Jump to content

Too many easy caches


mikericcobono

Recommended Posts

I'm pretty new to geocaching but i have a major problem with it. There are way too many 1/1's or the like. Even with flat terrain or in developed areas harder hiding places can be found. Sure a few easy ones are good but the real sport in geocaching is finding a really hard cache. And i bet mopar wil come flying at me with his bad boy swamp caches and such, which are good, but thats only a tiny minority! Can someone recommend to me some good tough caches in northern NJ or can we start hiding a little better?

Link to comment

Mike,

You're in an urbanized area, so most caches are going to be fairly easy, unless someone adds a puzzle, or a number of stages, or hides a micro really well. If you want a challenge, I hear most of Jonboy's caches are really good. The Artful Dodger has a number of caches that have challenging terrain and several aren't easy finds either. His Aay Carumba, The Giants Stairs and Splitrock Splendor all have good reputations as challenging hunts. And his new Cauldrons of Courage cache seems to fit right in.

 

Skully and Mulder's Ascension is fun, as are their Needful Things and Bearfort Fire Tower caches. They aren't particularly hard to find (well Bearfort can be without the clue) but they are very interesting hikes.

 

Not to blow my own horn, but my Bottom Of Lake Passaic III has gotten good reviews. It's not very hard to find, but it's a fun walk. People seemed to like my Osio Rock Ramble which can be hard to find without the clue, as is my Terrace Pond cache. Then there is my widely despised A Walk In The Park. It's a very easy find (it's in the open, hanging from a tree), but getting there is a whole 'nother story much of the year.

 

Some other quality northern NJ hunts that come to mind are The Magster's Wanaque Overlook, Skibum's Stone Living Room, Rubberduky's Windbeam's Windfall and GWHO's VanSlyke Castle. Oh, and there is this pain in the butt cache if you want hard to find!

 

[This message was edited by BrianSnat on February 13, 2003 at 03:38 AM.]

Link to comment

I have the same complaint, Mike. In my area, many caches are really easy, but the hiders insist on overstating the terrain and difficulty. I have found a few caches in North Jersey (Federal Hill) that provided more of a challenge. There are a couple of caches in the Ramapo State Forest that provide a nice challenge (Billy E.?) by BrianSnat (I think) is worth the trip.

 

My mantra in geocaching has always been "Quality, not Quantity!"

 

I would be happier with fewer caches in the area if they were more thoughtfully placed. It's all about "milestones" and not about a challenging, creative game. Soon enough, many areas of the northeast will be saturated with caches. We will need some sort of additional rating system to highlight the quality caches from the cookie cutter style caches. This has been discussed in the past in the forums, but many people are afraid of saying that a cache is lame. As a result, we have a plethora of easy finds.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by OUTSID4EVR:

... I would be happier with fewer caches in the area if they were more thoughtfully placed. ... Soon enough, many areas of the northeast will be saturated with caches. ... people are afraid of saying that a cache is lame. As a result, we have a plethora of easy finds.


 

Ha! I've found every cache on Brian's list. I wonder if anyone else has? icon_wink.gif (EDIT: I just checked. The answer is "no.") I can therefore declare authoritatively that they were all, in fact, good, fun caches.

 

I agree with much of your post, but I think the primary reason so many easy caches are placed is because that is all most cachers will seek.

 

Caches that provide any type of actual physical or mental challenge are routinely ignored by all except a handful of cachers. Cache hiders therefore have little motivation to create (in fact, they are discouraged from creating) challenging caches.

Link to comment

I'd think an easy solution is to ask hiders to more accurately rate the terrain. Then, people could just seek terrain 4's and 5's and be able to enjoy a good strenuous jaunt. (and could bypass any drive and dumps) Personally, I'd prefer a tough terrain with an easy find at the end (I don't want to end up at the end of a terrain 4.5 hunting for a 35mm film cannister!).

 

I think the easy caches are good for people who cache with children or may have other limits to their mobility, but I'd hope any cache brings the finder to a park or area he/she wouldn't have seen otherwise.

