm continuing to track the number and types of caches placed around me, though due to negative feedback from the community. I have deleted my public list of "hides" and changed my list called "real caches" to simply "caches". People did not see I was describing the distance off the road and the size of the container not making a moral judgement about those who hunt or place them (A quality judgement about the cache container and the outdoor experience, certainly)

At any rate, objects "on or within 200 yards of pavement" I call Hides and anything further off is a Cache. I've further divided the Hides into those actually on the pavement and those at least 5 feet from it. (I can touch the car/I can see the car) Of the 365 caches, 269 (74%) are within 200 yards of parking and of these 68 (19%) are on pavement (less than 2 steps from parking). Eighty percent of these are micros with an average d/t rating of 1.64/1.40

If you move from 5 to 50 feet off pavement,there are an additional 82 hides, 52% micros or smaller. (So 150 or 41% are within 20 steps of parking...) Of the 201 hides between 5 feet and 200 yards from parking, 43% are micros and they have an average d/t rating of 1.80/1.81 I expected the terrain rating would be less than 2.0 but the difficulty rating surprised me. In general, the closer to the roadway you are, the smaller and easier to find the container is. 141 of the 269 hides (52%) have containers too small to hold a log book and pencil.

Those caches that require at least a quarter mile round trip (I can't see the car) have an average d/t rating of 2.22/2.41 and 69% of them large enough to hold a logbook, pencil and trinkets. This analysis does not include puzzles caches (since I can't tell the distance off) nor "geo art" (woodland power trails with the "fake" listed coordinates arranged to form a shape on the map.) In my area there are a 100 or so of these caches.

So that's what's being placed near me. How about in your neck of the woods?

edexter

[+dprovan]

So that's what's being placed near me. How about in your neck of the woods?

I haven't done any actual counting, but your numbers seem consistent with my experience. It shouldn't come as any surprise that being more popular and being more accessible come hand in hand.

 

And while the number of easily reached caches has definitely exploded, the number of caches on nice hikes has gone up significantly, as well. I've seen nothing to even remotely suggest that all the new park&grabs have come at the expense of new caches away from parking.

 

Indeed, what I've seen suggests more the reverse: easily reached caches have become the "gateway drug" to the wider geocaching experience of caches in special places that can't be driven by.

[+edexter]

Well, the math suggests that when 75% of new caches are essentially P&Gs, the number of nice walks isn't going to go up significantly. Be that as it may, I'm more interested in actual numbers than impressions since everyone impressions differ based on what they do. Indeed, it is not surprising that easy is more popular than harder, it always is; but it would be surprising if finding P&Gs encouraged the placing or finding caches further in the woods or that noticing a that lot of folks place P&Gs would discourage them from placing them or that ignoring them has any effect at all. The number and % of micros has clearly increased over the past five years, and micros are easier to place and maintain than actual caches. (Munzees are easier still and their number been growing considerably faster as well). Impressions are useful places to start, but does anyone have numbers to compare then and now?

[+L0ne.R]

Well, the math suggests that when 75% of new caches are essentially P&Gs, the number of nice walks isn't going to go up significantly. Be that as it may, I'm more interested in actual numbers than impressions since everyone impressions differ based on what they do. Indeed, it is not surprising that easy is more popular than harder, it always is; but it would be surprising if finding P&Gs encouraged the placing or finding caches further in the woods or that noticing a that lot of folks place P&Gs would discourage them from placing them or that ignoring them has any effect at all. The number and % of micros has clearly increased over the past five years, and micros are easier to place and maintain than actual caches. (Munzees are easier still and their number been growing considerably faster as well). Impressions are useful places to start, but does anyone have numbers to compare then and now?

 

What are you using to get your stats?

[+edexter]

Stats as per 10/19/15 posting: based on reviewing new caches in 50 mile radius of my home.

[+L0ne.R]

Stats as per 10/19/15 posting: based on reviewing new caches in 50 mile radius of my home.

 

Oh sorry, I mean what programme are you using - GSAK? Project-GC? the GC site (PQ)? I don't know how to pull up that information.

[+edexter]

Stats as per 10/19/15 posting: based on reviewing new caches in 50 mile radius of my home.

 

Oh sorry, I mean what programme are you using - GSAK? Project-GC? the GC site (PQ)? I don't know how to pull up that information.

Just the geocaching.com website. When I get a notification of a new cache,I open it up and look at it to see where it is located using the satellite view. I send a .gpx file to GSAK to create a sortable data base and record the distance from pavement. Once you have that you can just click through using the split screen view showing the map to review them. None of the programs you mentioned or I know of contain this information other than visually and typically only caches that require a hike note the round trip distance in the cache description. But as Yogi Berra used to say "you can see lot just by looking". For about half the caches placed, while standing at GZ you can see your car...

[+edexter]

Update for new caches placed so far in 2016. The area is a 50 mile radius from Plymouth, so it includes the Cape (but not the Islands), SE Mass and the RI borderlands including Providence and Pawtucket. As of 5/12/16 there are 261 new caches.

