Where have all the ammo cans gone?

[+MtnMutt-ProDuckShins]

Spellcheck has struck again, don't you just love a computer that thinks it knows what you really mean?

 

Good catch niraD.

 

I've got 20 Decons, 10 black & 10 Green, just caught Safari trying to change again.

[TahoeJoe]

I have found that ammo boxes are just as unoriginal of a hide as a pill bottle. I like it when either is in a good location, or is hidden well in its area. (Not to brag), but I have a multi-cache where the first stage is at a sweets shop, and the second is hidden not too far away in a flower garden. The container is a large ammo box with flowers and ladybugs on one side, and cake and tea on the other.

 

It's about the cache page, the hide, and the location that make a cache for me. That's why I try very hard to create the kind of caches I would like to find.

Blasphemy! Ammo cans are the ultimate geo container. To state otherwise would be like celebrating the 4th of July without apple pie and fireworks! My ammo cans have dirt and mud on one side and dents on the other. My first geocache was placed 13 years ago rests nestled in some rocks on the summit of a 11,000 foot mountain top exposed to the harshest of conditions. The ammo can's integrity is as good as the day I placed it. Edited February 16, 2016 by TahoeJoe

[+humboldt flier]

I've seen a high rate of ammo can attrition from fires and theft.

 

AMEN to the theft aspect ... finished MX on a cache that was reported as missing ... yepper, gone. Given the remoteness I feel that it was not happenstance.

 

I feel that some folks obtain a membership and troll the site for free ammo cans.

[+J Grouchy]

I have found that ammo boxes are just as unoriginal of a hide as a pill bottle. I like it when either is in a good location, or is hidden well in its area. (Not to brag), but I have a multi-cache where the first stage is at a sweets shop, and the second is hidden not too far away in a flower garden. The container is a large ammo box with flowers and ladybugs on one side, and cake and tea on the other.

 

It's about the cache page, the hide, and the location that make a cache for me. That's why I try very hard to create the kind of caches I would like to find.

Blasphemy! Ammo cans are the ultimate geo container. To state otherwise would be like celebrating the 4th of July without apple pie and fireworks! My ammo cans have dirt and mud on one side and dents on the other. My first geocache was placed 13 years ago rests nestled in some rocks on the summit of a 11,000 foot mountain top exposed to the harshest of conditions. The ammo can's integrity is as good as the day I placed it.

 

I don't think anyone is questioning its quality as a cache container...only the originality as a hide. It's a big metal box...quite difficult to hide in an original manner without quite a bit of creative thinking.

[TahoeJoe]

Today I found a geocache that had all the elements of a great cache. It involved a nice hike to a interesting location and the cache was a no nonsense camo ammo can placed in plain sight with breathtaking views. Too bad it was a relic cache from a geocacher who disappeared from the game in 2004. It is the last surviving cache from this particular CO. I would like to have found more from him.

Edited February 17, 2016 by TahoeJoe

[+niraD]

I don't think anyone is questioning [an ammo can's] quality as a cache container...only the originality as a hide. It's a big metal box...quite difficult to hide in an original manner without quite a bit of creative thinking.

Well, that and the fact that it is not transparent. There are some parks and open spaces that require transparent containers.

 

And some cache owners neglect to paint over the military markings on surplus ammo cans.

 

And I've seen a lot of new geocachers struggle to close ammo cans properly. Heaven help them if the lid comes loose.

[cezanne]

Today I found a geocache that had all the elements of a great cache. It involved a nice hike to a interesting location and the cache was a no nonsense camo ammo can placed in plain sight with breathtaking views.

 

I can understand your point very well. For me it's also about the hike/walk and the location(s) and I prefer caches with an easy or even obvious hideout and have no interest into the hide and seek aspect, creative cammouflages etc. I prefer geocache hideouts that are sufficiently hidden from muggles but are obvious to geocachers once there. However meanwhile the majority of cachers I know are into geocaching for other reasons than I'm and that's I guess one of the key reasons for the changes with respect to what kind of caches get hidden. Unfortunately a lot of old timers feel that geocaching is not any longer their activity due to the changes and leave or have already left in the past.

[+Isonzo Karst]

And I've seen a lot of new geocachers struggle to close ammo cans properly. Heaven help them if the lid comes loose.

 

In 2013 I made an ammo can cache of mine PMO after making 3 drives and hikes to close it . I kept getting logs about "wet cache". The first time, I thought it possible that it had rusted out. I replaced the existing can with a new one, since I'd brought it - but the original was fine.

 

Now, the State Park has a GeoTour cache on the trail near. Finds on mine are up sharply. After several logs mentioning, "hard to close","very rusty", I visited again. The ammo can was absolutely fine. Closed like every other ammo can you've ever handled. Had a few modest rust spots on the lid and one side.

 

Phones have brought a new people into geocaching (when geocaching was limited to those with handheld gps units, it was more of an outdoorsy/geek crowd, now, it's everybody). I'm sure this is a Good Thing, overall - but it can be hard on a cache owner.

Edited February 17, 2016 by Isonzo Karst

[cezanne]

Phones have brought a new people into geocaching (when geocaching was limited to those with handheld gps units, it was more of an outdoorsy/geek crowd, now, it's everybody). I'm sure this is a Good Thing, overall - but it can be hard on a cache owner.

 

In my personal opinion it's a bad thing regardless of whether or not one owns caches. Due to the nature of my caches, I feel affected much more as a searcher than as a cache owner.

[TahoeJoe]

Phones have brought a new people into geocaching (when geocaching was limited to those with handheld gps units, it was more of an outdoorsy/geek crowd, now, it's everybody). I'm sure this is a Good Thing, overall - but it can be hard on a cache owner.

 

In my personal opinion it's a bad thing regardless of whether or not one owns caches. Due to the nature of my caches, I feel affected much more as a searcher than as a cache owner.

My caches reflect the mindset of the early years of geocaching. They involve a hike to a interesting location with either a great view or historic value. Most are ammo cans with a full size logbook and trinkets to trade. All of my physical caches are in pretty remote locations and for the most part have been unaffected by the new generation of cachers who are mostly (not all) interested in how many caches they can find or hide. They tend to avoid my caches like the plague. Phones aren't necessarily a bad thing, I switched over a few years back to simplify things. Remember the old days where you printed out cache listings on paper and would have to hand enter the coordinates when you went to search for a new cache? What has created the current problems is allowing cache owners to place as many caches as they desire thus creating power trails and poor quality caches. My 11 traditional caches keep me busy enough. I could probably reasonably maintain around 20, but after that I would be adding to the problem. I like cachers to know if they search for one of my caches, they will find a well maintained cache in a great location. It's great to hear geocaches talking about the great caches they find instead of bragging about how many they found. I would love to see a cap on the number of caches you are allowed to own. There is already a restriction of how far away you can own a cache so this makes perfect sense to me. By restricting hide amounts, you would free up good hiding locations wasted by power trail caches and throw downs. I'm sure this would also make things easier for reviewers. Edited February 17, 2016 by TahoeJoe

[+L0ne.R]

Phones have brought a new people into geocaching (when geocaching was limited to those with handheld gps units, it was more of an outdoorsy/geek crowd, now, it's everybody). I'm sure this is a Good Thing, overall - but it can be hard on a cache owner.

 

In my personal opinion it's a bad thing regardless of whether or not one owns caches. Due to the nature of my caches, I feel affected much more as a searcher than as a cache owner.

