Avoiding a potential turf war

[+narcissa]

I would love to see a cap on the number of geocaches you are allowed to hide.

As the guidelines say:

 

"The region in which a cacher is considered able to maintain caches responsibly will vary from person to person. A cacher who has previously logged caches within a wide range of their home may be considered able to maintain a geocache 200 miles (322 km) away. However, someone whose geocaching activities have primarily been within 25 miles (40 km) of home may not be able to maintain a geocache this far from home. This factor is determined at the discretion of the cache reviewer or Groundspeak."

 

The same goes for the number of geocaches which a cacher is considered able to maintain responsibly. For some, even 1 cache is too many. Others can maintain dozens, or even hundreds, especially if they've figured out how to hide caches in a way that reduces the maintenance demands.

 

And as a practical matter, if there is a hard limit on the number of caches a given account can own, then people will just create more than one account.

I'm sure there are a few cachers that can maintain many caches but I still think it's not fair to the others in the community to control a particular geographical area. It's like the kid that empties the candy bowl that says take one and he has little or no though for others that will follow. In my experience the CO's we are talking about aren't well know for the quality of their caches.

 

Yeah I hate people putting out a bunch of new caches just to get favorite points when there could be caches more innovative and fun instead of the challenging circumstances. Although some do love extreme terrain/difficulty most feel there should be a limit on those in my area. So I can understand people trying to prevent saturation where a majority of the caches are owned by the same person(s). In most cases, there are over 200 caches. I, myself cannot handle twice as much as I already have so I will never get to that many hides but some do and eventually some caches go missing, user gets too many emails, etc.

 

So you would rather see no cache at all in a high terrain place because it's too challenging and you can't get to it? That's kind of awful.

[+igator210]

Yeah I hate people putting out a bunch of new caches just to get favorite points when there could be caches more innovative and fun instead of the challenging circumstances. Although some do love extreme terrain/difficulty most feel there should be a limit on those in my area. So I can understand people trying to prevent saturation where a majority of the caches are owned by the same person(s). In most cases, there are over 200 caches. I, myself cannot handle twice as much as I already have so I will never get to that many hides but some do and eventually some caches go missing, user gets too many emails, etc.

 

Not sure what you mean by "In most cases, there are over 200 caches."

 

In all of New York State, only 7 Cache Owners have more that 200 active caches. These 7 individuals currently represent 2025 active caches. Considering there are over 31,000 active caches in New York state, that's only 6.5% of all active caches.

 

In regards to high difficulty or terrain caches... there are 27,428 active caches in New York rated D3/T3 or lower. That is 87.7% of active caches. That should give you more than enough caches to worry about for awhile if you don't like the higher D/T caches.

 

My numbers were generated using: http://kaynmike.com/geocaching/stats/nystats.html

 

EDIT: Since the website hasn't been updated in 10 months, the absolute numbers are probably different now. The percentages probably are about the same.

Edited July 13, 2016 by igator210

[+redsox_mark]

In the UK (where there are around 130,000 active caches); 132 cache owners own 200 or more caches. Five have over 1000; the top has over 3000.

[+Pine and Poplar]

I would love to see a cap on the number of geocaches you are allowed to hide.

As the guidelines say:

 

"The region in which a cacher is considered able to maintain caches responsibly will vary from person to person. A cacher who has previously logged caches within a wide range of their home may be considered able to maintain a geocache 200 miles (322 km) away. However, someone whose geocaching activities have primarily been within 25 miles (40 km) of home may not be able to maintain a geocache this far from home. This factor is determined at the discretion of the cache reviewer or Groundspeak."

 

The same goes for the number of geocaches which a cacher is considered able to maintain responsibly. For some, even 1 cache is too many. Others can maintain dozens, or even hundreds, especially if they've figured out how to hide caches in a way that reduces the maintenance demands.

 

And as a practical matter, if there is a hard limit on the number of caches a given account can own, then people will just create more than one account.

I don't want to see any cap implemented, as that may prevent someone from hiding a quality cache, if they have already hidden a lot of caches. I'm not a huge fan of the people who "carpet bomb" an area, but if that is what they want to do, I'm not going to stop them.