 

Just my 2 cents - I was actually thinking of archiving the first cache I put out as it's really an easy find, but figured I'd leave it for kids or first-timers (as noted in the description). Also, since I'd enjoyed finding other people's caches - I wanted to contribute something back to the caching group by placing a few! One thing I've been surprised at is that even little-known parks and state forests I thought were "perfect" for caches have already had caches placed in them so I'll have to get really creative - this game is really pervasive!

 

I'm just hoping I end up finding that the terrain 4/5 caches are rated legitimately.

 

- HartClimbs

 

p.s. I've only found about 14 of Brian's 38 caches (but I hope to find more soon!)

Link to comment

quote:
Ha! I've found every cache on Brian's list...SNIP...Caches that provide any type of actual physical or mental challenge are routinely ignored by all except a handful of cachers. Cache hiders therefore have little motivation to create (in fact, they are discouraged from creating) challenging caches.

 

I think BP found every cache on everyone's list icon_wink.gif.

 

I do agree with him. It seems that outside a handful of hardcores (and it's nice to see Magoo, etoast66, and Hartclimbs join that list over the past few months), most cachers can't be bothered with the tougher hunts. I know some of the caches I put the most effort into and by that I mean placing them in an interesting spot, with a somewhat challenging hike, get the least action. For instance My Terrace Pond cache, which is one of my favorites, has gone unfound for more than 6 months. Same goes for Artful Dodger's Ay Carumba! which has 5 finds in almost a year and Waterboy's NY NY Multi State Multi Cache which hasn't been found since last May (I'm partially guilty here because I have't searched for them, but they are near the top of my to-do list).

 

It is a bit discouraging to put effort into creating an interesting cache, only to have it sit there for months without anyone looking for it.

 

A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away. -Barry Goldwater

 

[This message was edited by BrianSnat on February 13, 2003 at 09:46 AM.]

 

[This message was edited by BrianSnat on February 13, 2003 at 09:46 AM.]

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Mike Riccobono:

I'm pretty new to geocaching but i have a major problem with it.

<>

but thats only a tiny minority! Can someone recommend to me some good tough caches in northern NJ or can we start hiding a little better?


 

Mike,

 

There are 8 caches within your short range in the Palisades park. Maybe you could try a few of them.

 

As soon as the weather gets a bit better try The Giant's Stairs by Artful Dodger.

 

It's to bad Gwho archived his LOTR's series. You might have enjoyed that.

 

I'm 30 mins away from Harriman and all the caches there. This is by car. When you can ditch your bike and drive, you'll find a whole new world of Great caches. Brian has a bunch of great spots in Ringwood park.

 

====================================

As always, the above statements are just MHO.

====================================

Link to comment

Thanks for some of the caches and dont worry - im not totaly stranded with a bike. But like i said im aware there are tough caches like this but they are too few and far apart. Someone cant just take a simple flat park and hide a cache really good in it? Take my only cache for exmaple. The land is just about 100% flat, only a small patch of woods, devoloped, totaly accesable area, yet many have trouble. Harrold for example - hes been there several times (before it was a multicache to boot) and he still cant find it! even with help! cant more people take a non-mountainous-rocky-100-miles-away-place and hide a good cache in it? the new cacher or the wimp already has enough caches to go to.

Link to comment

I have found a mere 23 so far but all have been quality. The magsters mystery 3 cache was my first, but looted. I really thought it was a challenge. NY/NJ MULTI and Covert002 are closest to my house. Both quality if you like long steep hikes. Wont someone find them after me please! Buck mountain was my first, first find and definately hard to find. The bat cave cache also gave me a challenge. Terace pond i did in the rain and the mosquitos ate me alive. I loved every minute. Havent found a lame one yet. Keep up the good hides. I hope noone thinks my hides are too easy, I think it is all about where you are not how hard it is too find. I do like to throw in a little challenge.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Mike Riccobono:

Someone cant just take a simple flat park and hide a cache really good in it? Take my only cache for exmaple.