My caches reflect the mindset of the early years of geocaching. They involve a hike to a interesting location with either a great view or historic value. Most are ammo cans with a full size logbook and trinkets to trade. All of my physical caches are in pretty remote locations and for the most part have been unaffected by the new generation of cachers who are mostly (not all) interested in how many caches they can find or hide. They tend to avoid my caches like the plague. Phones aren't necessarily a bad thing, I switched over a few years back to simplify things. Remember the old days where you printed out cache listings on paper and would have to hand enter the coordinates when you went to search for a new cache? What has created the current problems is allowing cache owners to place as many caches as they desire thus creating power trails and poor quality caches. My 11 traditional caches keep me busy enough. I could probably reasonably maintain around 20, but after that I would be adding to the problem. I like cachers to know if they search for one of my caches, they will find a well maintained cache in a great location. It's great to hear geocaches talking about the great caches they find instead of bragging about how many they found. I would love to see a cap on the number of caches you are allowed to own. There is already a restriction of how far away you can own a cache so this makes perfect sense to me. By restricting hide amounts, you would free up good hiding locations wasted by power trail caches and throw downs. I'm sure this would also make things easier for reviewers.

 

You make a very good point. It's easy to get sidetracked by the smartphone argument. But as a tool, smartphones have been a great thing for geocaching on the fly.

 

You are right that the real problem started when geocaching said OK to power trails.

 

The trend now, is to carry a sackful of prescription pill bottles and bison tubes, probably the 2 most popular power hider containers, and toss them wherever there might be an empty spot on the map. (Makes me wonder how many don't pass the saturation rule and are left to become litter).

 

South of me there's a power hider with over 1000 hides. He started off well with authentic Lock n Locks then moved to cheaper containers, mostly bison tubes.

Last year he sent out a APB message saying he has been targeted by a cache thief. So now whenever a bison tube goes missing another finder is quick to throw down a new one. He as a small army of people happy to throw down caches for him.

 

I think some people can't help themselves. It's a compulsion. Having restrictions/limits on hiding might actually help reign themselves in.

[cezanne]

What has created the current problems is allowing cache owners to place as many caches as they desire thus creating power trails and poor quality caches. My 11 traditional caches keep me busy enough. I could probably reasonably maintain around 20, but after that I would be adding to the problem. I like cachers to know if they search for one of my caches, they will find a well maintained cache in a great location. It's great to hear geocaches talking about the great caches they find instead of bragging about how many they found. I would love to see a cap on the number of caches you are allowed to own. There is already a restriction of how far away you can own a cache so this makes perfect sense to me. By restricting hide amounts, you would free up good hiding locations wasted by power trail caches and throw downs. I'm sure this would also make things easier for reviewers.

 

Of course power trails are part of the problem. However in my area there certainly exist many caches in which the cache owners invested considerable effort and that receive enthusiastic logs from the majority of the visitors. Yet these caches have nothing in common with the kind of cache you described (nice hike, nice location, regular sized container with place for swag).

 

Sometimes the construction is relatively large, but typically the log sheets are tiny (e.g. a nano sheet), the locations are lame and the caches are drive-ins or almost drive-ins. Everything is about the hideout construction and sometimes also about how to retrieve the log sheet. For example it could be that you have to figure out that you have to turn somewhere in a certain way to make a tiny nano capsule pop up somewhere.

 

Caches of this type are what the majority of the new cachers in my area prefers and what pleases them the most. An ammo can in an obvious hideout at the end of a 10km scenic hike is certainly not why they are into geocaching. That's not a smartphone vs. deicated GPS device issue however. In my area most newer cachers that are not pure number cachers like to encounter all sorts of different containers and they do not care about the journey at all - they are interested into the game part and not in hiking and being outdoors.

[ferretlady]

 

You are dismissing a large portion of the geocaching community who enjoy the swag and the trackable side of geocaching.

A quality larger container like an ammo can or an authentic Lock & Lock or Pelican box enhances the experience at a nice location for everyone - those who only want a log to sign, and those who want a fuller geocaching experience.

 

 

Exactly!! I love the swag aspect of geocaching! Not so much to grab things for myself, but I really enjoy leaving little goodies for others. When I do go geocaching, I always bring a bag full of assorted items, both (better) store-bought items & handmade items, in various sizes & for different ages, so that hopefully I'll be able to leave some things behind for the next people to find! And the couple of trackables I've found, I really enjoyed trying to decide where to place them, hoping I was choosing a good location to help them along their journey! And actual *log books*, not just a scrap of paper...I want to write just a little bit about my experience, and even as a visitor , I enjoy taking a look at the logs & reading those who took the time to actually *write* something more than "TFTC" and/or their initials.

 

 

I have hidden most of my caches with that in mind, to bring cachers to special places. To find most of my caches a round trip hike of a mile or more, sometimes 4-5 miles is required. The logs are pretty rare these days, but the few people who enjoy those sorts of caches still seem to really enjoy them.

Today I found a geocache that had all the elements of a great cache. It involved a nice hike to a interesting location and the cache was a no nonsense camo ammo can placed in plain sight with breathtaking views.

 

I wish there were more folks like you guys in my area! Using a 30-mile radius from my home, it seems that there is an average of one cache per month placed, that isn't a micro or "small" (and most of the 'smalls' around here are very small, too small for anything but a teensy log sheet) Probably half of the "regulars" that are placed are basically park-and-grabs. Pulling off the side of the road, rummaging in the hedges 8 feet away for a moment, then hopping back in my car to dash off to the next cache - that doesn't exactly strike me as much fun, even IF it is a larger cache.

 

And what gets me is that there is a LOT of gorgeous countryside in my area, fantastic state parks, lots of hiking areas, woods, wide open spaces, etc where wonderful caches could be placed! The state park system is very open to caching & even has their own geotrail (and I totally enjoyed the few caches of theirs that I've found so far, that were within daytrip reach of my home).

 

When I recently placed my first (and only) cache at one of the nearby state parks, they were thrilled that they were getting a nice new full-size cache out in their park! A couple of the rangers & one of the campground hosts went hunting for it not long after, after they got word it had been placed! LOL! The county parks here are very agreeable about caching too. Yet - over & over, it's drive-by park-and-grabs in boring locations, just some obscure bland side of the road that has some convenient bushes or trees within 15 feet, or right in the middle of town in someone's yard, etc. or at best, in a tiny urban park in the middle of town - again, where you can just park your car, run in & grab the cache, then be on your way with no time or effort expended. (Yawn) One cache I looked at recently is a good example -- it said it was located right off the intersection of (highway-A) and (highway-. It went on to say that a LOT of traffic went through that particular intersection every day, and so therefore, a spot off the side of the road by the intersection was "a perfect place for a cache!" HUH?

 

I really wonder if people in my area are just out-right lazy... my caching buddy put an incredible cache out at the state park - but his cache is on one of the hiking trails & requires roughly a 3-mile round-trip hike (that's round-trip, not one way!) Flat easy terrain, good solid trail to walk on, *beautiful* scenery along the way...no issues other than the distance. The camp host & a ranger went after his during the first week it was out - and otherwise, no one has bothered. He has a fantastic large container, great location & it's a absolutely beautiful hike to the spot - not to mention that he spent probably at least $50 on filling it up with really nice swag... but no one wants to walk that "far" apparently...

