Jump to content

Is Geocaching Dead?


Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, dprovan said:

I always feel a need to make comments on things like this because I find that too often people declare a cause of bad caches, like satisfying challenge requirements or being spaced every tenth of a mile, when I can't see any causal relation.

 

I agree. It's when opinions become objective statements that disagreements and arguments erupt. It's better to say something like "geocaching is dying for me because there are far more caches I don't enjoy now than there used to be", rather than "geocaching is dying because this type of cache is ruining the game", etc.  Clearly, people are enjoying what other people are not, so it's not necessarily dying for them.  The former claim is something that at least can be addressed ('well then place more of the types of caches you like, or encourage other people to'), whereas the latter is highly argumentative and just draws people into a downward defensive spiral.

(at least, the ones who don't just shrug, enjoy what they enjoy, and let other people duke it out =P)

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment
On 5/10/2018 at 3:36 PM, Mudfrog said:

With the app came a new breed of cacher, mainly game players that never really discovered what geoaching really was. The few caches they found were mainly of the easy park and grab micro variety so it was inevitable that they'd grow bored fairly quickly and then move on to the next app. Cache owners with those more difficult caches had less logs coming in.

 

 

 

This is nonsens. You can see that in the statistics.

Link to comment
4 hours ago, Twentse Mug said:

 

This is nonsens. You can see that in the statistics.

 

Every stat i've seen has showed a decline so i'm not sure what stats you're looking at. My statements come from first hand experience. I've been watching the decline come about for at least a couple of years now. A new cacher will show up every once in a while but before long, they're gone. Our more difficult caches seldom get found and some haven't been found in years. We do have one park and grab type cache hidden at an interstate rest area that still gets logged somewhat routinely, but even it has about half the traffic it once had. Events still take place but except for the few diehards that like to eat out, attendance is low. Last Monday's event had a total of 5 people in attendance.

 

Geocaching is apparently moving along just fine in some areas. Unfortunately, ours isn't doing as well.. :(

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
8 hours ago, Mudfrog said:

 

Every stat i've seen has showed a decline so i'm not sure what stats you're looking at. My statements come from first hand experience. I've been watching the decline come about for at least a couple of years now. A new cacher will show up every once in a while but before long, they're gone. Our more difficult caches seldom get found and some haven't been found in years. We do have one park and grab type cache hidden at an interstate rest area that still gets logged somewhat routinely, but even it has about half the traffic it once had. Events still take place but except for the few diehards that like to eat out, attendance is low. Last Monday's event had a total of 5 people in attendance.

 

Geocaching is apparently moving along just fine in some areas. Unfortunately, ours isn't doing as well.. :(

 

Let me help you with two simple statistics: favourite points and number of finds and they will proof you the opposite. Before you start a discussion like this you have to get your facts straight.

 

Edited by Twentse Mug
Link to comment
29 minutes ago, Twentse Mug said:

Let me help you with two simple statistics: favourite points and number of finds and they will proof you the opposite.

 

 

You keep saying that the statistics support your stance, and yet you have consistently failed to produce any of those statistics, until you do so your assertions are worthless.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
12 minutes ago, MartyBartfast said:

 

 

You keep saying that the statistics support your stance, and yet you have consistently failed to produce any of those statistics, until you do so your assertions are worthless.

 

 

Okay: here is one:

https://project-gc.com/Statistics/TopLoggedCaches?country=Netherlands&submit=Filter

What you can see here, no puzzle caches. However, since most of the new caches are puzzle caches the total number is declining. The founds on the traditionals is not. That is why pressure on the traditionals is increasing instead of declining.

 

Link to comment

Last year in this thread this post 

showed a general decline for Norway between 2016 and 2017, although there was a slight increase in cache finds, but a decrease in every other stat.

 

The equivalent stats now, between 2017 and 2018 show a massive decline in every statistic, so that's two consecutive "unhealthy" years for Norway.

 

I do remember a similar story in the UK last year, though I don't have the stats, but here's how the UK is looking today:

 

Anecdotally I think we saw a large growth around the 2012-2014 era, and what we're seeing now is the curve settling down to a natural and sustainable level, so I don't think any decline over recent years is doom and gloom.

 

Screenshot_2018-05-12_11-08-16.png

Screenshot_2018-05-12_11-18-01.png

Link to comment
17 hours ago, dprovan said:
20 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

So no, "responsive cache placement" isn't itself an objectively bad thing. But the perspective being implied by the initial commenter raising the term, I believe was referring to placement of the container with no attention to experience/quality, just so people could find them and get the listing stat.