Mike, sounds like your looking for caches with a very easy terrain, but are hard to find. Cant help you much there, as I haven't done much North Jersey yet, and I tend to prefer the opposite. I like them very hard to get too, but then once I get there, I want to find the cache. I guess I could glue tree bark to a 35mm film can and leave it in an area with lots of fallen branches, but since I don't care much for them myself, I haven't hid any like that. When you get a car, lemme know, I'll make a nice difficult one in Central NJ just for you. icon_smile.gif

In the meantime, I think Alluvial Material is the one you want to set your sights on.

 

Tae-Kwon-Leap is not a path to a door, but a road leading forever towards the horizon.

Link to comment

These threads are great for learning about caches outside of your local area. Thanks to all who've posted I have a few more to add to my list.

 

Mike - I'm planning on combining many of the caches in your area and Manhatten with cycling trips - though, not until we get the mercury above 40. I could really use your input. I've got a co-worker who lives up there whos already logged 1000 miles since Jan. 1 (psycho) who wants to try some caching as well.

 

Outsid4evr - Thanks for the challenge in Tuckahoe. That's not a cache I'm eager to repeat.

Link to comment

Mopar, i have to agree with you on the harder terrain and easier find thing. the real outdoorsman would be the person to reach the spot, not nescessarily the one who would comb the leaves for a microcache. but still when we are in an urbanized area the only way to get a hard cache is the shear difficulty in its hiding. lets take that ammo can and put it 50 ft up in a tree or down inside that old sewer pipe - just not in big old hollow tree trunks! theyres not much fun in geocaching when every single cache is indentical!!!

 

and sorry etoast im not at all an authority on bike trips if thats what you mean by "input" though i wish i could help. caching is the only reason im making such trips now, and the longest being under 20 miles. I enjoy going riding down a ski slope more than pedaling endlessly down a road.

 

[This message was edited by Mike Riccobono on February 13, 2003 at 02:56 PM.]

Link to comment

Yeah, what happened to Pheligan? He placed some great caches and disappeared. I'd like to replace his GC3, because that was a particularly unique geocache. It was the only of its type in NJ as far as I know. Maybe I'll contact him to see if he'd be cool with my replacing that cache.

 

A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away. -Barry Goldwater

Link to comment

I suggest you catch a bus to the Pines and hunt a couple tneigel caches. Personally, Team Ekitt10 would love to see another couple caches along the lines of Princeton Basin Cache, Neshanic River Cache

and Magoo's Missing Money.

The good King Pellinore has hide some very interesting caches, both physically and mentally challenging.

There are also suck caches as You Are The GPS! and Marty's Night Vision, we've considered hiding versions of these in the Princeton area, but it doesn't seem that these types of cache interest many local caches.

We did hide Whose Woods These Are for all the computer programmers out there, and theBicentennial Multi, inspired by all the folks mentioned above.

 

Of course, with all that said, the wife and I have had some of the best arguments, (and greatest sense of victory) hunting those 1 or 2 star caches.

 

As for the Giant's Stairs, The missus would suggest that *everyone* complete that hike before you can get you Geocaching pin.

Link to comment

This one is only 4mi SW of my house and has eluded me both times ive climed up to terrace pond with my gps. First time was when I found the tp cache. Second time was when I highpointed passaic county, nagged the benchmark, and didnt have the waypoint for gc5 with me. DOH! Ive been working on an approach for when the weather breaks, and while my Meridian is in for repair of its "blue spots". I wanted to replace the container at gc5, I carried it all the way up there that day. Soon.