 

I'm really a newcomer to this, I originally registered on the site a few years ago, but then wasn't able to start caching until last spring. And I'm already starting to see my interest fade since it seems the type of caching I find truly enjoyable is extremely limited nowadays- and once I find the fairly small number of caches like that in my area, I'm pretty much done with the game, other than any time I might be able to make an overnight trip to a further location & going out once every 2 months or so, when/if a new cache is place. Gawd, how I wish I had been involved in the game years ago, from what I hear!!!

 

I've been taking a break from caching at all lately, just so I can "ration out" the small handful of remaining "good" caches in my area. I don't want to run out & find them all within the next month or two, then not have any more caches worth looking for.

 

I *tried* going out a couple time, after micros & "smalls" and such -- I *tried* to make myself get enthused about it, as I knew I'd "run out of caches" if I did continue to avoid those. BLAH... Locations were crummy, and I never even bothered signing the "log" on any of the ones I did find, why bother? Trying to scratch my name on a little scrap that looks like it came out of a paper shredder ... no thank you! No point in logging them online either, I'd prefer to just forget that I even bothered looking for them at all! The entire experience was a complete waste of time & so disheartening, to think *that's* what geocaching is amounting to, more & more these days. But I *tried* to get into it... bleh....just couldn't find any joy in those sort of caches...

 

A somewhat interesting and/or scenic location, a container just large enough for me to leave some sort of nice little trinket (something better than a pencil mini-eraser! LOL!), and a log *book* not a paper-shredder scrap -- is that really SO much to ask for? It seems like it is too much to expect these days... at least around here...

Edited February 18, 2016 by ferretlady

[+Isonzo Karst]

Using a 30-mile radius from my home, it seems that there is an average of one cache per month placed, that isn't a micro or "small" ...once I find the fairly small number of caches like that in my area, I'm pretty much done with the game, other than any time I might be able to make an overnight trip to a further location & going out once every 2 months or so, when/if a new cache is place. Gawd, how I wish I had been involved in the game years ago, from what I hear!!!

 

The Golden age of nice hikes to trading caches is NOW.

 

The notion that your local caching has to be "within 30 miles" is a terrifically urban idea, ie, that's today's caching.

"Years ago", there were just a lot fewer caches, and as now, most of them were hidden in the triangle of home/school/work. There were far more "walk in the parks", caches in neighbor parks, and fewer roadside grabs. But that's why we had the acronym, YAPIDKA (yet another park I didn't know about - and don't much care, either).

 

Through the magic of pocket queries, I find 219 regular and large caches within 35 miles of your Kissimmee SP cache. Many in lovely places that would likely be less than a 2 hour drive from you. Trek Ten Trails program currently owns 25 caches, all large ammo cans. They'll change out most of those annually. You could find one TrekTenTrail cache a month, and not get half of them each year before they changed them all out. New properties, different trails on the old properties. The Green Swamp to your northwest has 146 trading caches (nearly all ammo cans). To the east of you, Lake Lizzie, Three Lakes Wildlife Management Area and more.

[cezanne]

The Golden age of nice hikes to trading caches is NOW.

 

Definitely not in my region and not even if I omit trading which is not what I care about anyway. (Comment: I have found two (!) caches within the last couple of months that contained more than say at most 1-2 small items and both were very short walks and did not involve nice hikes). I'm fully satisfied with a small container and a normal sized log book where I can write in normal size. You would be surprised how many small, regular and even large containers in my area are equipped with micro or even nano log strips (not only those where the special effect of the cache is to find the log sheet and to retrieve it once the larger container has been found, but also in cases where the log strip is just lying somewhere in the container). I have never someone who wrote long stories in log books as my hand writing without having a desk available is ugly and I prefer to rehide a cache before someone could watch me. These modern ways of logging however make it already hard for me to sign (and my alias is not that long) and with each year I get older it becomes harder to deal with this miniature stuff.

 

Of course someone who newly enters geocaching, would be in a better situation than I'm as they can make use of all the old caches I have already found.

When it comes to new caches, hardly any caches that involve a nice and longer hike (definitely more than 5km, better more than 10km all together) are hidden.

[+Isonzo Karst]

You would be surprised how many small, regular and even large containers in my area are equipped with micro or even nano log strips (not only those where the special effect of the cache is to find the log sheet and to retrieve it once the larger container has been found, but also in cases where the log strip is just lying somewhere in the container).

 

;-) I see it too. Hiders prepare tiny logs, and then use them in whatever containers they're hiding. ("signed tiny log" is becoming a regular phrase in my logging).

 

I'm seeing a sharp increase in gimmick caches too - find cache, then work out how to extract log. These have always been around, but now there's a raging epidemic of them. People chasing favorite points I guess. (They fair badly in this moist, warm climate. Even the ubiquitous PVC tube caches, meant to fill with water to float the inner container up do badly - the tube grows algae and the inner container sticks. Various puzzle boxes, bird houses mostly, warp and swell...)

[TahoeJoe]

Using a 30-mile radius from my home, it seems that there is an average of one cache per month placed, that isn't a micro or "small" ...once I find the fairly small number of caches like that in my area, I'm pretty much done with the game, other than any time I might be able to make an overnight trip to a further location & going out once every 2 months or so, when/if a new cache is place. Gawd, how I wish I had been involved in the game years ago, from what I hear!!!

 

The Golden age of nice hikes to trading caches is NOW.

 

The notion that your local caching has to be "within 30 miles" is a terrifically urban idea, ie, that's today's caching.

"Years ago", there were just a lot fewer caches, and as now, most of them were hidden in the triangle of home/school/work. There were far more "walk in the parks", caches in neighbor parks, and fewer roadside grabs. But that's why we had the acronym, YAPIDKA (yet another park I didn't know about - and don't much care, either).

 

Through the magic of pocket queries, I find 219 regular and large caches within 35 miles of your Kissimmee SP cache. Many in lovely places that would likely be less than a 2 hour drive from you. Trek Ten Trails program currently owns 25 caches, all large ammo cans. They'll change out most of those annually. You could find one TrekTenTrail cache a month, and not get half of them each year before they changed them all out. New properties, different trails on the old properties. The Green Swamp to your northwest has 146 trading caches (nearly all ammo cans). To the east of you, Lake Lizzie, Three Lakes Wildlife Management Area and more.

No golden age of nice hikes to trading caches in this area either. From what I've been reading in the forums over the years that time ended around the time of the rapid expansion of geocachers with the introduction of the smartphone which is also around the time numbers started became more important than the journey. The hiking caches are still out there but most of them at least in my area were placed before the micros and nanos took over. With so many geocachers playing now, you should be able to stick close to home with plenty of new quality caches popping up now and then. With family and work, I don't always have the luxury of driving 30 miles away to find a cache. Geocaching is not at the top of my priorities but I still get out to hike, bike and exercise and it's great if I can incorporate geocaching into my activities.

[TahoeJoe]

You would be surprised how many small, regular and even large containers in my area are equipped with micro or even nano log strips (not only those where the special effect of the cache is to find the log sheet and to retrieve it once the larger container has been found, but also in cases where the log strip is just lying somewhere in the container).

 

;-) I see it too. Hiders prepare tiny logs, and then use them in whatever containers they're hiding. ("signed tiny log" is becoming a regular phrase in my logging).

 

I'm seeing a sharp increase in gimmick caches too - find cache, then work out how to extract log. These have always been around, but now there's a raging epidemic of them. People chasing favorite points I guess. (They fair badly in this moist, warm climate. Even the ubiquitous PVC tube caches, meant to fill with water to float the inner container up do badly - the tube grows algae and the inner container sticks. Various puzzle boxes, bird houses mostly, warp and swell...)

