Jump to content

What makes a Quality Cache?


Recommended Posts

With all of the talk about the crappy, unmaintained, or boring caches and how to get rid of or discourage them, I thought I'd start a topic about what makes a cache good. Now this is highly subjective, so there's no wrong answers. I'm looking for two things mainly.

 

1. What is considered necessary to make a quality cache (i.e. containers, contents, any other specifics about the quality)

2. What makes a cache "good" or rewarding. I expect to get a wide range of answers here but things to consider (location, difficulty, cleverness, etc).

 

I think I get just as much if not more enjoyment placing caches as I do looking for them. I enjoy a wide variety of caches, everything from PNG's to bushwacking into the woods. I have kids that tag along so I look for shorter hikes generally speaking.

 

In any case, Let's talk about the positive aspects of caches. I'm looking forward to the answers as I work towards placing my first small series of caches with a bonus puzzle cache. I want to keep them all in my town but want all 6 of them to be different but of good quality.

 

Fire away! And keep the cache bashing out of the discussion, we've all heard about throw downs, power trails, missing CO's, etc etc. I want to talk about the good stuff.

Link to comment

A generous quality cache takes the majority of cachers into consideration.

  • Swag size. Appeals to everyone, even the people who just want a bit of paper to sign (they get there bit of paper and those who like trackables and swag get their bit of fun too).
  • Watertight container. No point being swag size if the contents don't have a chance against the elements
  • Well-maintained. The cache owner checks about once a year to be sure everything is still in good shape. Too often people don't report issues like - damp moldy log, tab missing from lid, full log, bubble liquid damage, candy damage
  • Proper size listing. A small (100ml capacity) holds a small logbook, small pencil and a trackable or two, and won't have a narrow neck that a geocoin can't pass through
  • Proper terrain rating. Some of us have mobility issues and rely on the D/T chart definitions supplied by Groundspeak
  • Pleasant location. Doesn't have to be amazing, just a nice spot that you'd like to bring people to.
  • Nice touches: a pencil/pen in the cache, a logbook not sheet

Link to comment

This is going to be a can of worms :lol:

 

What we like as "quality caches":

 

  • Multi, at least 10 Km, trails in the woods or farmland, not to easy WPs (well hidden, coded or other puzzle). Takes most of a day. Food/drink along the way to have break, sanitary stop, icecream in summer, pancakes/waffles in winter.
     
  • Multi, in a city along "hidden gems", again not to easy WPs (well hidden, coded or other puzzle). Takes most of a day. Food/drink along the way, but that's no problem in a city
     
  • Traditional, series of traditionals with unique containers special mechanisms, codes... not just grab and log.
     
  • Traditional, Containers with a twist, field puzzle...
     
  • Mysteries, Some homework to be done (research/calculations) and not ending in a micro behind an utility pole
     

 

Sometimes we prefer the walk/bikeride over the containers if the area appeals to us sometimes it's all about the mission to get to the final coordinates.

Link to comment

Location is #1. If I can see pavement, it's not a good cache in my opinion. I want a hike in a nice area.

+1

 

For me, the container is secondary to location.

I'm no longer bothered by mediocre containers, as long as I'm visiting a unique area, or awesome view. :)

 

We used to have a smaller map on cache pages, which did little for me, since the first thing I look for is green, and no roads.

Link to comment

A generous quality cache takes the majority of cachers into consideration.

 

I do not agree. Most of my favourite caches appeal to minorities (e.g. several hours of hiking involved while the majority of cachers wants something else).

 

As the question of the OP is regarded, personally I do not like the quality notion too much when being used for geocaches. As the personal preferences are regarded what makes a cache particularly enjoyful for me I'd list some of the things that have been mentioned by others while some of the things others mentioned rather contribute to that I do not enjoy a cache as much as possible.

 

My favourite caches are longer multi caches (10km or more) in a forest or mountain area with virtual stages as waypoints and easy questions that do not distract from the hike and the nature - it's mainly about the hike/bicycle ride for me -

a nice route can compensate for a leaking container, the nicest container in the world cannot compensate for a quasi drive or a boring area.

 

I'm not really a fan of urban caching, but again multi caches are my favourites which show me something interesting I have not noticed before and which can be found without major muggle issues.