 

I'd rather see some sort of system where owners who are not maintaining their caches are scrutinized a lot more closely before any new caches are published. If 50% or more of your archived caches were archived by a reviewer, maybe you shouldn't be allowed to publish new caches unless you provide a detailed maintenance plan.

[+Pond Bird]

Yeah I hate people putting out a bunch of new caches just to get favorite points when there could be caches more innovative and fun instead of the challenging circumstances.

 

Why do you know that such caches are any more put out to get FPs than the caches you call innovative and fun?

 

Although some do love extreme terrain/difficulty most feel there should be a limit on those in my area.

 

Where does extreme start for you?

 

Personally I like hiking caches and have no interest into innovative caches at all.

 

I'm not sure where extreme starts. But many people do like challenging hides, puzzles, etc. I know of a cacher who loves challenging puzzles and hides nice creative caches. While I don't understand why he hides fun caches but gives favorite points to challenging puzzle unfun caches, every cacher has their own viewpoint on favorites. I take the "favorite" literally and some thing its a "more thought out and challenging compared to others like it" circumstance.

 

I'm saying there should be a limit on these because some people like to hide fun caches and if theres no where to put them then it doesn't get put out.

[TahoeJoe]

My favorite caches are remote ones in interesting or historic locations which require a hike so the area around them tends to not be over saturated with caches. On a hike to a remote cache along a popular trail I noticed a saturation of caches for the first mile or two. They were small pill bottles with moldy log books. There was no need for micro caches because there was plenty of locations for traditional sized caches. The caches weren’t necessarily placed by a CO with hundreds of hides but this particular CO had claimed the first section of the trail all to himself with poor quality caches blocking all others who might enjoy placing a cache in a beautiful location. I really don’t think that someone who hides hundreds of caches or over saturates a particular area has necessarily placed them for the enjoyment of others. I think it’s someone who is obsessed with how many caches they can hide with little thought of other potential cachers who might enjoy hiding a cache.

[+cerberus1]

Yeah I hate people putting out a bunch of new caches just to get favorite points when there could be caches more innovative and fun instead of the challenging circumstances.

 

Why do you know that such caches are any more put out to get FPs than the caches you call innovative and fun?

 

Although some do love extreme terrain/difficulty most feel there should be a limit on those in my area.

 

Where does extreme start for you?

 

Personally I like hiking caches and have no interest into innovative caches at all.

 

I'm not sure where extreme starts. But many people do like challenging hides, puzzles, etc. I know of a cacher who loves challenging puzzles and hides nice creative caches. While I don't understand why he hides fun caches but gives favorite points to challenging puzzle unfun caches, every cacher has their own viewpoint on favorites. I take the "favorite" literally and some thing its a "more thought out and challenging compared to others like it" circumstance.

 

I'm saying there should be a limit on these because some people like to hide fun caches and if theres no where to put them then it doesn't get put out.

When you put "fun" in the example, it merely shows your bias.

I believe most have seen a certain cache type or D/T overtake certain areas, and might even agree with you on that point.

- But to mention "fun" in the explanation simply shows you're against those cache types not in your comfort zone/to your liking.

[cezanne]

But many people do like challenging hides, puzzles, etc. I know of a cacher who loves challenging puzzles and hides nice creative caches. While I don't understand why he hides fun caches but gives favorite points to challenging puzzle unfun caches, every cacher has their own viewpoint on favorites.

 

Don't you rather think that the gist of your observed different behaviour is that fun cache means something different for everyone?

 

I've hidden caches that are enjoyed by the target audience for which I have hidden them while my personal favourites are hiking multi caches which let me get away from the stress of the daily life (I have also hidden such caches, but my most popular ones are of the other type). I did not hide them to get many FPs - when I hid them FPs have not been known at all. I set up these caches because I thought that they could be interesting for the target group and that turned out to be true.

 

I'm saying there should be a limit on these because some people like to hide fun caches and if theres no where to put them then it doesn't get put out.