I have yet to see these types of caches in our area.

[ferretlady]

 

The Golden age of nice hikes to trading caches is NOW.

 

The notion that your local caching has to be "within 30 miles" is a terrifically urban idea, ie, that's today's caching.

 

OK - I made a mistake using a 30-mile limit, my apologies. I was simply doing a search with my home as a starting point, looking to see if any new caches had been placed recently and a 30 mile radius is the most it would give.

 

The TrekTenTrails program *IS* indeed fantastic & I'm very grateful to the county for doing it! They didn't change out the locations this year, so a few of my finds for the 2016 game will be "repeat visits" - though that's perfectly OK. (I did double-check coordinates on about 5-6 of the 2016 TTT caches so far, they are the exact same location, not different trails within the previously-used parks) But yes, those do give me a good handful to go for & it is a wonderful program & I'm very glad we have it here.

 

Through the magic of pocket queries, I find 219 regular and large caches within 35 miles of your Kissimmee SP cache.

 

Interesting! I'll have to try a pocket query like that myself. - thank you!

The Green Swamp to your northwest has 146 trading caches (nearly all ammo cans). To the east of you, Lake Lizzie, Three Lakes Wildlife Management Area and more.

 

Of course, I've *heard* of Green Swamp, but I'm embarrassed to admit I've never been there - wow, the SWFWMD's site says that the Green Swamp encompasses 560,000 acres altogether, covering portions of five different counties, with 110,000 acres of that being owned/managed by SWFWMD. That's a hefty chunk of "swamp" (Yes, I know it's not all swampland.) I really do need to find more detailed info on exactly *where* to go, when, etc.

 

I guess the WMA's have intimidated me just a teeny-tiny bit, not wanting to run into any issues during various hunting seasons - with so many different designated tracts comprising the overall "Green Swamp" - looking at the hunting schedule is just a wee bit confusing as dates are a bit different for each designated tract listed on the hunt schedule. I wouldn't want to start out in one place that was in a "no-hunting" period, and accidentally wander off into another tract that did have open hunting going on! LOL! But - ok - so that's probably just sheer stupidity on my part I guess...maybe that's not even possible? Chalk it up to a dumb older widow, who's still trying to get used to going out & doing things by myself - but that bit of trepidation w/ the hunting seasons on the WMA properties is primarily why I haven't visited any of the Green Swamp areas yet. I'm probably being leery for no good reason, I'm sure. The very first time I took off for a 7-8 mile hike through the woods by myself, or the very first time I went camping all alone, I was just a teeny-tiny bit nervous too. So I guess I need to just get more details about the WMA's re: their hunting seasons, how to avoid any potential issues in that regard & just GO! My prior 'caching buddy' is going to be moving to another part of the state, so I'm back to doing any of my outdoorsy things alone. Which is OK with me, it can be a wee bit tense at first though, when facing something that's different than what I'm used to, or has a different set of "precautions" to be taken, etc.

 

So - yes, you're correct - there are a good many caches within 50-80 miles of my home. I don't know how many of these are somewhat recent, or are "older" caches that were placed some time back?

 

I guess I just let myself get too discouraged when pulling up a periodic search for new caches , and seeing that so very few *new* caches were the sort I liked (larger caches in nice outdoorsy locations). It's not as if I'm living in the middle of Orlando, or some urban area where larger caches don't have lots of locations to be placed. (Again, I didn't search out as far as the Green Swamp area - so I apologize again for using something as limited as the 30-mile radius... perhaps there are more "good" new caches if I get away from my local area.

 

I sincerely appreciate your input, Isonzo!

[+Isonzo Karst]

ferretlady, thank you for taking my post well. It reads grumpy to me this morning.

 

Lack of familiarity with hunting and hunt rules seems to me to be part of the decline in interest in some of the hiking caches. Early on in the game, most who owned recreational gps were already accustomed to learning about what hunts were on, and what restrictions might apply.

[+L0ne.R]

1455842306[/url]' post='5565921']

 

I guess the WMA's have intimidated me just a teeny-tiny bit, not wanting to run into any issues during various hunting seasons

 

If you go, wear an orange vest. I have one in the car for me, and another one for my dog.

[cezanne]

You would be surprised how many small, regular and even large containers in my area are equipped with micro or even nano log strips (not only those where the special effect of the cache is to find the log sheet and to retrieve it once the larger container has been found, but also in cases where the log strip is just lying somewhere in the container).

 

;-) I see it too. Hiders prepare tiny logs, and then use them in whatever containers they're hiding. ("signed tiny log" is becoming a regular phrase in my logging).

 

I'm seeing a sharp increase in gimmick caches too - find cache, then work out how to extract log. These have always been around, but now there's a raging epidemic of them. People chasing favorite points I guess. (They fair badly in this moist, warm climate. Even the ubiquitous PVC tube caches, meant to fill with water to float the inner container up do badly - the tube grows algae and the inner container sticks. Various puzzle boxes, bird houses mostly, warp and swell...)

 

Ah well, so it does not seem to be that different in your area than around here. I got a different understanding when you wrote about the golden age of hiking caches.

 

Somehow I think that as soon as a few gimmick caches (which are not an issue) show up, their number tends to get out of control. Like many other aspects in modern geocaching, it turns into a competition and race. Sometimes I wonder whether normal caches can still survive in the long run.

A gimmick cache could be nice from time to time, but I'm neither an engineer or craftsman nor do I want to carry along more tools than I have at home (including tools I have never heard of and have never used before).

 

I'm certainly not focussing on a too small radius. I look at all caches in my province, the neighbouring ones and the neighbouring countries (in particular Hungary and Slovenia, at least the area not too far away). The areass of Slovenia too far from me are an eldorado for power cachers - lot of power trails equpipped with micros, almost no multi caches and a lot of focus on large numbers and not on caches with individual caches pages and individual logs. Meanwhile it does not matter that much to me as travelling to Slovenia has become more less attrative to me due during the last couple of months and hiking caches close to the border are problematic anyway, something I would not have expected to happen in my life time (but that's a different topic).

Edited February 19, 2016 by cezanne

[+Mudfrog]

The Golden age of nice hikes to trading caches is NOW.

Seriously? Oh wait, you're just messing with us, aren't ya?

[+ArtieD]

I guess the reason why I am so ambivalent on ammo cans is that at least around here, even a fully-stocked ammo can keeps its contents for a very short time and then it usually sits fairly empty, save for a log and maybe one or two things. In this case, bigger just means a bigger empty container.

[+L0ne.R]

I guess the reason why I am so ambivalent on ammo cans is that at least around here, even a fully-stocked ammo can keeps its contents for a very short time and then it usually sits fairly empty, save for a log and maybe one or two things. In this case, bigger just means a bigger empty container.

 

An empty ammo can with a full size logbook is still a thing of beauty to me. I can leave my signature item (my sig items are magnetic so a metal ammo can is another bonus) and I can write something about the caching adventure in the logbook (and perhaps others have too).

[+L0ne.R]

You would be surprised how many small, regular and even large containers in my area are equipped with micro or even nano log strips (not only those where the special effect of the cache is to find the log sheet and to retrieve it once the larger container has been found, but also in cases where the log strip is just lying somewhere in the container).

 

;-) I see it too. Hiders prepare tiny logs, and then use them in whatever containers they're hiding. ("signed tiny log" is becoming a regular phrase in my logging).