 

I do not care much about the container but prefer caches of size at least small with a proper log book and not much swag or no swag at all as they are the easiest to handle for me (in particular at locations which are hard to reach for me where it is akward to drop something from the container or to make everything inside the cache very dirty).

 

I do not care at all about options for buying food/beverages along the way except when it comes to the exceptional case of multi day hikes.

 

My life offers me challenges enough - I have no interest into devilish hides, creative containers that require patience for opening them and puzzles that are difficult for me (I typically just do those which are easy for me - some of them can of course be hard for others).

 

I appreciate if the cache description is specifically written for the cache at hand and not copied from other caches (like it is the case for many caches series where neither the logs nor the description are adapted to the individual case and it is only about getting many finds for what is a single experience to me).

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment
A generous quality cache takes the majority of cachers into consideration.

 

Just like Elvis, the old values cachers used to place on quality (good location, nice size, creative, dry container, interesting, maybe something different and/or challenging) have left the building. Of course there are some of us left but for the majority these days, quality means most anything that's easy to find and log. So in essence, i guess you could say that most caches placed today are of good quality since they are what the majority want. :blink:

 

For me, at least one of the old values mentioned in my sentence above makes for a decent cache. It's even better when a cache incorporates more than one.

Link to comment

I agree with location. Start with a pleasant location. Add a quality container. Maintain the cache. You have a winning all-round geocaching experience that more people can enjoy.

 

Include an swag size cache (small to large, where small is actually 100ml- 1L in capacity and can fit a log and a trackable or two). Then everyone gets to enjoy that experience, not just the people who satisfied with a bit of paper to sign.

 

 

 

Edited by L0ne.R
Link to comment

I'm looking forward to the answers as I work towards placing my first small series of caches with a bonus puzzle cache. I want to keep them all in my town but want all 6 of them to be different but of good quality.

 

In terms of series caches, I like them to be on the short side, under 10 in a series, so 6 is good.

I'd like to be able to do them all in one outing without taking up a whole day to do one series.

And some fairly easy D/T ratings so there's a good chance I can find them all.

Easy math. Some series require collecting the numbers then doing some math. I'm bad at getting the math right the first time. Easy math is appreciated, where it's fairly obvious I got the correct answer. (Maybe a checksum, if needed).

I'd like each container to be swag size, no micros (log-only). I like to leave, collect and discover signature items and trackables. A series of caches with the potential to discover interesting stuff would be nice.

I filter out micros. A micro series with a swag size container at the end would not be something I would search for.

I just did a series where the owner put the clue in marker on the inside of the lid, on the bottom of the outside of the container and in the logbook. That way if any of the markings deteriorates there will likely be a backup.

Edited by L0ne.R
Link to comment
1. What is considered necessary to make a quality cache (i.e. containers, contents, any other specifics about the quality)
As far as the container goes, the main thing is that it needs to protect its contents. At the very least, it needs to protect the log.

 

I enjoy leaving, trading for, and collecting personal signature items. I also enjoy moving trackables. But container size and contents are independent of container quality. A quality container of any size that protects its contents is better than a larger (or smaller) container that doesn't protect its contents.

 

2. What makes a cache "good" or rewarding. I expect to get a wide range of answers here but things to consider (location, difficulty, cleverness, etc).
A lot of my Favorites are puzzles, so I suppose I'll start there. IMHO, a good puzzle is challenging but fair. There are no needles in mental haystacks and there is no "What have I got in my pocket?" mind-reading involved. I especially enjoy field puzzles, especially multi-stage field puzzles, but durability is critical for field puzzles.

 

I also enjoy caches that show me something interesting. That could be historical locations, public art, scenic views, cleverly camouflaged hidden-in-plain-sight containers, or something else entirely. Multi-stage caches can multiply this, for example, a multi-cache that offers a walking tour of some historic downtown, or a multi-cache that features an assortment of public art.

Link to comment

I agree with Narcissa that quality is personal - if you hide the type of caches you like to find, your cache will have the quality you want.

 

But with that said, for me the starting point is location. Give me some reason to go there. It could be a nice trail, a site with historical interest, a photo op, a work of art or something unusual. If you can't think of a reason to bring me there, I can't think of any reason to look for a container. For some caches, the location is enough to get it on my favorites list.