Link to comment

Mike,

The fact that you don’t drive makes it tough to get to the higher quality caches. I read a couple of your cache finds and it seems you will do pretty much whatever it takes to find the prize. I ditto all the recommendations made by the previous posters. Brian has put a ton of caches out there (we have found all but one of his available physical caches … and as BP said they are all great). A few of the North Jersey caches we really enjoyed, that haven’t been discussed so far are: “We Saw a Bear Cache”, “Mountainside”, “Turkey on Rye”, “Rutherford View”, & “Terrace Pond”. I usually cache with my three girls & whoever wants to come along. If you are not driving by this summer, I’d be happy to take you along with our group ( we cache almost every weekend once school is out).

Link to comment

Now those seem like real caches! They're the varieties im talking about. Ill be out as soon as possible to find some of them. People like the Artful Dodger just have to keep it up and ill stop complaining in no time. And hopefully the other hide-hundreds-of-caches-in-trees people will get some inspiration to hide little better and more creatively. Thanks to everyone for helping me out!

Link to comment

Granted my 100 or so finds are not a record breaker, but I've seen enough regular ones, and don't go for every cache anymore. (I told you I stink at finding caches anyway.) I usually look for the more interesting ones. Some of the virtuals are really good. Mostly, I want to find new and interesting areas. One reason why I like virtural caches. A couple of my virtual placements have been denied, but I try to make them scenic (as one can in a tight area such as NJ). I started out placing the easy caches, and as I started to migrate away from the easy finds, I naturally try to hid some creative caches. I think it is all good because there is room for all types of caches, and cachers. When I see one in a city park, I know its an easy one so I may pass it. But when its a new area, or something different or scenic it is more rewarding. Basically the contents are pretty basic so I really don't go for that. After a few dozen finds, the stuff is all pretty much the same, although some caches are pretty unique. Even when I find a george, its to place in a new cache. I just placed a relatively easy one, Field of Dreams, and I recommend the nearby playground for young kids. Its interesting for adults too. Plus it is was placed to bring back a recent follower. A lot of my caches are getting to be a year old and will be cycled out over time to make room. Still trying to make that "entirely new and different cache" and bring a new accent to the cache hunt. I plan on doing more River Caches in season. I was really planning on a Valentines cache, but that work thing gets in the way. There'll be a Spring Cache soon and others, which will cycle out after the season is over. I got a great idea for a blimp cache. See where I'm going?

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by tneigel:

I just placed a relatively easy one, Field of Dreams, and I recommend the nearby playground for young kids. Its interesting for adults too. Plus it is was placed to bring back a recent follower. A lot of my caches are getting to be a year old and will be cycled out over time to make room. Still trying to make that "entirely new and different cache" and bring a new accent to the cache hunt. I plan on doing more River Caches in season. I was really planning on a Valentines cache, but that work thing gets in the way. There'll be a Spring Cache soon and others, which will cycle out after the season is over. I got a great idea for a blimp cache. See where I'm going?


You just had to wait until AFTER I logged Red Bank to place Field of dreams, didn't you? Wanted to hit it this weekend, but I dont know how the weather will be. Unless we get a foot, I'll still be a the Florence event cache this weekend though.

Can't wait to hit your river caches when it warms up! Just gotta convince Mickey225 to get into the canoe and I'm there.

 

Tae-Kwon-Leap is not a path to a door, but a road leading forever towards the horizon.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by BrianSnat:

I'd like to replace his GC3, because that was a particularly unique geocache. It was the only of its type in NJ as far as I know.


 

After reading the notes above - I was curious where the cache was. Checking the coordinates, I'm now *really* disappointed. I'd been climbing in that area and thought of hiding a cache there come spring. Now I see that park already contains several caches already.....drat! Having hiked there many times, I'd imagine this was a cool spot to have hid a cache.

 

Guess I'll have to place one on rappel to put a Terrain5 in the area.....

Link to comment

There is a very simple solution to the 1/1 caches...find them at NIGHT. Since its a 1/1, chances are there is no view and probably no point in your even visiting the cache site other than to find a cache that someone wanted to hide just to say they hid one. It won't make the terrain harder, but the hunt will be more interesting and if that's not good enough, find them at night during full moon with no flash light and if thats not good enough find them during new moon with no flashlight. Just a thought.