 

It seems hardly imaginable to me that there is a larger area that is uniquely satured by extrenely difficult caches. It's not so easy to mass hide those.

 

As fun is regarded, that's very subjective. Someone who enjoys tree climbing, regards it fun. For me of course it's horrible. The tree climbing caches I know are hidden because the cache hiders enjoy tree climbing.

Some cachers like ingenious hideouts and regard searching for them (not for needle in a haystack ones) as fun. I hate searching.

Some enjoy challenging puzzles while those who try to solve them just to find the final and hate such puzzles will not regard them as fun. Etc

[RuideAlmeida]

Everybody knows owners that hide caches "just for the numbers", which is not the same than low quality caches... it depends greatly from the location.

I don't like powertrails, so I would prefer to have one cache in the end of everyone of them, and I guess that most of us would search for that single cache the same way.

 

What I can't understand is how would be possible to raise the quality of the caches in a certain area, if there are any limit per owner.

 

How would assure the "higher quality" of the next caches?

 

How can we limit a group of owners working together?

 

The reviewers should evaluate the "quality" of any new caches?

[+L0ne.R]

 

What I can't understand is how would be possible to raise the quality of the caches in a certain area, if there are any limit per owner.

 

 

It gives other people a chance to hide a cache, and hopefully other people could potentially hide a good one.

It gives those who would like to hide just a few caches a chance to become COs.

 

A variety of owners. A variety of cache styles. A chance that in the mix will be a few owners who care about providing an all-round quality experience; not just a few carpet bombers who care more about land acquisition.

[+cerberus1]

 

What I can't understand is how would be possible to raise the quality of the caches in a certain area, if there are any limit per owner.

 

It gives other people a chance to hide a cache, and hopefully other people could potentially hide a good one.

It gives those who would like to hide just a few caches a chance to become COs.

 

A variety of owners. A variety of cache styles. A chance that in the mix will be a few owners who care about providing an all-round quality experience; not just a few carpet bombers who care more about land acquisition.

Chance. Hopefully. Potentially.

 

Remembered two new cachers (in forums) say they wanted to place their first hide (and how to go about it).

One wanted to place a nano, the other thought that an altoids tin was a quality container (and placed it).

Just two examples, and I don't see how just leaving an area open to others would create a "quality" cache experience.

[TahoeJoe]

 

What I can't understand is how would be possible to raise the quality of the caches in a certain area, if there are any limit per owner.

 

It gives other people a chance to hide a cache, and hopefully other people could potentially hide a good one.

It gives those who would like to hide just a few caches a chance to become COs.

 

A variety of owners. A variety of cache styles. A chance that in the mix will be a few owners who care about providing an all-round quality experience; not just a few carpet bombers who care more about land acquisition.

Chance. Hopefully. Potentially.

 

Remembered two new cachers (in forums) say they wanted to place their first hide (and how to go about it).

One wanted to place a nano, the other thought that an altoids tin was a quality container (and placed it).

Just two examples, and I don't see how just leaving an area open to others would create a "quality" cache experience.

As part of the approval process, a photo of the location and cache container wouldn't hurt. It would probably even help some new members with feedback and create more work for serial cachers. Photos might even make the approval process a little easier.

[+cerberus1]

 

What I can't understand is how would be possible to raise the quality of the caches in a certain area, if there are any limit per owner.

 

It gives other people a chance to hide a cache, and hopefully other people could potentially hide a good one.

It gives those who would like to hide just a few caches a chance to become COs.

 

A variety of owners. A variety of cache styles. A chance that in the mix will be a few owners who care about providing an all-round quality experience; not just a few carpet bombers who care more about land acquisition.

Chance. Hopefully. Potentially.

 

Remembered two new cachers (in forums) say they wanted to place their first hide (and how to go about it).

One wanted to place a nano, the other thought that an altoids tin was a quality container (and placed it).

Just two examples, and I don't see how just leaving an area open to others would create a "quality" cache experience.