 

As a result, I look for a title or a cache description that will make me interested. I remember when a friend emailed me a cache description that stated (in its entirety) that there was a lack of caches in the area so he decided to place one (in a parking lot). I have never gotten around to going there. Sometimes a title alone will be enough to make it a quality cache.

 

The container also matters. A thin plastic food container that will crack or leak, with a single sheet of paper torn from something else, will not impress me. A nano hidden in an area that would easily support an ammo can makes me wonder "why." Give some thought to the container and its contents.

 

The caches I remember the best are those that make me smile. One cacher in my area - who is no longer active - would place caches with entertaining descriptions and themed containers. I knew I would be smiling at the end. Some of my caches have included a parking meter in the middle of the woods; a pirate cache filled with genuine pirate stuff, a cache telling the local legend of a lost treasure rumored to have been left by an "old confederate woodcutter" includes fake confederate money. I have sometimes left themed geocoins with the request (so far honored) that they not be moved. Those are the type of caches I like to find.

 

With a series, such as the OP contemplates, there is an opportunity to develop a story or a consistent theme at each step and for the final to be special in some way. I have found some with unique stories, a themed container, themed items. These stand out.

 

Nefertiti's Pyramid comes to mind for being a series that is far more creative than I could have accomplished. That is as good of a measure as any. I am probably going to lose my interest if each stage requires a search for a needle in the haystack nano or if the series is more micro that gives the opportunity to find one more micro.

 

But again, hide what you like to find. A friend has a penchant for puzzles and micros placed high in trees. I don't share either interest and ignore most of his hides. But I still consider them to be quality.

Edited by geodarts
Link to comment

I agree with Narcissa that quality is personal - if you hide the type of caches you like to find, your cache will have the quality you want.

 

But with that said, for me the starting point is location. Give me some reason to go there. It could be a nice trail, a site with historical interest, a photo op, a work of art or something unusual. If you can't think of a reason to bring me there, I can't think of any reason to look for a container.

 

As a result, I look for a title or a cache description that will make me interested. I remember when a friend emailed me a cache description that stated (in its entirety) that there was a lack of caches in the area so he decided to place one (in a parking lot). I have never gotten around to going there. Sometimes a title alone will be enough to make it a quality cache.

 

The container also matters. A thin plastic food container that will crack or leak, with a single sheet of paper torn from something else, will not impress me. A nano hidden in an area that would easily support a larger container makes me wonder "why." Give some thought to the container and its contents.

 

The caches I remember the best are those that make me smile. One cacher in my area - who is no longer active - would place caches with entertaining descriptions and themed containers. I knew I would be smiling at the end. Some of my caches have included a parking meter in the middle of the woods; a pirate cache filled with genuine pirate stuff, a cache telling the story of a lost treasure rumored to have been left by an "old confederate woodcutter" includes fake confederate money. I have sometimes left themed geocoins with the request (so far honored) that they not be moved. Those are the type of caches I like to find.

 

With a series, such as the OP contemplates, there is an opportunity to develop a story or a consistent theme at each step and for the final to be special in some way. I have found some with unique stories, a themed container, themed items. These stand out. I am probably going to lose my interest if each stage requires a search for a needle in the haystack nano or if the series is more micro that gives the opportunity to find one more micro.

 

But again, hide what you like to find. A friend has a penchant for puzzles and micros placed high in trees. I don't share either interest and ignore most of his hides. But I still consider them to be quality.

 

that's really good info/advice.

Link to comment

1. What is considered necessary to make a quality cache (i.e. containers, contents, any other specifics about the quality)

I can't say what "is considered" necessary, I can only say what I think is necessary. And what I think is necessary is that the cache I find is in the same condition as the cache the CO hid. In other words, neither the container nor its contents should decay over time except to the degree it matches the CO's maintenance schedule.

 

Size and contents don't matter to me.

 

2. What makes a cache "good" or rewarding. I expect to get a wide range of answers here but things to consider (location, difficulty, cleverness, etc).

What makes a cache rewarding is mostly what I put into finding it. I consider it my responsibility to make the journey special, not the CO's. A interesting location can make that easier, of course, but unlike most people, I don't consider it a requirement for declaring a cache "good". On the other hand, while I don't mind boring, a location that's dangerous, annoying, or gross does normally make a cache bad.