 

In the last couple of years there was a bit of a trend to put film canisters with a log scroll in caches. I'll open up a small jar, hoping to leave my small sig item and find it filled up with a film canister. And oddly, often the outer container will be dry but the film canister and logsheet will be damp inside.

 

I'm seeing a sharp increase in gimmick caches too

 

The gimmick caches I'm growing tired of:

 

• Toys from the dollar store stuffed with a micro container and listed as size: small.
  • It's been done to death, not creative anymore.
  • You can expect a lot of dollar store toy caches around halloween - the plastic leg listed as regular but with a leaky micro thrown in the hole cut out of the end of the leg, the plastic bloody finger with a tube stuffed into it. This summer the dollar store toy of choice was the plastic duck decoy. Found about 6 of those.
  • Cheapiness. One dollar for the toy and often the owner throws in a cheap leaky container. Sometimes just a logbook in a baggie.
  • After a couple of months the dog toy furry raccoon, or the little balsam wood birdhouse, become a soaked moldy mess.

  [*]Fake bolts. Some get listed as small if they are a large (e.g. 3 inch) fake bolt.

Wouldn't mind so much if I could filter them out, but they also get high fav points and I filter for swag size caches with high fav points.

I use to search for highly favoured micros, but stopped doing it because they are almost always one of the above.

[cezanne]

In the last couple of years there was a bit of a trend to put film canisters with a log scroll in caches. I'll open up a small jar, hoping to leave my small sig item and find it filled up with a film canister. And oddly, often the outer container will be dry but the film canister and logsheet will be damp inside.

 

Most of the micro and nano sheets I have encountered in larger containers have not been in a film canister. It just seems that people find it convenient that out in the internet there are tons of files for log strips and they simply make use of them or buy little log books designed for pet preforms. Most of the log books used in earlier times were not bought in geocaching stores.

 

Of course there are also the caches where the outer container contains say 10 or 30 or whatever smaller container, surprise eggs, fake bolts, film cans or whatever and the task is to the find the one with the tiny log sheet.

 

 

I use to search for highly favoured micros, but stopped doing it because they are almost always one of the above.

 

Actually, in my area you would often not be better off by searching for highly favourited larger caches as only the outer part is larger but not the part where the log sheet is to be found.

The outer construction can be large but you cannot leave trackables there. Even in those very rare containers that are really large and contain a lot of swag items (about say 1 in 300 caches I find), there is no separate container for trackables and try to look for a GC or leave one in an assortment of 100 plastic toy figurines and whatever else.

 

There are certainly creative gimmick caches in my area (not all of them of course, but some are really very creative) but I guess a lot of them would not appeal to you for various reasons (for example some are to be found in a large hole in the ground covered by a metal plate). For others one needs to be quite skilled to be able to successfully retrieve the log sheet.

I admire the skill and creativity of some of the cache owners, however it's simply not what attracts me into geocaching.

 

I'm interested into hiking, being outdoors, getting a few hours of time-out away from my stressful life by following a nice route someone else has thought up for me and I just need to follow it. If my walk requires 10 minutes and I spend 25 minutes at the cache location that's not what I appreciate.

 

I'm not strictly against mystery caches either and do own some myself, but like for the gimmick caches I feel that at least in my area there are meanwhile to many of them and in particular too many of them which take many hours when doing them without asking someone else and without approaching them in large groups.

 

I'm more and more missing the "normal" caches - nothing extraordinary but nice to visit, relaxing and pleasant. Lots of the gimmick constructions just leave me with the feeling to be a complete idiot and the nano sheets are less and less manageable to me anyway. When going for a cache listed as large and being confronted with a nano sheet, it's hard to avoid this sort of experience in advance by filtering such caches out. Obviously many favourite points for a cache at a boring location can be a solid warning. I still wonder whether FPs have brought along more disadvantages than advantages and often I tend to the former option.

Edited February 19, 2016 by cezanne

[+L0ne.R]

I use to search for highly favoured micros, but stopped doing it because they are almost always one of the above.

 

Actually, in my area you would often not be better off by searching for highly favourited larger caches as only the outer part is larger but not the part where the log sheet is to be found.

The outer construction can be large but you cannot leave trackables there. Even in those very rare containers that are really large and contain a lot of swag items (about say 1 in 300 caches I find), there is no separate container for trackables and try to look for a GC or leave one in an assortment of 100 plastic toy figurines and whatever else.

 

There are certainly creative gimmick caches in my area (not all of them of course, but some are really very creative) but I guess a lot of them would not appeal to you for various reasons (for example some are to be found in a large hole in the ground covered by a metal plate). For others one needs to be quite skilled to be able to successfully retrieve the log sheet.

I admire the skill and creativity of some of the cache owners, however it's simply not what attracts me into geocaching.

 

I'm interested into hiking, being outdoors, getting a few hours of time-out away from my stressful life by following a nice route someone else has thought up for me and I just need to follow it. If my walk requires 10 minutes and I spend 25 minutes at the cache location that's not what I appreciate.

 

I'm not strictly against mystery caches either and do own some myself, but like for the gimmick caches I feel that at least in my area there are meanwhile to many of them and in particular too many of them which take many hours when doing them without asking someone else and without approaching them in large groups.

I'm more and more missing the "normal" caches - nothing extraordinary but nice to visit, relaxing and pleasant. Lots of the gimmick constructions just leave me with the feeling to be a complete idiot and the nano sheets are less and less manageable to me anyway. When going for a cache listed as large and being confronted with a nano sheet, it's hard to avoid this sort of experience in advance by filtering such caches out. Obviously many favourite points for a cache at a boring location can be a solid warning.

 

I can relate. I like the normal good quality caches. I don't enjoy spending 25 minutes at a cache trying to figure out how to get at the logsheet, but I still admire the ingenuity of the cache owner of a good gadget cache. I don't mind spending 25 minutes at a cache to relax and admire the location, and the quality of the cache; to paw through the swag, write in the logbook, take photos.

 

I still wonder whether FPs have brought along more disadvantages than advantages and often I tend to the former option.

 

I still think FPs are a useful tool, better then not having them. But I think they did a decent job in the early years of the feature, but not so much now that the game has changed in favour of power caching.

Maybe we also need a "If you like "Ammo Can in the Woods" cache you might also like this like...." type of recommendation system, to help filter for genres of caches.

[cezanne]

I don't mind spending 25 minutes at a cache to relax and admire the location, and the quality of the cache; to paw through the swag, write in the logbook, take photos.

 

I also do not mind making breaks and enjoying the view and taking photos. Even though it's so tiresome to load up photos and to attach the correct date to them, I have uploaded quite a number of photos over the last months.

 

However the typical gimmick caches I have in mind are not at nice locations where there is something to enjoy except the cache construction and there is typically no normal log book and no swag for cachers like you anyway.

 

Often it's just a scary borderline when playing around with a construction between making the right steps to get to the log book and causing damage to the construction by performing a wrong move/action.

 

I recently was amused when a cache owner wrote me that the proper way to get to the log book would have been to turn a certain component of the main cache object where I have not even heard of its existence of this part before and still have no idea what we were supposed to do - the cache description just mentions the right turn and the guy we met at the cache applied an alternative not intended approach - I would have went home being just on my own.