I've divided the caches into two broad groups based on distance from parking. See Bookmark listings for Curbside Pickup 2016 and Off Road Caches 2016. The criteria is simple: An off road cache requires a minimum of a quarter mile round trip to reach it. Anything further than 200 yards from parking is included as an Off Road Cache and at the moment there are 61 caches making the list (23%). Of the 201 Curbside caches (77% of those placed). Of those 201 caches, I can see the following on Google Earth: 113 (56%) are directly on or above pavement (mostly guardrails and LPC in parking lots), an additional 50 (25%) are within 50 feet of pavement and of the remaining 38, 34 are between 20 and 100 yards from parking with 4 between 100 and 200 yards off. Almost all have a t1.5 rating, though the great majority would get a t1.0 if run through the scale: "area is paved, flat and (appears) wheelchair accessible and requires less than a half mile walk...)

Heck, I did the math: the 163 closest caches require less than a half mile walk combined...

edexter

[+edexter]

Update for 6/4/16. 328 new caches in 2016. 142 on or above pavement (43%); 205 within 50 feet of pavement (62%); 256 less than 200 yards from pavement (78%); 72 more than 200 yards from pavement (22%). 60 of the caches are in parking lots and another 43 are in guardrails...

[+cerberus1]

I here ya...

I'm now following one-every-530'-'cause-I-can caches just for a bit of a walk.

To be clear... Over 60, hiking since a kid, I've pretty-much hiked the majority of areas in my State and surrounding years before (and during) this hobby called geocaching.

- So unless a new trail's been opened, most areas don't present views I haven't seen, or anything new.

I do enjoy walking familiar trails (AT a lot), just that I simply chose to cache that day.

The few spots with mileage I had set aside for another time, now have caches leading to it (and every 530'...).

And lately, this old fart's been more ticked at those who've placed those, "while I'm hiking my way to your great cache, decided to leave a couple (30+). Enjoy !" than any of the lpc, guardrail, and roadside caches that I can easily ignore.

They don't seem lazy, just (to me) have no imagination of their own, by simply riding the coattails of another's (often older) hide...

[JASTA 11]

Some call them 'trailhead bonus' caches.

 

'Cause just one smiley just isn't worth the trip.

[+edexter]

12/27/16 So here's an (almost) year end update for SE Mass and RI (50 mile radius from my home in Plymouth, MA): For caches where the location coords are given (excludes most puzzles): There were 653 caches placed. More than half (364 or 56%) were park and grabs which I define as an object (most are micros) placed within 50 feet of the road. 234 or 36% were placed directly above pavement. Another 100 (15%) were between 51 feet and two hundred yards from the roadway. This is a total of 464 caches or 70% of the caches placed. These caches are much more popular in terms of finds (roughly 90% of the total finds), though much less popular in terms of favorite points (only 40% have even 1 fav pt) and 25 of them have 5 or more fav pts (5%) The caches that are further off the road are less popular in terms of finds, but much more popular in terms of fav pts (53% have at least one fav pt and 15 have 5 or more (13%). While fav pt totals are an imperfect measurement of quality, the fact that fewer than half the recent caches could garner even one fav pt suggests that the overall quality is quite low. As an adjunct to fav pts as a stand in for quality consider the following: Of the 464 caches that require little or no walking to find, only 9 had a d/t rating of 2.5/2.5 or higher, 6 of these had at least one fav pt and the average was 3.75. Of the 189 hiking caches, 19 had a d/t rating of 2.5/2.5 or higher, and all but one had a fav pt and the average was 3. This suggests that the harder the cache, the fewer people find it and the more those that do, like it. I realize there is some self selection going on, but the numbers suggest that quality caches require some work. Given that two thirds of American adults are overweight, this strategy could be a win/win.

edexter

[+edexter]

Do you know the difference between correlation and causation?  Geocaching is now a relatively well known and popular activity where a relative handful of folks place caches for everyone else to find.  So far in 2017 in "my area"  192 caches have been placed, more than 100 of them by just two people.  141 of the 192 caches have a terrain rating of 1.5 or less (75%),  70% of American adults are now overweight or obese...

[+cerberus1]

20 minutes ago, edexter said:

Do you know the difference between correlation and causation?  Geocaching is now a relatively well known and popular activity where a relative handful of folks place caches for everyone else to find.  So far in 2017 in "my area"  192 caches have been placed, more than 100 of them by just two people.  141 of the 192 caches have a terrain rating of 1.5 or less (75%),  70% of American adults are now overweight or obese...

A bit OT, but the other 2/3rds and I attended an event in another state nearby.  Everyone was talking about their stats more than the hobby.

Of two bellowing loudmouths with the most brag, relatively new cachers with  a ton of roadside/parking lot finds,  both were morbidly obese.  

 - We signed in earlier, so knowing I'm tempted ... rather than risk us leaving with our backs to the wall, the other 2/3rds asked if maybe  we should be heading for home...