That's a possibility, but my take on the original comment was that it was saying such caches are inferior precisely because they kowtow to the requirements of a challenge. And my counter point was that satisfying a need makes a cache better, not worse, even if it's not a need you have.

 

I'm not saying that caches placed to satisfy a challenge are necessarily inferior.  I'm not basing my argument on anecdotal evidence so "it's not a problem where I live"  carries not weight for me.  I am simply trying to make a point based on logic.  Every cache is placed for a reason, and some times multiple criteria are used.  If the primary reason for placing a cache (or lots of caches) is to help others increase find counts or satisfy some convoluted challenge criteria it just seems logical to me that the caches are going to be inferior to caches placed by someone whose reason is to bring people to the more interesting locations in an area or an attempt to do something creative.

 

You say that because they're satisfying a need, it makes the cache better.  I'm not convinced that most of the responsive caches are creating an caching experience that people want as much as they're just satisfying a need to have a high find count, getting their name on a cache listing for completing a challenge, or the recogisnoholding the longest streak of anyone in the area.  For me, and I suspect most that prefer quality over quantity,   it's about about the experience of the find (which may include the journey) and what makes a cache better is having a CO consider location, quality of container, and how it's hidden over just satisfying some statistic.  

 

Having a high find count, lots of challenges completed,  seeing a pattern on a map, or a long streak of finds may be popular but I've always held the notion that just because it's popular, doesn't make it good.  

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
5 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

I'm not saying that caches placed to satisfy a challenge are necessarily inferior.  I'm not basing my argument on anecdotal evidence so "it's not a problem where I live"  carries not weight for me.  I am simply trying to make a point based on logic.  Every cache is placed for a reason, and some times multiple criteria are used.  If the primary reason for placing a cache (or lots of caches) is to help others increase find counts or satisfy some convoluted challenge criteria it just seems logical to me that the caches are going to be inferior to caches placed by someone whose reason is to bring people to the more interesting locations in an area or an attempt to do something creative.

There's not much else for me to say if you aren't interested in my observation that your logic doesn't agree with my evidence. But here's my logic: someone that's aware of challenges and interested in helping people achieve them is more likely to be an engaged cacher that appreciates cache quality. It seems obvious to me that a cacher hiding caches for no good reason is more likely to have poor caches.

 

I just think it makes more sense to argue against poor quality rather than decide some particular reason to plant caches is only used by bad COs and then argue against that class of caches. Someone that's going to hide poor caches is going to hide poor caches regardless of how many reasons to hide caches you eliminate.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, dprovan said:

There's not much else for me to say if you aren't interested in my observation that your logic doesn't agree with my evidence. But here's my logic: someone that's aware of challenges and interested in helping people achieve them is more likely to be an engaged cacher that appreciates cache quality. It seems obvious to me that a cacher hiding caches for no good reason is more likely to have poor caches.

 

I just think it makes more sense to argue against poor quality rather than decide some particular reason to plant caches is only used by bad COs and then argue against that class of caches. Someone that's going to hide poor caches is going to hide poor caches regardless of how many reasons to hide caches you eliminate.

 

I saw this happen several times back in the day before challenge caches were nixed. This being, people placing caches solely to help other cachers meet a challenge. Cache owners actually stated this in their cache descriptions. They weren't all rubbish but at the same time, most had nothing else going for them.

 

 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
18 hours ago, dprovan said:

There's not much else for me to say if you aren't interested in my observation that your logic doesn't agree with my evidence. But here's my logic: someone that's aware of challenges and interested in helping people achieve them is more likely to be an engaged cacher that appreciates cache quality. It seems obvious to me that a cacher hiding caches for no good reason is more likely to have poor caches.

 

Anecdotal evidence is typically a weak form for evidence for supporting an argument.  For every piece of anecdotal evidence that supports and argument there may be another area which contradicts it.  Going back to some of the statistical charts which show a significant decline in the number of geocachers and caches placed, providing just one example of an area where geocaching is thriving might just be an example that is an exception to what the statistical evidence is showing.  

I can see where you're going with the premise that a geocacher that is aware of challenges  and places caches to help others achieve them is helping the game but I'm not seeing how that proves that a geocacher that does so appreciates or is trying to improve cache quality, and that the alternative is that a cache owner is placing caches for no good reason.

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment

Is Geocaching dead?  No, of course it isn't or we wouldn't have hundreds of posts about it.