 

A few weeks ago I fiddled around for 25 minutes with a lock and at least 10 times moved between putting off my glasses and putting them back on - the numbers were so small and the lock was considerably higher than the position of my eyes. Another time I fighted first with obtaining the code (playing with a xylophone some tune) and then with the lock which did not open in the way I thought it would be. Again I spent a longer time at this location than for the walk - moreover it was within sight of the trail and I felt quite ackward standing around there with all that strange sort of stuff.

 

I still think FPs are a useful tool, better then not having them. But I think they did a decent job in the early years of the feature, but not so much now that the game has changed in favour of power caching.

Maybe we also need a "If you like "Ammo Can in the Woods" cache you might also like this like...." type of recommendation system, to help filter for genres of caches.

 

Recommendations when it were known why there were given and would be usable like say on Amazon, would be helpful indeed. The current FP system is not very useful for me however.

[+KatnissRue]

I have found that ammo boxes are just as unoriginal of a hide as a pill bottle. I like it when either is in a good location, or is hidden well in its area. (Not to brag), but I have a multi-cache where the first stage is at a sweets shop, and the second is hidden not too far away in a flower garden. The container is a large ammo box with flowers and ladybugs on one side, and cake and tea on the other.

 

It's about the cache page, the hide, and the location that make a cache for me. That's why I try very hard to create the kind of caches I would like to find.

Blasphemy! Ammo cans are the ultimate geo container. To state otherwise would be like celebrating the 4th of July without apple pie and fireworks! My ammo cans have dirt and mud on one side and dents on the other. My first geocache was placed 13 years ago rests nestled in some rocks on the summit of a 11,000 foot mountain top exposed to the harshest of conditions. The ammo can's integrity is as good as the day I placed it.

I apologize. I was meaning in general that I don't necessarily find an ammo can creative; and that it can be an unoriginal hide, but doesn't mean it is. I love an ammo can off of a long hike or at the top of a 14er. Sorry if I came off offensive.

[+dprovan]

Somehow I think that as soon as a few gimmick caches (which are not an issue) show up, their number tends to get out of control. Like many other aspects in modern geocaching, it turns into a competition and race. Sometimes I wonder whether normal caches can still survive in the long run.

I have absolutely no problem with COs competing to try to one up each other with better and better caches. I appreciate the creativity even when a trend heads off in a faddish direction that doesn't appeal to me. I have no fear whatsoever that such competitions will do anything but increase the overall quality of other hides. I've never seen any fad in hides rise to the level of shutting out "normal" caches.

[cezanne]

Somehow I think that as soon as a few gimmick caches (which are not an issue) show up, their number tends to get out of control. Like many other aspects in modern geocaching, it turns into a competition and race. Sometimes I wonder whether normal caches can still survive in the long run.

I have absolutely no problem with COs competing to try to one up each other with better and better caches. I appreciate the creativity even when a trend heads off in a faddish direction that doesn't appeal to me. I have no fear whatsoever that such competitions will do anything but increase the overall quality of other hides. I've never seen any fad in hides rise to the level of shutting out "normal" caches.

 

The problem for me is just that I prefer the normal caches over those other that just make me nervous. They are nicely done as containers but caching never has to for me about that aspect - it has never been part of my geocaching world. So the performance on that scale does not enter my personal quality criteria for a geocache I want to go for.

[TahoeJoe]

I have found that ammo boxes are just as unoriginal of a hide as a pill bottle. I like it when either is in a good location, or is hidden well in its area. (Not to brag), but I have a multi-cache where the first stage is at a sweets shop, and the second is hidden not too far away in a flower garden. The container is a large ammo box with flowers and ladybugs on one side, and cake and tea on the other.

 

It's about the cache page, the hide, and the location that make a cache for me. That's why I try very hard to create the kind of caches I would like to find.

Blasphemy! Ammo cans are the ultimate geo container. To state otherwise would be like celebrating the 4th of July without apple pie and fireworks! My ammo cans have dirt and mud on one side and dents on the other. My first geocache was placed 13 years ago rests nestled in some rocks on the summit of a 11,000 foot mountain top exposed to the harshest of conditions. The ammo can's integrity is as good as the day I placed it.

I apologize. I was meaning in general that I don't necessarily find an ammo can creative; and that it can be an unoriginal hide, but doesn't mean it is. I love an ammo can off of a long hike or at the top of a 14er. Sorry if I came off offensive.

My apologies also, I didn't find your post offensive at all. I was using a little humor in my post to state my opinion and didn't do a very good job at it. Your cache sound very creative and It's always nice to find a creative container at the end of a search which enhanches the geocaching experience and encourages the placement of better quality caches.

[TahoeJoe]

Somehow I think that as soon as a few gimmick caches (which are not an issue) show up, their number tends to get out of control. Like many other aspects in modern geocaching, it turns into a competition and race. Sometimes I wonder whether normal caches can still survive in the long run.

I have absolutely no problem with COs competing to try to one up each other with better and better caches. I appreciate the creativity even when a trend heads off in a faddish direction that doesn't appeal to me. I have no fear whatsoever that such competitions will do anything but increase the overall quality of other hides. I've never seen any fad in hides rise to the level of shutting out "normal" caches.

 

The problem for me is just that I prefer the normal caches over those other that just make me nervous. They are nicely done as containers but caching never has to for me about that aspect - it has never been part of my geocaching world. So the performance on that scale does not enter my personal quality criteria for a geocache I want to go for.

My thoughts exactly. Very few geocaches I find today have the wow factor I used to expect. I remember when virtual caches were on their way out one of the requirements was for you to get a virtual listed was for it to have to stand out and not just be some photo of a roadside plaque. I wish the same requirements would be in effect today for traditional caches. I'm amazed that power trail caches were ever allowed. They are about as far away from what geocaching started out as you could be.

[+noncentric]

My thoughts exactly. Very few geocaches I find today have the wow factor I used to expect. I remember when virtual caches were on their way out one of the requirements was for you to get a virtual listed was for it to have to stand out and not just be some photo of a roadside plaque. I wish the same requirements would be in effect today for traditional caches. I'm amazed that power trail caches were ever allowed. They are about as far away from what geocaching started out as you could be.

I'd wager that the Reviewers would not appreciate any sort of 'wow' factor requirement.

 

Reviewers should not be required to determine the subjective qualities of a cache. That was part of the demise of Virtuals, and potentially of Challenge Caches as well. If there is some subjective quality threshold to Traditionals, then Trads will become the next type of cache to be halted.

[+KatnissRue]

I have found that ammo boxes are just as unoriginal of a hide as a pill bottle. I like it when either is in a good location, or is hidden well in its area. (Not to brag), but I have a multi-cache where the first stage is at a sweets shop, and the second is hidden not too far away in a flower garden. The container is a large ammo box with flowers and ladybugs on one side, and cake and tea on the other.

 

It's about the cache page, the hide, and the location that make a cache for me. That's why I try very hard to create the kind of caches I would like to find.

Blasphemy! Ammo cans are the ultimate geo container. To state otherwise would be like celebrating the 4th of July without apple pie and fireworks! My ammo cans have dirt and mud on one side and dents on the other. My first geocache was placed 13 years ago rests nestled in some rocks on the summit of a 11,000 foot mountain top exposed to the harshest of conditions. The ammo can's integrity is as good as the day I placed it.

I apologize. I was meaning in general that I don't necessarily find an ammo can creative; and that it can be an unoriginal hide, but doesn't mean it is. I love an ammo can off of a long hike or at the top of a 14er. Sorry if I came off offensive.