 

True-North icon_cool.gif

Link to comment

I will have to agree though, some caches are way over rated...there is one in my area that is rated three stars for terrain which was the whole reason why i chose to go get it, i figured must be a nice hike for the afternoon...however, when i got to the cache, i was less than a quarter mile from my jeep, could see my jeep from the cache site and there were no hills briars or other challenges of the sort. Needless to say, I wasn't happy about that cause if I knew it was really a 1/1 cache I never would have put forth the effort. And I just love the "lets put it in our yard" caches. These are great if you have a big dog that ate a pile of mexican food the night before. icon_razz.gif

 

True-North icon_cool.gif

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by True-North:

...there is one in my area that is rated three stars for terrain which was the whole reason why i chose to go get it, i figured must be a nice hike for the afternoon...however, when i got to the cache, i was less than a quarter mile from my jeep, could see my jeep from the cache site ...


 

I've done quite a few caches that resemble your quote ... except I was looking down at my car from a few hundred feet up at the end of the short hike. I agree that many caches are woefully overrated. You might consider checking a Topo map before heading out in order to avoid, or lessen, potential disappointment. Another solution is to keep a few extra caches on your clipboard (PDA, or whatever) as "backup" to such situations.

Link to comment

people if your going to place a cache place it under a firm rock which is plainly visible. this garunees an even chance for all the cachers.

my last several finds were very underated

mostly central new jersey

 

"life is a friend to be cherished. not a whimsy

"friendship is real. and a questful stand in this world will make icon_biggrin.gifthe men of our destiny."

Link to comment

I always use the cache rating system. This gives me a baseline idea of the difficulty. I then compare my cache location to similar caches in my area. I adjust the rating as necessary. In the end, I feel my ratings are reasonably "accurate".

 

The fact remains that they are all subjective ratings. The only thing we can do to get more accurate ratings is post our opinion in the log in a friendly way. Perhaps the cache owner will get the hint and re-consider his rating of the cache.

Link to comment

I would be more than happy to change any of the ratings on my caches as long as that is what the majority wants. But we must not forget that everyone's opinions are different when it comes to the ratings. When I hide my micros, I feel that they are rather easy. But I find out later that people think they are not. I have been told several times to raise my difficulty and terrain levels. Not once have I been asked to lower them. I guess it's all in what you like. If you really want a good challenge, then try some of the micros in Maryland. There are eight of them on the Patuxant Branch Trail and none of them are easy. Also Team Focallength has some real tough ones as well. If you like multi-caches, then try out the one by Mark II called GOOD LUCK. That one is a killer and there has been less than ten people to ever find it since it was hidden last summer. The challenges are out there Joe. You just need to look for them. Granted they might not be as involved as your latest one, but they're still challenging. By the way, I've not received a complaint about any of mine. All of them are completely covered all the time.

Link to comment

quote:
many are either under rated or overated

 

which is why this is a perilous activity. I do have one question. Confused

the overrated caches are filled with mostly a bunch of crap from the seasoned users.


 

1 find and you think you know what you're talking about?

 

A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away. -Barry Goldwater

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Klause Von Kuhn:

....SNIP If you really want a good challenge, then try some of the micros in Maryland. There are eight of them on the Patuxant Branch Trail and none of them are easy. Also Team Focallength has some real tough ones as well. If you like multi-caches, then try out the one by Mark II called GOOD LUCK. That one is a killer and there has been less than ten people to ever find it since it was hidden last summer. The challenges are out there Joe. You just need to look for them. Granted they might not be as involved as your latest one, but they're still challenging. By the way, I've not received a complaint about any of mine. All of them are completely covered all the time.


 

Your caches are concealed well. I was making the point that when density of caches increases, the quality (durability of container, uniqueness of hiding spot) tends to decrease. There are fewer cool places to hide caches when the caches are close together. Then it seems that it's "all about the numbers".