 

And while I appreciate and enjoy difficult hides and would never want to discourage them, I personally consider high difficulty something of a negative for my purposes.

 

"Cleverness"? Interesting idea. Yes, I have to admit, a clever cache -- as distinct from a difficult cache -- is nearly always good.

Link to comment

These are great answers! I don't feel the topic opens a can of worms at all as somebody mentioned. So I asked the questions, so I should now give my answers.

 

In terms of quality, I agree that the container should hold up against the elements. A decent sized log that I can fit my name and date on is a must. Its nice to see swag and my kids look forward to it but its not a requirement for quality. I think that maintenance is a must for a cache to continue its level of quality.

 

I enjoy many types of caches, but my favorite ones show me something new. It could be a new place I've never been, something interesting to learn, or just a new story. Interesting containers are always fun unless they aren't keeping the log dry. I also like series caches, and am gaining interest in puzzles.

 

Pardon any typos, I am on my kindle.

Link to comment
I agree with Narcissa that quality is personal - if you hide the type of caches you like to find, your cache will have the quality you want.

 

Yes, quality is personal. And i do agree that a person should hide what they enjoy. Unfortunately, there are many caches placed, power trails for instance, that a lot of people enjoy these days. These represent quality caches for the people placing but for some of us, they're not worth a hoot.

 

Yep, quality is in the eyes of the beholder!

Link to comment

I'm looking forward to the answers as I work towards placing my first small series of caches with a bonus puzzle cache. I want to keep them all in my town but want all 6 of them to be different but of good quality.

 

In terms of series caches, I like them to be on the short side, under 10 in a series, so 6 is good.

I'd like to be able to do them all in one outing without taking up a whole day to do one series.

 

Since cachers are very different when it comes to their preferences, I think that the only advice to the OP can be to use his own judgement (this advice has been given before).

 

Personally, I do not like series that are set up to be done on one day as those are better off as multi caches when it comes to my preferences. If series at all, then the caches should be spread over a larger area not convenient for a multi cache and have a common theme. I have an aversion against geoart and series which are just a series to draw a picture on the map.

 

While I do not always have a full day for caching, I ususally go caching only if I want to spend a couple of hours and then I prefer to spend them for the smallest number of caches possible that keep me busy for that time period: just one multi cache being the optimal solution for me.

 

I do not mind doing calculations for obtaining coordinates and I prefer this by far to looking for containers or other hidden things that contain parts of the coordinates. I simply do not like searching.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

Location and the willingness of the CO to actually own and maintain what they've placed.

 

What I see often are film cans or equivalent in nice places, dropped along a hike, "while I was here".

 

 

My hope for hiders on seeing a good spot for a cache is that they see it, take some coords, think about it, and RETURN later with a good quality container. The willingness to make two trips to place tells the future story of maintenance.

 

I'm not anti micro in the woods, a couple of my favorite hiders use micros, and I've got some. I'm anti, "quick drop of whatever I'm carrying" ... and I ain't never coming back....

Link to comment

For me, location is first, with daylight second.

 

I'd much rather find a MKH on a guardrail at a fabulous location than an ammo can at some random point in a forest which looks like every other bit of the forest. Of course, an ammo can at a great location would be best.

 

I have given a lot of FPs to caches where the container was nothing to write home about but the cache showed me something I would otherwise have missed.

 

Cezanne and I must be polar opposites, I don't hike long distances, I don't ride a bike and I'm not a fan of multis, but we must both enjoy the game in our own way. Which is the good thing about the game.

Link to comment

 

I'd much rather find a MKH on a guardrail at a fabulous location than an ammo can at some random point in a forest which looks like every other bit of the forest. Of course, an ammo can at a great location would be best.

 

Cezanne and I must be polar opposites,.

 

Yes, we are opposites in many regards. For example, I do not mind (and in many cases even prefer) if the final of a multi cache is hidden at some not very special point which makes it easier to search there and reduces the chance that the cache gets found by chance - what's important for me is that the route of the multi and some locations on the way are nice. The final for me is just the way to log my experiences.

 

I have no interest at all at a very nice container at a very nice location if there is no sufficiently appealing way to the cache location other than driving a car.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

Location and the willingness of the CO to actually own and maintain what they've placed.