My apologies also, I didn't find your post offensive at all. I was using a little humor in my post to state my opinion and didn't do a very good job at it. Your cache sound very creative and It's always nice to find a creative container at the end of a search which enhanches the geocaching experience and encourages the placement of better quality caches.

Thank you for your kind words. It is indeed hard to tell whether or not someone is being sarcastic, angry, etc over the internet. Words don't translate well over text.

[TahoeJoe]

My thoughts exactly. Very few geocaches I find today have the wow factor I used to expect. I remember when virtual caches were on their way out one of the requirements was for you to get a virtual listed was for it to have to stand out and not just be some photo of a roadside plaque. I wish the same requirements would be in effect today for traditional caches. I'm amazed that power trail caches were ever allowed. They are about as far away from what geocaching started out as you could be.

I'd wager that the Reviewers would not appreciate any sort of 'wow' factor requirement.

 

Reviewers should not be required to determine the subjective qualities of a cache. That was part of the demise of Virtuals, and potentially of Challenge Caches as well. If there is some subjective quality threshold to Traditionals, then Trads will become the next type of cache to be halted.

While it's true as a reviewer you would not know if a cache has a wow factor, it would be obvious that submitting 50 caches at once for approval along a road or trail would definitely not fit into the wow category. I'm pretty sure as a reviewer you develop a good feel for the potential quality of most caches. The number of caches a CO has out would be a good starting point for approving a cache. I look at one particular cacher in my area who has close to 200 caches in the area, they were upset that someone didn't replace the lid on one of their caches when a needs maintainance was logged so the cache was archived. I'm willing to bet that their archived caches are never removed. I filter out this particular CO's caches as they tend to be park and toss caches. Another local cacher has over 800 caches placed! Limiting the number of caches a CO can have in in play would be a great place to start. It would be great to see the quality of caches improve.

Edited February 19, 2016 by TahoeJoe

[+dprovan]

The problem for me is just that I prefer the normal caches over those other that just make me nervous. They are nicely done as containers but caching never has to for me about that aspect - it has never been part of my geocaching world. So the performance on that scale does not enter my personal quality criteria for a geocache I want to go for.

When you say "normal caches", so you mean anything other than "caches I like"? I find that competition between COs can take many forms, some over cache characteristics I find uninteresting, other over cache characteristics I find fascinating. And regardless of which, it gets the COs focused on quality, which is always good whether the specific result isn't something I look forward to.

 

My thoughts exactly. Very few geocaches I find today have the wow factor I used to expect.

By "very few", do you mean relatively few, or are there literally fewer of them? In the 6 years I've been caching, there has been a steady increase in "wow" caches -- in my opinion, of course. There has also be an even bigger increase in caches which are mundane, although personally, I can have a good time finding mundane caches, so for me its gravy either way.

 

If wow caches truly aren't planted in your area anymore, then I suggest looking to the local cachers -- such as yourself -- for the explanation instead of claiming the sport in general has gone to heck in a hand basket.

[cezanne]

The problem for me is just that I prefer the normal caches over those other that just make me nervous. They are nicely done as containers but caching never has to for me about that aspect - it has never been part of my geocaching world. So the performance on that scale does not enter my personal quality criteria for a geocache I want to go for.

When you say "normal caches", so you mean anything other than "caches I like"?

 

When I say normal, I do not mean caches I like - I mean caches that do not require any special abilities, are not extreme in any sense, are just what how a typical cache back then used to be - you went there, found typically a classical container, enjoyed the journey and the locations, wrote about your experience if you wanted and just signed if you preferred and went home. No special containers, no fiddling around for half an hour with getting to the cache when standing in front of it, no feelings that you are an idiot.

 

The same is true for the direction into which puzzle caches develop in some areas. In the attempt to solve extremely hard puzzles by others, some cachers come up with the ideas for 10 other puzzles and a kind of explosion shows up.

 

In the end it is hard to find just normal caches which are relaxing and have not been hidden to end up with >50 FPs after a year, but which are more interesting than power trail micros placed every 200m.

 

I have read quite a number of logs where cachers write that they have been disappointed that the final of a nice hiking cache was a boring lock and lock container hidden in a tree stump - they expect something extraordinary they have not seen before. That keeps many cachers meanwhile from hiding the caches I like the most - not every cacher is able to come up with specially built containers, tricks, special effects etc

 

Back then the cachers wanted to show each other nice locations and nice hikingn routes - the idea was not to play games and to compete in creativity.

 

I like multi caches with virtual stages where easy questions are asked along the way which are justed used to guide me along the route. I'm not happy if I have to invest at least 10 minutes at every stage for laying out a puzzle, solving challenging problems, playing with marbles etc or whatever so that in the end I spend more time with standing around than with walking and enjoying the nature.

 

I find that competition between COs can take many forms, some over cache characteristics I find uninteresting, other over cache characteristics I find fascinating. And regardless of which, it gets the COs focused on quality, which is always good whether the specific result isn't something I look forward to.

 

What I tried to get across is that for me the design of cache containers and special hideout constructions is not what is part of what geocaching means to me. To someone who likes flowers due to their smell, the concept of silk flowers how beautiful they might be and how long living will not appeal. The beauty of silk flowers is not a quality aspect for someone who is interested into real flowers.

 

If wow caches truly aren't planted in your area anymore, then I suggest looking to the local cachers -- such as yourself -- for the explanation instead of claiming the sport in general has gone to heck in a hand basket.

 

I guess it depends a lot what someone defines as wow. The big majority of caches that are real wow caches for the majority of their finders are very disappointing to me. It could be as worse as a cache in disgusting locations which are at the borderline for me for what's acceptable as a cache. The people seem to be thrilled however by the story and the installations.

 

For some it is a wow cache if someone installs an old traffic light box in a village which needs to be opened in a complicated manner - for me it was an annoying experience which I did not like at all. Or a fire hydrant brought into a forest and one needs to screw off the upper part to find a tiny something inside where one can log.

 

The locations of such caches are boring, and the way to the cache is boring too. The only attractions are objects which are not encountered typically as cache containers.

Edited February 19, 2016 by cezanne

[+noncentric]

My thoughts exactly. Very few geocaches I find today have the wow factor I used to expect. I remember when virtual caches were on their way out one of the requirements was for you to get a virtual listed was for it to have to stand out and not just be some photo of a roadside plaque. I wish the same requirements would be in effect today for traditional caches. I'm amazed that power trail caches were ever allowed. They are about as far away from what geocaching started out as you could be.

I'd wager that the Reviewers would not appreciate any sort of 'wow' factor requirement.

 

Reviewers should not be required to determine the subjective qualities of a cache. That was part of the demise of Virtuals, and potentially of Challenge Caches as well. If there is some subjective quality threshold to Traditionals, then Trads will become the next type of cache to be halted.

While it's true as a reviewer you would not know if a cache has a wow factor, it would be obvious that submitting 50 caches at once for approval along a road or trail would definitely not fit into the wow category. I'm pretty sure as a reviewer you develop a good feel for the potential quality of most caches. The number of caches a CO has out would be a good starting point for approving a cache. I look at one particular cacher in my area who has close to 200 caches in the area, they were upset that someone didn't replace the lid on one of their caches when a needs maintainance was logged so the cache was archived. I'm willing to bet that their archived caches are never removed. I filter out this particular CO's caches as they tend to be park and toss caches. Another local cacher has over 800 caches placed! Limiting the number of caches a CO can have in in play would be a great place to start. It would be great to see the quality of caches improve.