 

I like micros. I plan on checking out the ones in Columbia. Variety is indeed important. What I like may not be what someone else likes. But with that said, I have found way too many caches that show no imagination or planning on the part of the hider. They just saw a patch of woods and decided to throw gladware in a tree. That was my gripe.

Link to comment

I can agree with you on that Joe. In a sense, I am guilty to a certain degree. The min caches that I hid in White Marsh Park in Bowie, were a bit too much. But we wanted to hide as many aswe could for our meeting. After doing so, I was informed that the minis were no longer welcomed by Park Officials simply because there were too many in the park. Of course we learn by our mistakes. I have achived them and plan on using them with my first multi-cache that will be out in the spring a Patapsco State Park. I have archived others as well due to plundering, MIA and lack of interest. I have decided to pull out several of mine at Patapsco in the spring, so that I can hide some new ones. Also by me archiving, it frees up space for others who may wish to hide some as well. Trust me Joe, I'm personally not in it for the numbers. I had a personal goal of hiding fifty and I achieved it. I do not cache for the count. I know several people that do, but that has never been me and never will. That simply takes the fun out of the game.

Link to comment

There are several good hard caches in Jersey, but some have been missed. The most notable one is Dreamcatcher by RAT Team 6, located in the Delaware Water Gap area. This cache has 25 accounts watching it. Many more than any of the others caches we checked. BassoonPilot found this cache recently, but most of your more forum oriented Jersey cachers have neglected this one.

 

When we started hiding caches we decided to make all those we hid difficult, terrain wise. We have hid four in Jersey, two in Harriman Park, NY, and four in our home state of Pennsylvania. The easiest and that hardest both happen to be in Jersey, and have been mentioned. The easiest is Rutherford View, the shortest way in is a little over two rocky miles on the Appalachian Trail. The most difficult is the New York/New Jersey Multi-State Multi-Cache. The two not mentioned are Helispot and No Hints Bridges the Gap. Helispot may be unique as the only traditional cache in New Jersey over a year old that BassoonPilot has not found.

 

On additional cache that we believe is more difficult than several listed by other cachers is The Love Shack and Beyond by renegadejane. Please ignore the terrain rating of 2.5, it should be higher. This was also one of our most enjoyable caches.

 

Talking about enjoyable caches, how could I finish without reiterating the Dodger's comments on Pyramid Mtn. Roaming Cache by BrianSnat. (We found it twice.) It is difficult, and particularly difficult while the last finders were Waterboy With Wife.

Link to comment

With all due respect to you guys with the big numbers, my goal is to set less, but harder and therfore more rewarding cache experiences.

 

If you think things are 'easy,' try my Ramapo Riparian. Still no serious takers on this one - only skeptical commentary from certain friends of this board, maybe because I'm still a newbie (member since Oct 2001 - only 70 finds). This multi will either blow your socks off, or you're braindead.

 

For a great stiff hike, try Maltby Hollow - in the winter, AND before the rangers get to it.

 

For your essential Ramapo fixes, do Pingyp and Ramapo Torne.

 

I hasten to add, about midway to my goal of 100 (the point at which I plan to quit) I realized I was doing too many locationless caches to feel good about things... They didn't have the reward factor for me. From here to 100 it will be hiking caches.

 

[This message was edited by deadhorsepoint on February 17, 2003 at 06:16 PM.]

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by deadhorsepoint:

... Still no serious takers on this one - only skeptical commentary from certain friends of this board, maybe because I'm still a newbie ...


 

I can only speak for myself, but I did not return to complete the Ramapo Riparian because you never satisfactorily answered my questions regarding trespassing ... particularly in regard to the TWO ELEMENTS OF THE FIRST STAGE. You answered only that the second stage probably requires trespassing unless conditions allow it to be approached from a specific location. I had already noted that fact prior to your reply, so it was really a non-answer.

 

If you can assure us all stages of this cache can be done without trespassing, I would very much like to complete it. But if any of the stages require trespassing, then I won't be completing it, and would suggest the cache needs modification.