 

What I see often are film cans or equivalent in nice places, dropped along a hike, "while I was here".

 

My hope for hiders on seeing a good spot for a cache is that they see it, take some coords, think about it, and RETURN later with a good quality container. The willingness to make two trips to place tells the future story of maintenance.

 

I'm not anti micro in the woods, a couple of my favorite hiders use micros, and I've got some. I'm anti, "quick drop of whatever I'm carrying" ... and I ain't never coming back....

 

This ^^

 

"The willingness to make two trips to place tells the future story of maintenance."

Link to comment

I'm looking forward to the answers as I work towards placing my first small series of caches with a bonus puzzle cache. I want to keep them all in my town but want all 6 of them to be different but of good quality.

 

In terms of series caches, I like them to be on the short side, under 10 in a series, so 6 is good.

I'd like to be able to do them all in one outing without taking up a whole day to do one series.

 

Since cachers are very different when it comes to their preferences, I think that the only advice to the OP can be to use his own judgement (this advice has been given before).

 

Personally, I do not like series that are set up to be done on one day as those are better off as multi caches when it comes to my preferences. If series at all, then the caches should be spread over a larger area not convenient for a multi cache and have a common theme. I have an aversion against geoart and series which are just a series to draw a picture on the map.

 

While I do not always have a full day for caching, I ususally go caching only if I want to spend a couple of hours and then I prefer to spend them for the smallest number of caches possible that keep me busy for that time period: just one multi cache being the optimal solution for me.

 

I do not mind doing calculations for obtaining coordinates and I prefer this by far to looking for containers or other hidden things that contain parts of the coordinates. I simply do not like searching.

 

My intentions of this post weren't so much advice on what I should do although I do appreciate everything mentioned thus far. I also agree that you should hide what you enjoy, but in terms of quality I feel there's no excuse for placing a crappy container (be it power trail or 6 mile hike to the top of Mt. Washington). I've found some "great" caches, that ended up also disappointing me. I put the quotes on great because something about the journey or destination was very enjoyable but the cache itself was either soggy, or moldy, or otherwise not maintained.

The biggest bummer about that is that nobody else willing to maintain their hides can place a cache there because one already exists, possibly from a CO that's gone MIA.

Edited by JeepFreak81
Link to comment

Location and the willingness of the CO to actually own and maintain what they've placed.

 

What I see often are film cans or equivalent in nice places, dropped along a hike, "while I was here".

 

My hope for hiders on seeing a good spot for a cache is that they see it, take some coords, think about it, and RETURN later with a good quality container. The willingness to make two trips to place tells the future story of maintenance.

 

I'm not anti micro in the woods, a couple of my favorite hiders use micros, and I've got some. I'm anti, "quick drop of whatever I'm carrying" ... and I ain't never coming back....

 

This ^^

 

"The willingness to make two trips to place tells the future story of maintenance."

 

I agree with this as well to some extent. All of my hides took at least 2 trips to be placed. I might contest the idea if it's a long hike that was carefully planned and prepared for. No need to turn around and do it again right away, save it for a maintenance trip.

Link to comment

I also agree that you should hide what you enjoy, but in terms of quality I feel there's no excuse for placing a crappy container (be it power trail or 6 mile hike to the top of Mt. Washington).

 

Actually, I have not found many mountain caches that were crappy right from the beginning. Sometimes a cache container turns out to be not as suited as one might believe initially. For example, when I started to geocache the most typically used plastic containers later almost all turned out to be not ideally suited but we did not know that beforehand.

 

Moreover, sometimes caches get wet inside because someone is not closing the container properly or caches in the rain and so the water gets into the container - that can happen also for ammo cans and high quality lock and lock containers.

 

 

 

I've found some "great" caches, that ended up also disappointing me. I put the quotes on great because something about the journey or destination was very enjoyable but the cache itself was either soggy, or moldy, or otherwise not maintained.

 

If it is just a soggy cache, I do not end up disappointed.

 

The biggest bummer about that is that nobody else willing to maintain there hides can place a cache there because there exists one already, possibly from a CO that's gone MIA.

 

If the cache owner is not reachable any longer, then there is an easy mechanism to get the cache archived. However in my experience it almost never happens that at nice places that are more remote a new cache is hidden and if one is hidden it is one which is less enjoyable to me than the old one even taking into account the unmaintained container - that's the sad part of the story.