 

Is Geocaching dying?  Tougher question.  The country-wide statistics given previously certainly suggest that participation is decreasing in some aspects.  A pessimist might say it is dying, while an optimist would say it is adjusting to the on-going changes in the game.

Statistics for my area show that cache placements increased slowly until 2010.  In 2011, placements almost doubled.  They went up slowly until 2013, at which time the current slow decrease began.  But still, more caches were placed in 2017 than in 2010, so are we seeing an overall decrease or just getting back to the trendline seen before the explosion?  (A question of downsizing vs. the horribly named "right-sizing").

Interestingly (to me), the proportion of micros (D/T of 2/2 or less) placed during the 2011-2015 period was higher, as is the number of these caches archived since then.  Perhaps the culture is changing back to what it was before?

 

I want to add an anecdotal observation to the side discussion about responsive cache placement and challenges.  Soon after one of the first challenge caches was placed in our area (a simple alphabetic challenge), a cacher placed a series of nothing guardrail micros with names like "A", "B", etc.  The challenge CO did not find this to be "helpful" in any way, and indeed, many cachers felt this cheapened the whole experience.  Yes, each cacher had the option of ignoring these purpose-placed caches, and could go back through their own found caches to fill the challenge, as in the spirit of the cache.  How you met the challenge, or any challenge, was up to you of course.  And yes, those cachers that felt cheated by doing it the right way have only themselves to blame for thinking that way.  But we're only human.

BTW, most or all of those responsive caches have been archived after not being maintained.

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
2 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

I can see where you're going with the premise that a geocacher that is aware of challenges  and places caches to help others achieve them is helping the game but I'm not seeing how that proves that a geocacher that does so appreciates or is trying to improve cache quality, and that the alternative is that a cache owner is placing caches for no good reason.

It wasn't meant to prove anything, it was only meant to show that equally valid logical arguments could be made for either side.

 

Also, they are planting caches for a good reason, you just don't like the reason. It's not as if every cache planted at a wonderful view uses a good container.

2 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

Anecdotal evidence is typically a weak form for evidence for supporting an argument. 

Normally anecdotal evidence is weak, but the claim here is that there's a logical reason to expect caches to be poor if they're planted for no reason other than to satisfy the requirements of challenge caches. In that case, presenting counterexamples is an effective argument.

2 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

Going back to some of the statistical charts which show a significant decline in the number of geocachers and caches placed, providing just one example of an area where geocaching is thriving might just be an example that is an exception to what the statistical evidence is showing.  

Well, I haven't seen any convincing statistical evidence of this link to begin with, so it's hard to take this argument seriously, but, indeed, one part of the problem here is, first, people decide what they see in their their area is "statistical evidence", and then making the second mistake of thinking that this evidence shows a cause and effect. Since normally people in that position tend to be generally down on geocaching, I can't help but suspect the problem in their area is COs that plant poor caches. Blaming challenge caches is a convenient explanation that makes them feel better.

 

I wouldn't mind this mistake much if it was just an individual error, but this thinking convinced GS that challenge caches were a big problem, so we lost the ability to create challenge caches for a year and now we have a stripped down version.

Link to comment

Something else to consider.  If Geocaching is dying, why is this year's GeoWoodstock going to be the FIRST GIGA even ever in the United States?  It is easy to look at statistics and make a prognosis without really understanding everything that is behind those statistics.  How many of you have started "coin collecting," or "stamp collecting," or "bird watching," or "antique shopping," and the list goes on.  And how many of you have STOPPED doing whatever new thing you started?  Humankind's innate desire to gather, to quest, to explore, to travel, to see new things, to find treasure, to find adventure will always be there.  There will be a 'core group' that will Geocache, on and off, until they can do it no more.  There will be many who will try it, and then move on to something else.  For me, I enjoy finding a cache, I enjoy the many friendships I have made and I enjoy hiding the occasional cache.  For those who are worried about it dying, are you doing anything to make the sport better?  Do you carry spare logs just in case a log is full or wet or destroyed?  Do you hide a fun cache in a fun place occasionally?  Do you attend events to meet other cachers?  Do you throw events?  Do you write nice logs and say thank you?  Do you always trade up?  Do you try to leave the cache better than you found it?  Do you CITO?  Do you TAKE or do you GIVE to Geocaching?  I know of cachers who have 50,000 finds and 1 hide.  That is a TAKER.  I know of others who have 1,000 finds and 100 hides.  That is a GIVER.  Sorry for the soap box, but instead of wondering if Geocaching is dying, why not wonder if there is anything you can do to make the sport better!!