As part of the approval process, a photo of the location and cache container wouldn't hurt. It would probably even help some new members with feedback and create more work for serial cachers. Photos might even make the approval process a little easier.

By requiring a pic of the cache before it's published, the Reviewer would now be in the uncomfortable position of defining what is an acceptable container.

- Ain't gonna happen.

[cezanne]

By requiring a pic of the cache before it's published, the Reviewer would now be in the uncomfortable position of defining what is an acceptable container.

- Ain't gonna happen.

 

Yes, it won't happen and it would not help Lone.R.

 

Most pet preforms I found were in good condition and tight. Yet I do not think that's the container Lone.R likes to see - at least not the size which is typically used around here and pretty much became the standard container of many cache hiders (but not so much due to the involved cost but rather because they are easy to hide and because so many cachers do not care at all about swag and trackables).

[+dprovan]

It gives other people a chance to hide a cache, and hopefully other people could potentially hide a good one.

It gives those who would like to hide just a few caches a chance to become COs.

A variety of owners. A variety of cache styles. A chance that in the mix will be a few owners who care about providing an all-round quality experience; not just a few carpet bombers who care more about land acquisition.

In my area, the most experienced hiders consistently hide the best caches. They know which containers work, they see ways to hide a cache that make the cache easy to miss, and they innovate the most. The bad, boring, unmaintained caches come from the new hiders, although, thanks to the high standards in my area, most newbies actually plant reasonably good caches, too, just rarely in the same class as the experienced hiders.

 

Although to be honest, I'm having a hard time imagining the problem here: geocaching is very popular in the San Francisco area where I live, but there's still plenty of room everywhere for more caches.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Just two examples, and I don't see how just leaving an area open to others would create a "quality" cache experience.

 

Leaving an area open to others doesn't ensure that a "quality" cache will be placed in that area. However, saturating an area guarantees that a new, "quality" cache can not be placed in the area. It also means that someone wishing to find caches in an area will only be able to find caches of a type that the person saturating the area wants to place.

 

 

[+L0ne.R]

1468494407[/url]' post='5596703']

1468465705[/url]' post='5596651']

Just two examples, and I don't see how just leaving an area open to others would create a "quality" cache experience.

 

Leaving an area open to others doesn't ensure that a "quality" cache will be placed in that area. However, saturating an area guarantees that a new, "quality" cache can not be placed in the area. It also means that someone wishing to find caches in an area will only be able to find caches of a type that the person saturating the area wants to place.

 

 

 

This^^

[+dprovan]

It also means that someone wishing to find caches in an area will only be able to find caches of a type that the person saturating the area wants to place.

I guess it must vary according to the local culture. New hiders in my area hide one of two types of caches. Some hide the same kind of cache that they've seen elsewhere in the area, just what you're saying you don't want. But others "innovate" by doing something they've never seen before, and, invariably, the reasons they've never seen it before because the experienced hiders know why it doesn't work.

 

On the other hand, the local prolific hiders use their experience with past hides to do what works, including things that stretch the envelop in ways it can be stretched. They know what makes a cache maintainable, so there are fewer maintenance issues. And they're often the cachers that travel the most, so they get more good ideas from other places and bring them back home to their own hides.

 

Don't get me wrong: I'm always thrilled to see a new hider try their hand -- and, as I've mentioned, I've never seen them have any trouble finding a place -- but I rarely see the new hiders hiding caches that are superior to the COs that already have lots of caches out. On the other hand, I do notice that new hiders get better and better as they get more experience hiding.

 

So it comes back to the point I've been making all along: if the problem is someone carpet bombing an area with poor caches, then complain about the poor caches, don't complain about how many caches they've put out. Otherwise you're presuming any other cache will be better than any cache a prolific hider puts out, and not only does that not logically follow, it's specifically wrong in my experience.

[+L0ne.R]

 

So it comes back to the point I've been making all along: if the problem is someone carpet bombing an area with poor caches, then complain about the poor caches, don't complain about how many caches they've put out. Otherwise you're presuming any other cache will be better than any cache a prolific hider puts out, and not only does that not logically follow, it's specifically wrong in my experience.