Link to comment

... in terms of quality I feel there's no excuse for placing a crappy container (be it power trail or 6 mile hike to the top of Mt. Washington). I've found some "great" caches, that ended up also disappointing me. I put the quotes on great because something about the journey or destination was very enjoyable but the cache itself was either soggy, or moldy, or otherwise not maintained.

The biggest bummer about that is that nobody else willing to maintain there hides can place a cache there because there exists one already, possibly from a CO that's gone MIA.

 

I completely agree. Many a nice location has been spoiled by the presence of a moldy, wet, abandoned cache. It doesn't enhance the experience. It detracts.

Link to comment

... in terms of quality I feel there's no excuse for placing a crappy container (be it power trail or 6 mile hike to the top of Mt. Washington). I've found some "great" caches, that ended up also disappointing me. I put the quotes on great because something about the journey or destination was very enjoyable but the cache itself was either soggy, or moldy, or otherwise not maintained.

The biggest bummer about that is that nobody else willing to maintain there hides can place a cache there because there exists one already, possibly from a CO that's gone MIA.

 

I completely agree. Many a nice location has been spoiled by the presence of a moldy, wet, abandoned cache. It doesn't enhance the experience. It detracts.

 

Yes, those mountaintops are utterly and irreparably ruined by a wet logbook.

Link to comment

... in terms of quality I feel there's no excuse for placing a crappy container (be it power trail or 6 mile hike to the top of Mt. Washington). I've found some "great" caches, that ended up also disappointing me. I put the quotes on great because something about the journey or destination was very enjoyable but the cache itself was either soggy, or moldy, or otherwise not maintained.

The biggest bummer about that is that nobody else willing to maintain there hides can place a cache there because there exists one already, possibly from a CO that's gone MIA.

 

I completely agree. Many a nice location has been spoiled by the presence of a moldy, wet, abandoned cache. It doesn't enhance the experience. It detracts.

 

Yes, those mountaintops are utterly and irreparably ruined by a wet logbook.

 

Not ruined. But which do you think the majority of geocachers would find to be a better experience?

 

Getting to the mountaintop to find an ammo can in great shape with a dry logbook (the owner visits the cache periodically to check the condition), or getting to the mountaintop to find a rusted full of holes ammo can with a moldy damp logbook that has been chewed on by rodents (the owner placed a battered ammo can to begin with and has never been back to check despite the numerous logs about the deterioration of the cache).

 

Getting to the mountaintop to find an authentic Pelican™ box with a dry logbook and room for swag - a geocoin left by the owner, or finding a button nano with a wet moldy tiny scroll on the nearby sign?

 

Getting to the mountaintop to find an authentic well maintained Lock & Lock™ or no cache at all because the cache owner's friend dropped off a gladware container and took one reading of coordinates while using his phone, and no one has been able to locate it in 3 years (if it's even there anymore).

Edited by L0ne.R
Link to comment

Not ruined. But which do you think the majority of geocachers would find to be a better experience?

 

Your examples however do not match my experience as to which alternatives are available.

 

Typically when I encounter a cache at the end of a nice hike or walk where the container in bad condition, the alternatives that wait after a potential archival are "no cache at all" or "a new cache that hardly involves any physical activity at all" and when you ask me whether I prefer a hiking multi cache in bad condition or a quasi drive traditional in at the place of the final of the first cache with a cache container in perfect condition, then I'd opt for the former. That's the kind of choice that is more common at least in my area than you hyopthetical ones.

Link to comment

... in terms of quality I feel there's no excuse for placing a crappy container (be it power trail or 6 mile hike to the top of Mt. Washington). I've found some "great" caches, that ended up also disappointing me. I put the quotes on great because something about the journey or destination was very enjoyable but the cache itself was either soggy, or moldy, or otherwise not maintained.

The biggest bummer about that is that nobody else willing to maintain there hides can place a cache there because there exists one already, possibly from a CO that's gone MIA.

 

I completely agree. Many a nice location has been spoiled by the presence of a moldy, wet, abandoned cache. It doesn't enhance the experience. It detracts.

 

Yes, those mountaintops are utterly and irreparably ruined by a wet logbook.