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Inmountains said:

For those who are worried about it dying,

 

Are you doing anything to make the sport better

I was. We vow never to hide a micro. We spend money on water tight containers.  Monitor our emails, respond to issues even if an NM isn't posted, check our caches a couple of times a year (early spring and late fall) to clean and replenish. Maintained on average 15 active caches a year. If we get bored with maintaining a cache it gets picked up and archived. We have 3 active caches with no hides in 3 years, because the 'hiding family-friendly caches to appeal to a wide audience' approach does not get emulated (pill bottles are easier and cheap) and often those caches get treated like another chip in the vast chip bowl. 

 

Do you carry spare logs just in case a log is full or wet or destroyed? 

No because I firmly believe the pastime is better when cache owners are responsible for what they leave behind. It also reigns in the addicted hiders who hide dozens/100s/1000s with no intention of going back to maintain them, especially not full logs. 

 

Do you hide a fun cache in a fun place occasionally? 

Always.

 

Do you attend events to meet other cachers? 

Used to, not anymore. These days the people who attend are the numbers-style cachers. Hiders with 100s of hides they don't maintain and the people who love them for it and support them them with throwdowns.  I've posted a lot of NMs and NAs on caches owned by those hiders and have had some angry responses. I doubt I'd be welcomed.  

 

Do you write nice logs and say thank you? 

Always. In the logbook (on the rare occassion that there is a logbook, not sheet), and online. 

 

Do you always trade up? 

I usually trade even or don't trade. I leave handcrafted signature items, I enjoy that part of the pastime, it's fun and creative. I have 2 large mason jars of collected signature items. But these days it's the rare cache container that I can leave or take items because the containers are micros although listed as small, or are so leaky the contents are wet and often moldy.  

 

Do you try to leave the cache better than you found it? 

I will remove sticks, pebbles, leaves, bus stubs. But if the cache is in rough shape e.g. moldy, I'm not touching it. The owner should replace the whole thing with a new and watertight container. I'll post an NM. I'll post an NA if it's already got an NM that wasn't responded to. I will throw away abandoned health-hazard containers and post an NA stating the cache is gone because it was full of mold. Not one owner has cared. 

 

Do you CITO? 

Funny how we exhault CITO yet most owners will abandon their caches, essentially turning it into litter. And many finders carry a sackful of micros to plunk down and abandon anytime they can't find a cache. 

 

Do you TAKE or do you GIVE to Geocaching? 

I like to think I gave. I gave for 16 years in the form of monitored family-friendly caches.

As a cache owner we never got an NA log, never had a reviewer archive our caches. Always retrieved our caches before archiving them. If they had gone missing we always checked to make sure they actually went missing before archiving them. Used temporary disables to try not to waste people's time and gas money when a cache was likely missing or in bad shape, and we couldn't get to it within a couple of days. 

As a finder I traded swag, created swag, bought trackables, logged trackables, moved trackables in a timely manner.  My logs are never cut-n-paste, I log comments pertaining to the individual cache. 

 

I know of cachers who have 50,000 finds and 1 hide.  That is a TAKER. 

If that person knows that do not have the time or money to adequately produce a good cache and keep it maintained that to me is a responsible cacher. 

 

I know of others who have 1,000 finds and 100 hides.  That is a GIVER.

I know plenty of addicted hiders who have 100s of unmaintained abandoned hides and encourage throwdowns. They have helped turn the family-friendly pastime into a numbers game. 

 

My questions: 

Do you monitor and maintain your cache hides?
Have you ever hidden a cache then never returned to it?

Have you ever drilled/screwed/nailed your cache container into a tree/post/fence/object that didn't belong to you?

Do you hide micro caches because it's cheap and easy to hide? 

Are all you cache containers watertight? Do you care?
Do you encourage others to maintain your cache hides?

Have you ever received an NA on any of your caches?

Has a reviewer ever temporarily disabled your cache?

Has a reviewer ever archived your cache?
Do you ever get angry at someone for logging an NM?
Do you write thoughtful, meaningful logs?  
Have you ever cut-n-paste your online logs?
Have you found so many caches in a day you can't write a meaningful log because you can't remember each one?
Have you ever left a cache container behind and claimed a find on that throwdown? 
When you leave a throwdown do you monitor and maintain it?

Do you profess to believe in CITO, yet leave litter in the form of throwdowns or abandon your cache hides? 
Have you found a broken cache in poor condition but did not post an NM?
 