 

So we should email the CO and let them know their caches are poor quality and we would like them to hide better quality containers and to please stop carpet bombing areas?

[+sholomar]

I haven't logged in for quite a while but the biggest power hider by far lives in my area of eastern South Dakota and I see they're still at it. I don't know how one can keep track of 9000+ hides but more power to them. Yes I don't particularly think it helps the hobby but I don't want to get into a turf war or have any bad feelings either. Better than having no caches to look for I suppose. My solution is to filter out micros which basically filters out 90-95% of his hides.

Edited July 14, 2016 by sholomar

[+dprovan]

So it comes back to the point I've been making all along: if the problem is someone carpet bombing an area with poor caches, then complain about the poor caches, don't complain about how many caches they've put out. Otherwise you're presuming any other cache will be better than any cache a prolific hider puts out, and not only does that not logically follow, it's specifically wrong in my experience.

So we should email the CO and let them know their caches are poor quality and we would like them to hide better quality containers and to please stop carpet bombing areas?

Yes, sure, and you can complain about the poor quality in logs, assuming you decide to look for them. You can talk to to the COs about it at events where you can even make a specific point that the least they could do is leave room for good caches. (Make sure to also praise and encourage any COs planting good caches, regardless of how many.) And you create threads here complaining about the quality in your area, even naming names for all I care. Anything you like.

 

I mainly just want to make sure you don't push for a new guideline which, in my area at least, would do nothing except reduce the number of quality of caches.

[+cleandrysurface]

Sorry, did I miss something? Where is this place(s) that is so saturated that it is impossible to hide one more cache?

[+cleandrysurface]

So it comes back to the point I've been making all along: if the problem is someone carpet bombing an area with poor caches, then complain about the poor caches, don't complain about how many caches they've put out. Otherwise you're presuming any other cache will be better than any cache a prolific hider puts out, and not only does that not logically follow, it's specifically wrong in my experience.

So we should email the CO and let them know their caches are poor quality and we would like them to hide better quality containers and to please stop carpet bombing areas?

Yes, sure, and you can complain about the poor quality in logs, assuming you decide to look for them. You can talk to to the COs about it at events where you can even make a specific point that the least they could do is leave room for good caches. (Make sure to also praise and encourage any COs planting good caches, regardless of how many.) And you create threads here complaining about the quality in your area, even naming names for all I care. Anything you like.

 

I mainly just want to make sure you don't push for a new guideline which, in my area at least, would do nothing except reduce the number of quality of caches.

 

If you want something done right, then do it yourself. Go hide more quality caches.

[+L0ne.R]

So it comes back to the point I've been making all along: if the problem is someone carpet bombing an area with poor caches, then complain about the poor caches, don't complain about how many caches they've put out. Otherwise you're presuming any other cache will be better than any cache a prolific hider puts out, and not only does that not logically follow, it's specifically wrong in my experience.

So we should email the CO and let them know their caches are poor quality and we would like them to hide better quality containers and to please stop carpet bombing areas?

Yes, sure, and you can complain about the poor quality in logs, assuming you decide to look for them. You can talk to to the COs about it at events where you can even make a specific point that the least they could do is leave room for good caches. (Make sure to also praise and encourage any COs planting good caches, regardless of how many.) And you create threads here complaining about the quality in your area, even naming names for all I care. Anything you like.

 

I mainly just want to make sure you don't push for a new guideline which, in my area at least, would do nothing except reduce the number of quality of caches.

 

If you want something done right, then do it yourself. Go hide more quality caches.

 

Yes, please do hide quality, but don't hide more then you can handle so that those quality caches don't end up as junk.

 

The OP wants to hide quality but doesn't want it swallowed up by the carpet bombers. Rather then jumping through hoops and finagling to protect her caches from carpet bombers (hide a multi with tags, in a park that isn't already carpet bombed), she has decided not to bother hiding a cache. It's a shame. The carpet bombers win.

 

By the way, quality hides rarely give rise to more quality hides or deter carpet bombing or hoarding of trails and parks.