 

The problem here is the assumption that a nice location has to be on a mountaintop. I've visited a number of great locations that I could drive to or almost drive to, both with great well maintained caches and also with unmaintained stinky moldy caches. Also, I'm not saying if I enjoy a nice hike with a great view at the end that a bad cache ruins my day. But the discussion here is about the cache itself, and I've had a wide range of experiences no matter the location

Link to comment

... in terms of quality I feel there's no excuse for placing a crappy container (be it power trail or 6 mile hike to the top of Mt. Washington). I've found some "great" caches, that ended up also disappointing me. I put the quotes on great because something about the journey or destination was very enjoyable but the cache itself was either soggy, or moldy, or otherwise not maintained.

The biggest bummer about that is that nobody else willing to maintain there hides can place a cache there because there exists one already, possibly from a CO that's gone MIA.

 

I completely agree. Many a nice location has been spoiled by the presence of a moldy, wet, abandoned cache. It doesn't enhance the experience. It detracts.

 

Yes, those mountaintops are utterly and irreparably ruined by a wet logbook.

 

Not ruined. But which do you think the majority of geocachers would find to be a better experience?

 

Getting to the mountaintop to find an ammo can in great shape with a dry logbook (the owner visits the cache periodically to check the condition), or getting to the mountaintop to find a rusted full of holes ammo can with a moldy damp logbook that has been chewed on by rodents (the owner placed a battered ammo can to begin with and has never been back to check despite the numerous logs about the deterioration of the cache).

 

Getting to the mountaintop to find an authentic Pelican™ box with a dry logbook and room for swag - a geocoin left by the owner, or finding a button nano with a wet moldy tiny scroll on the nearby sign?

 

Getting to the mountaintop to find an authentic well maintained Lock & Lock™ or no cache at all because the cache owner's friend dropped off a gladware container and took one reading of coordinates while using his phone, and no one has been able to locate it in 3 years (if it's even there anymore).

 

I am not particularly bothered by an old container, nor particularly impressed by a new name-brand container. It doesn't make or break the situation because I geocache for the experience of being outside and seeing things. If a container really "spoiled" something for me it would be because I didn't check my own attitude.

 

Months or years later I don't think back on a cache with warm memories of the nice brand name container and the new stuff inside. It's the experience of finding with it that stays with me.

 

But everyone is different.

Link to comment

I have a small series of guardrail caches meant to take people out to the fields and pastures and country roads in my area. Except for one on a service road off a semi-major highway which leads to the large concrete city north of us. Some folks enjoyed the driving around which was my point- to give them a reason to get out into the rural parts. None of them are nanos or any other type magnetic container that only holds a small log and none of them have required a new log because of dampness- yet. May not be considered a "great" container but I'm happy with the series. I say place a container you are happy with, where you are perfectly fine revisiting. Some cachers will appreciate them for a variety of reasons!

Link to comment

... in terms of quality I feel there's no excuse for placing a crappy container (be it power trail or 6 mile hike to the top of Mt. Washington). I've found some "great" caches, that ended up also disappointing me. I put the quotes on great because something about the journey or destination was very enjoyable but the cache itself was either soggy, or moldy, or otherwise not maintained.

The biggest bummer about that is that nobody else willing to maintain there hides can place a cache there because there exists one already, possibly from a CO that's gone MIA.

 

I completely agree. Many a nice location has been spoiled by the presence of a moldy, wet, abandoned cache. It doesn't enhance the experience. It detracts.

Good containers, ones that stay dry and that are big enough to hold a log a person can actually sign, do make for a better experience. But after 14 years of finding caches of all types, i don't really expect containers to be pristine condition. Even ammocans have that moldy smell, sometimes dampness to them after a

 

Yes, those mountaintops are utterly and irreparably ruined by a wet logbook.

 

Not ruined. But which do you think the majority of geocachers would find to be a better experience?

 

Getting to the mountaintop to find an ammo can in great shape with a dry logbook (the owner visits the cache periodically to check the condition), or getting to the mountaintop to find a rusted full of holes ammo can with a moldy damp logbook that has been chewed on by rodents (the owner placed a battered ammo can to begin with and has never been back to check despite the numerous logs about the deterioration of the cache).