Okay, so what you're really looking for is a limit to how many caches a CO can place? Or maybe, how many they can 'have active' at any one time (ie, not counting their archived caches in their 'total').

 

That is a very different standard. It's objective. There's no need for any 'judgment calls' by the reviewers.

[+niraD]

Okay, so what you're really looking for is a limit to how many caches a CO can place? Or maybe, how many they can 'have active' at any one time (ie, not counting their archived caches in their 'total').

 

That is a very different standard. It's objective. There's no need for any 'judgment calls' by the reviewers.

Ignoring the fact that different people are capable of maintaining different numbers of caches, what's to stop someone from creating additional accounts and using them to hide caches?

 

If Groundspeak decides that an account can have only 100 active caches, then someone who wants a 2000-cache numbers run trail will just create 20 accounts. If the limit is 10 active caches, then they'll just create 200 accounts.

[+lee737]

 

The Golden age of nice hikes to trading caches is NOW.

 

The notion that your local caching has to be "within 30 miles" is a terrifically urban idea, ie, that's today's caching.

 

I'd be inclined to support this, where I live anyway - there are more, what I would call good caches within a mornings drive of me than I possibly have time to do. Long walks, climbs, boating/kayaking etc, the only thing that gets in our way is the hiking ability of my 6 year old, and how far I'm keen to carry the 3 year old! There are oodles of urban micros too, the kids don't mind these..... but the good caches are certainly there too....

[TahoeJoe]

Okay, so what you're really looking for is a limit to how many caches a CO can place? Or maybe, how many they can 'have active' at any one time (ie, not counting their archived caches in their 'total').

 

That is a very different standard. It's objective. There's no need for any 'judgment calls' by the reviewers.

Ignoring the fact that different people are capable of maintaining different numbers of caches, what's to stop someone from creating additional accounts and using them to hide caches?

 

If Groundspeak decides that an account can have only 100 active caches, then someone who wants a 2000-cache numbers run trail will just create 20 accounts. If the limit is 10 active caches, then they'll just create 200 accounts.

That's silly, if someone is that obsessed and has that much time on their hands, geocaching is the least of their problems. Perhaps they should go to a geocaching support group. Edited February 21, 2016 by TahoeJoe

[TahoeJoe]

 

The Golden age of nice hikes to trading caches is NOW.

 

The notion that your local caching has to be "within 30 miles" is a terrifically urban idea, ie, that's today's caching.

 

I'd be inclined to support this, where I live anyway - there are more, what I would call good caches within a mornings drive of me than I possibly have time to do. Long walks, climbs, boating/kayaking etc, the only thing that gets in our way is the hiking ability of my 6 year old, and how far I'm keen to carry the 3 year old! There are oodles of urban micros too, the kids don't mind these..... but the good caches are certainly there too....

That's great, sounds like an area I'd like to visit.

[+JL_HSTRE]

Ammo box hides may be frequently simple, but they are usually dry, hold swag and TBs, don't require a shrub hunt, and are usually placed somewhere worth going.

[+dprovan]

The problem for me is just that I prefer the normal caches over those other that just make me nervous. They are nicely done as containers but caching never has to for me about that aspect - it has never been part of my geocaching world. So the performance on that scale does not enter my personal quality criteria for a geocache I want to go for.

When you say "normal caches", so you mean anything other than "caches I like"?

When I say normal, I do not mean caches I like ...

You say this, but then you proceed with several paragraphs that I can only interpret as caches you like being "normal": the value was in the journey, classic containers, nothing fancy, easy to find, relaxing, and on and on, any one of which someone else could as easily value the opposite of you, thus concluding that caches are getting better and better rather than worse and worse.

[TahoeJoe]

The problem for me is just that I prefer the normal caches over those other that just make me nervous. They are nicely done as containers but caching never has to for me about that aspect - it has never been part of my geocaching world. So the performance on that scale does not enter my personal quality criteria for a geocache I want to go for.

When you say "normal caches", so you mean anything other than "caches I like"?

When I say normal, I do not mean caches I like ...

You say this, but then you proceed with several paragraphs that I can only interpret as caches you like being "normal": the value was in the journey, classic containers, nothing fancy, easy to find, relaxing, and on and on, any one of which someone else could as easily value the opposite of you, thus concluding that caches are getting better and better rather than worse and worse.

When I hear normal cache, the first thing that comes to my mind is a hike to an interesting location with an ammo can and large log book. That's how it was for the first few years of geocaching and that's the type of caching I enjoy. For someone who joined geocaching recently, normal might be a power trail cache or perhaps even a throw down. I'll always think of a hike and ammo can as normal as that is how geocaching started and was branded for many years. If you were there at or near the beginning of geocaching, then it's very understandable when you hear someone say the quality of caches has declined. Edited February 22, 2016 by TahoeJoe

[+Uncle Alaska]

The problem for me is just that I prefer the normal caches over those other that just make me nervous. They are nicely done as containers but caching never has to for me about that aspect - it has never been part of my geocaching world. So the performance on that scale does not enter my personal quality criteria for a geocache I want to go for.

When you say "normal caches", so you mean anything other than "caches I like"?

When I say normal, I do not mean caches I like ...

You say this, but then you proceed with several paragraphs that I can only interpret as caches you like being "normal": the value was in the journey, classic containers, nothing fancy, easy to find, relaxing, and on and on, any one of which someone else could as easily value the opposite of you, thus concluding that caches are getting better and better rather than worse and worse.

When I hear normal cache, the first thing that comes to my mind is a hike to an interesting location with an ammo can and large log book. That's how it was for the first few years of geocaching and that's the type of caching I enjoy. For someone who joined geocaching recently, normal might be a power trail cache or perhaps even a throw down. I'll always think of a hike and ammo can as normal as that is how geocaching started and was branded for many years.

 

Maybe for you it was that way. My first cache in 2001 was in a park and was a small tupperware container (and not a long hike by any means). Certainly, there were ammo cans, large log books, and long hikes back then...but lets not overstate how many fit your exact wording. Of all the 2000-2001 caches I have found, very few were ammo cans (less than half).

[TahoeJoe]

Maybe for you it was that way. My first cache in 2001 was in a park and was a small tupperware container (and not a long hike by any means). Certainly, there were ammo cans, large log books, and long hikes back then...but lets not overstate how many fit your exact wording. Of all the 2000-2001 caches I have found, very few were ammo cans (less than half).

I started in 2002 and it was around 75 percent ammo can finds for my first couple of years playing. Micros were just starting to show up and were kind of a novelty. The majority of my finds were interesting places and I still remember most of them. If the containers were not ammo cans, they were something big enough to hold a large log book and swag to trade. No overstating for my playground. Edited February 22, 2016 by TahoeJoe

[+Uncle Alaska]

Maybe for you it was that way. My first cache in 2001 was in a park and was a small tupperware container (and not a long hike by any means). Certainly, there were ammo cans, large log books, and long hikes back then...but lets not overstate how many fit your exact wording. Of all the 2000-2001 caches I have found, very few were ammo cans (less than half).

I started in 2002 and it was around 75 percent ammo can finds for my first couple of years playing. Micros were just starting to show up and were kind of a novelty. The majority of my finds were interesting places and I still remember most of them. If the containers were not ammo cans, they were something big enough to hold a large log book and swag to trade. No overstating for my playground.

Guess it depends on whether you started playing in a rural or urban (LA/Orange County) area...but believe me, there were lots of non ammo can and smaller caches back then.