 

For-the-numbers mentality triggers more for-the-numbers mentality. Look at how the game has progressed. More micros where swag size will fit, more and more power trails, more and more owners with over 100 hides, an increasing number of abandoned caches, no comments in the paper logbooks - just dates and trailnames - dates are starting to disappear too, fewer and fewer logbooks - mostly moldy logsheets in caches of all sizes.

 

The only people who can put a dent in the proliferation of junk and hoarding is Groundspeak.

Edited July 18, 2016 by L0ne.R

[+dprovan]

By the way, quality hides rarely give rise to more quality hides or deter carpet bombing or hoarding of trails and parks.

I don't know what makes you feel confident to state that so categorically, but in my area there's a culture of quality hides. That means that the previously hidden quality caches give rise to new caches which are also mostly quality hides. Perhaps you're claiming you can't change a local culture from trash to quality by hiding quality caches. I don't personally think that's true, but it's undeniably true that if no one ever hides quality caches, then you'll never find out whether whether quality begets quality.

 

For-the-numbers mentality triggers more for-the-numbers mentality. Look at how the game has progressed. More micros where swag size will fit, more and more power trails, more and more owners with over 100 hides, an increasing number of abandoned caches, no comments in the paper logbooks - just dates and trailnames - dates are starting to disappear too, fewer and fewer logbooks - mostly moldy logsheets in caches of all sizes.

In my area, there isn't an increasing number of abandoned caches, and most logsheets are in good condition. Other than that, I can't deny anything in your list here except that I claim it has nothing to do with a for-the-numbers mentality. These changes have happened to the game because it has become a game in itself, divorced from its roots as an add-on to hiking. Thus it has become much more popular, and there are a lot more places deemed suitable, hence a lot more caches to find, and a vastly reduced emphasis on swag and writing in physical logs. These changes caused many more cachers to have high numbers, not vice versa.

Edited July 18, 2016 by dprovan

[+narcissa]

By the way, quality hides rarely give rise to more quality hides or deter carpet bombing or hoarding of trails and parks.

I don't know what makes you feel confident to state that so categorically, but in my area there's a culture of quality hides. That means that the previously hidden quality caches give rise to new caches which are also mostly quality hides. Perhaps you're claiming you can't change a local culture from trash to quality by hiding quality caches. I don't personally think that's true, but it's undeniably true that if no one ever hides quality caches, then you'll never find out whether whether quality begets quality.

 

For-the-numbers mentality triggers more for-the-numbers mentality. Look at how the game has progressed. More micros where swag size will fit, more and more power trails, more and more owners with over 100 hides, an increasing number of abandoned caches, no comments in the paper logbooks - just dates and trailnames - dates are starting to disappear too, fewer and fewer logbooks - mostly moldy logsheets in caches of all sizes.

In my area, there isn't an increasing number of abandoned caches, and most logsheets are in good condition. Other than that, I can't deny anything in your list here except that I claim it has nothing to do with a for-the-numbers mentality. These changes have happened to the game because it has become a game in itself, divorced from its roots as an add-on to hiking. Thus it has become much more popular, and there are a lot more places deemed suitable, hence a lot more caches to find, and a vastly reduced emphasis on swag and writing in physical logs. These changes caused many more cachers to have high numbers, not vice versa.

 

In general, I find that the poor quality caches are hidden in places that I'm not keen on visiting anyway. While they certainly outnumber good quality caches, the volume of good caches has also increased over time and I am never at a loss for an adventure within an easy drive of home.

 

It may be a little harder to filter for good caches, but that's always been a bit of a shortcoming and I don't really expect Groundspeak to spend their time trying to build algorithms around my personal tastes and habits. At a certain point I do have some level of responsibility for being aware of what I'm searching for, and going into it with a positive attitude so the experience isn't totally spoiled just because the last cacher didn't put the lid on well enough or because the swag isn't something that was on my personal shopping list.

 

Geocaching continues to be what we make of it and there is room for different variations. It can be a little disappointing to see an area taken over by poor quality caches, but in my experience, those caches eventually go away.