 

Getting to the mountaintop to find an authentic Pelican™ box with a dry logbook and room for swag - a geocoin left by the owner, or finding a button nano with a wet moldy tiny scroll on the nearby sign?

 

Getting to the mountaintop to find an authentic well maintained Lock & Lock™ or no cache at all because the cache owner's friend dropped off a gladware container and took one reading of coordinates while using his phone, and no one has been able to locate it in 3 years (if it's even there anymore).

 

I am not particularly bothered by an old container, nor particularly impressed by a new name-brand container. It doesn't make or break the situation because I geocache for the experience of being outside and seeing things. If a container really "spoiled" something for me it would be because I didn't check my own attitude.

 

Months or years later I don't think back on a cache with warm memories of the nice brand name container and the new stuff inside. It's the experience of finding with it that stays with me.

 

But everyone is different.

A good container, one that stays dry and that is large enough to hold a log that i can actually sign, makes for a better experience. But after 14 years of caching, i don't expect to come across those very often. As good as they are, even ammocans succumb to that moldy, wet smell after a while. Other containers develop that famous odor even faster. Maintenance is definitely a help but it's still tough to keep most caches in pristine condition. This is a part of caching that i've come to expect most of the time and therefore doesn't usually detract from the fun.

 

Now, when someone purposely uses an inferior container from the start, then i see it as a quality control issue. Tupperware, pill bottles, coffee containers, baggies, etc,,, are NOT good containers when they're exposed to the outdoor elements. Probably 99% of them end up being a mess inside after a short time. Making it to the top of the mountain and taking in the view would still be the main ingredients for me but i'd always wonder, why did the CO use that goofy container on this otherwise, perfect cache?

Link to comment

The problem here is the assumption that a nice location has to be on a mountaintop. I've visited a number of great locations that I could drive to or almost drive to, both with great well maintained caches and also with unmaintained stinky moldy caches.

 

Of course a nice location does not have to be on a mountain but as I said it's mainly the journey to a cache (and this does not mean a car drive) that makes me enjoy a cache and not the container (regardless of which type and regardless of how creative it might be).

That's just two different philosophies.

 

Also, I'm not saying if I enjoy a nice hike with a great view at the end that a bad cache ruins my day. But the discussion here is about the cache itself, and I've had a wide range of experiences no matter the location

 

I guess that the different opinions come from the fact that for some the cache itself is just the container and for others it includes the journey to the cache (and for caches with several stages all the stages and the route chosen by the hider) where for some the journey is by far the most important aspect.

Link to comment

Rather than concentrate on trying to work out what quality is, hide a variety of caches and see what people in your area go for most. then hide more like that.

 

Of do what I do and hide what you want because you enjoy hiding caches and not to do so to please every minority within the game.

Link to comment

Rather than concentrate on trying to work out what quality is, hide a variety of caches and see what people in your area go for most. then hide more like that.

 

Of do what I do and hide what you want because you enjoy hiding caches and not to do so to please every minority within the game.

 

I agree with the second point 100%. Not so much with the first point. The caches of mine I'm least proud of get the most finds. The reason they are there is I have a multi-stage puzzle cache, which as I designed it, covers 2/3 of a circle, on nice footpaths. But to return to your car, you either need to backtrack, or walk the remaining 1/3 (about a mile) on a country road. Not a busy road, not ugly... but also not very interesting. I placed 6 caches there, as a sort of bonus for those who did the "main" cache. (Not a true "bonus", as they are just Trads). Of course what has happened is most do the easy ones, and the "main" cache (which has 82% favourite points) doesn't get found much.

 

That doesn't mean you can't have a "quality" cache which gets lots of finds, or is easy. Put a nice container in a scenic beauty spot where lots of people want to go you will get lots of finds (and lots of FPs). But I don't think number of finds are a good indication of quality.

 

While quality is subjective to an extent, I think most of us would agree a Quality cache is a good container in a good location. We may have different priorities on container vs location. And we will have different preferences on location; some like climbing mountains, some like being taken to an interesting urban location, some like a scenic drive... some like them all.

Link to comment

Location

 

Presentation

 

Container

 

If you're cache has one of these three it's a good cache. If it has two it's an excellent cache. All three is exceptional.

 

Maintenance required.

 

I like this philosophy. Short and to the point and encompasses some great points that make a good cache. I agree 110%

Link to comment

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...