Link to comment

I know I’m not the only one…and I think Brian’s statements about the more difficult caches not seeing as much activity are indicative. But, I for one, find long walks in the woods to be boring and don’t find them physically challenging either. The fun, for me, is the “kill” – not the “thrill of the chase.” I purposely avoid a cache that doesn’t have sufficient clues or that require long walks. I also hide caches with this same philosophy.

 

I really enjoyed Kitsch Cache because you had to climb the overpass support to grab the box. It wasn’t hard but it was fun! I would welcome more caches that involved bigger climbs similar to Kitsch or performing some sort of “feat” to get to. I’m not opposed to physical activity, I just would like it to be more interesting than just walking in the woods or up big hills.

 

I am particularly opposed however to caches that don’t provide sufficient clues. It’s just not fun (for me) to rummage around under leaves and turn over rocks etc. looking for a cache box. It can also prove in some areas to be downright dangerous as I have uncovered hypodermic needles on more than one occasion.

 

I have also noticed several times, at caches that don’t provide detailed/sufficient clues, that the site areas have been “gone over” extensively by previous geocachers ferreting for the container. This can’t be good for us. It may invite criticism by some of the eco-militant groups out there, that are looking for an excuse to ban us already.

 

Just my opinion, but I prefer the “easy” cache like most of us “wussies.”

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Bluehook:

The fun, for me, is the “kill” – not the “thrill of the chase.” I purposely avoid a cache that doesn’t have sufficient clues or that require long walks.


 

I recommend Trade shows. Lots of free stuff; minimal walking required. icon_wink.gif

 

quote:
Originally posted by Bluehook:

I am particularly opposed however to caches that don’t provide sufficient clues.


 

Opposed to? That's a strong statement, and is quite different than stating that you have no interest in pursuing certain types of caches. Are you suggesting that cache pages that don't provide give-away clues should be prohibited? I'm jumping ahead of your next quote a bit, but as that example shows, clues neither guarantee a find nor guarantee that an area won't be turned over by cache seekers.

 

quote:
Originally posted by Bluehook:

I have also noticed several times, at caches that don’t provide detailed/sufficient clues, that the site areas have been “gone over” extensively by previous geocachers ferreting for the container.


 

I notice this much more often as a result of faulty coordinates rather than lack of clues. For example, I recently accompanied my daughter to a local cache she wanted to find that I had visited previously. The coordinates for that cache were off by approximately 75 feet. You had also visited the site, and noted in your log that there was plenty of evidence of previous searchers. I agree with you; the area had obviously been thoroughly "gone over" in comparison to my first visit. Yet that cache page disclosed plenty of information even without the encrypted clue and previous logs, which included dead give-aways.

 

quote:
Originally posted by Bluehook:

It’s just not fun (for me) to rummage around under leaves and turn over rocks etc.


 

Well, I agree with you that people should limit themselves to doing the types of caches they enjoy. Incidentally, shoving leaves around with one's bare hands is always a bad idea; use a stick or something. There's lots of broken glass about, and then there is the danger of getting tetanus from caches hidden in rusty old coffee cans .. icon_wink.gif

 

[This message was edited by BassoonPilot on February 22, 2003 at 07:54 AM.]

Link to comment

Mark, Mark, Mark…without biting on your bait> my only real point here is that: geocaching means different things to different people.

 

You are obviously a better geocacher than I. My personal/job constraints don’t allow me to devote the amount of time to geocaching that you apparently do. Even if I did have the time, I’m not sure I would have the will or the desire. I certainly respect your ‘caching accomplishments and I thoroughly enjoy reading your proficiently written find logs. I also realize that you never miss an opportunity to engage me in a friendly debate, LOL!

 

The focal point of our difference in opinion is the fact that I don’t find walking in the woods to be all that exhilarating. I know that you do and you should be commended. I suppose you find it incredible that “woods walking” falls well below my personal benchmark for meaningful exercise.

 

I presume that to you, geocaching has added a new dimension to “hiking”, an activity that you enjoyed before getting a GPS. I also perceive that you credit “hiking” to some degree, to staying fit. I’ve never been a “hiker.” To me, it’s about the fascination only with the GPS unit itself and where it can lead me. The nexus between exercise/staying fit is never made to my GPS. That’s just me. (Although I wonder what the reaction would be in I wore my GPS around my neck in the weight room or to my next ice hockey practice.)

 

But, like I said before, I’m sure I’m not the only one. Certainly not every geocacher started out a “hiker.” I never said or implied that “cache pages that don't provide give-away clues should be prohibited”…I seriously doubt that you, or anyone, interpreted that from my statements. However, I do think that encrypted clues should be revealing—thereby leaving the choice to decrypt on the individual geocacher as to his/her liking.

 

Again, just my opinion.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Bluehook:

Mark, Mark, Mark…without biting on your bait> my only real point here is that: geocaching means different things to different people.


 

There's no bait attached: I agree with you 100% that people should pursue the types of caches they enjoy. I would add that for most cachers, myself included, there is no lack of caches available to suit their preferences.

 

quote:
Originally posted by Bluehook:

I never said or implied that “cache pages that don't provide give-away clues should be prohibited”…I seriously doubt that you, or anyone, interpreted that from my statements.


 

I questioned your use of the word "opposed," which seems too strong for the thoughts you expressed in both of your posts.

 

quote:
Originally posted by Bluehook:

 

However, I do think that encrypted clues should be revealing—thereby leaving the choice to decrypt on the individual geocacher as to his/her liking.


 

I agree with you to a point: I think if encrypted clues are provided, they should prove helpful. But personally, I'm a little "old school" about geocaching: just give me the coordinates and I'll do the rest.

Link to comment

I agree with Bluehook about the need for good clues

even for very difficult caches. Several of my caches could be a 2 or 2.5 difficulty without the clue, but with the clue, they become a 1 or 1.5. I do this chiefly because I don't want people ripping things up during their search. I also hate for them to go home with a not found.

 

And for those who aren't interested in the clues, they don't have to decrypt them.

 

A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away. -Barry Goldwater

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by BrianSnat:

Several of my caches could be a 2 or 2.5 difficulty without the clue, but with the clue, they become a 1 or 1.5. I do this chiefly because I don't want people ripping things up during their search. I also hate for them to go home with a not found.


 

I don't agree that clues deter irresponsible cachers who don't think twice about "ripping things up;" I've seen far too many cache sites that suggest otherwise.

 

I'm really not concerned with cachers' inability to find my caches ... despite dead give-away clues, there will always be someone who, for whatever reason, fails to find the cache. That's part of the game. (I've done it enough times myself to know that some days it's easy to miss something right under one's nose.)

 

But perhaps people should rate their caches based on how difficult their cache would be if all clues were utilized; I'm definitely not a fan of the "3.5 stars without clues/1 star with" type of cache. Such caches are really only 1 star caches, because as cache logs and countless threads on these forums suggest, few cachers are willing to devote more than 15 or 20 minutes to looking for a cache once they reach the site. I believe that if cachers aren't prepared to expend the time and effort the cache rating suggests, they have no business attempting that cache.

Link to comment

screw the clue! like bp said if your not up to the challenge of going to that level cache dont go. and then whats the point of a clue if the actual rating is based on that - just make it the description! i think if a clue is given then it should be only for a cache that is very hard to get to. i mean whats the point of a giveaway clue on a cache thats less than 5 min from your car? ludicrous

Link to comment

I did 4 caches in the area around my hotel in Mississauga. 1/1's at night made it more fun, and with some snow too. This is challenging enough! But when the snow melts, I'll do 1/1's to trade bugs only when necessary. I'll be placing some harder ones this summer, beware.

 

The one I place in San Diego was very clever, I might add, Its A MAD MAD MAD MAD World Cache.

 

I got some ideas,

 

Stay tuned.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...