13
 

 

 

 

Edited by L0ne.R
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
2 hours ago, egroeg said:

Interestingly (to me), the proportion of micros (D/T of 2/2 or less) placed during the 2011-2015 period was higher, as is the number of these caches archived since then.  Perhaps the culture is changing back to what it was before?

 

Curious what kind of containers you see are replacing micros today. 

We're seeing what used to be micros, still D/T of 2/2 or less, now simply replaced with pill bottles and called small.  No change, just incorrect sizing.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
1 minute ago, cerberus1 said:

 

Curious what kind of containers you see are replacing micros today. 

We're seeing what used to be micros, still D/T of 2/2 or less, now simply replaced with pill bottles and called small.  No change, just incorrect sizing.

 

I don't know what proportion of the new micros are mislabled, but I indeed have found some smalls that I think should be micros.  It could be affecting my reported statistics since I can only go by the published size.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Inmountains said:

Something else to consider.  If Geocaching is dying, why is this year's GeoWoodstock going to be the FIRST GIGA even ever in the United States? 

Giga events have only existed for 4 years, (just 5 have happened to date, 4 in Germany, 1 in Czech Republic) .

If there were a bunch of gigas all over the world, it might be an indication of a healthy urge to attend huge caching events, but there aren't, and anyway, that's not really the same as caching in the small , day to day scale being a thriving hobby.

 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
37 minutes ago, egroeg said:

 

I don't know what proportion of the new micros are mislabled, but I indeed have found some smalls that I think should be micros.  It could be affecting my reported statistics since I can only go by the published size.

 

I think we can reasonably say that in North America 50% of smalls are actually micros (pill bottles, key holders, film canisters, preform tubes (average is 1oz capacity), hollow bolt, matchstick holder, diabetes strip container). 

Link to comment
19 minutes ago, hal-an-tow said:

Giga events have only existed for 4 years, (just 5 have happened to date, 4 in Germany, 1 in Czech Republic) .

If there were a bunch of gigas all over the world, it might be an indication of a healthy urge to attend huge caching events, but there aren't, and anyway, that's not really the same as caching in the small , day to day scale being a thriving hobby.

 

 

That's how I see it as well.     

Attending something that for many will be just a once-and-done experience isn't the same as the day-to-day hobby. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
On 5/12/2018 at 7:29 PM, dprovan said:

But here's my logic: someone that's aware of challenges and interested in helping people achieve them is more likely to be an engaged cacher that appreciates cache quality.

 

Or a sock-puppet who wants to make it easier to qualify for the challenge for themselves and for others who will shower praise on them...

 

 

On 5/12/2018 at 7:29 PM, dprovan said:

It seems obvious to me that a cacher hiding caches for no good reason is more likely to have poor caches.

 

Perhaps - but what does it have to do with the thread? Did I miss something?

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
11 hours ago, Inmountains said:

Something else to consider.  If Geocaching is dying, why is this year's GeoWoodstock going to be the FIRST GIGA even ever in the United States?  It is easy to look at statistics and make a prognosis without really understanding everything that is behind those statistics.  How many of you have started "coin collecting," or "stamp collecting," or "bird watching," or "antique shopping," and the list goes on.  And how many of you have STOPPED doing whatever new thing you started?  Humankind's innate desire to gather, to quest, to explore, to travel, to see new things, to find treasure, to find adventure will always be there.  There will be a 'core group' that will Geocache, on and off, until they can do it no more.  There will be many who will try it, and then move on to something else.  For me, I enjoy finding a cache, I enjoy the many friendships I have made and I enjoy hiding the occasional cache.  For those who are worried about it dying, are you doing anything to make the sport better?  Do you carry spare logs just in case a log is full or wet or destroyed?  Do you hide a fun cache in a fun place occasionally?  Do you attend events to meet other cachers?  Do you throw events?  Do you write nice logs and say thank you?  Do you always trade up?  Do you try to leave the cache better than you found it?  Do you CITO?  Do you TAKE or do you GIVE to Geocaching?  I know of cachers who have 50,000 finds and 1 hide.  That is a TAKER.  I know of others who have 1,000 finds and 100 hides.  That is a GIVER.  Sorry for the soap box, but instead of wondering if Geocaching is dying, why not wonder if there is anything you can do to make the sport better!!

 

First US giga event? MARKETING & placating to icon chasers. I may have to make the drive/flight to get that meaningless giga pixel-set on my page - NOT! When attendance has been tallied, there will not be the requisite number of participants for that designation, but the status and icon will stand.

 

I know cachers who have 25k+ finds and no hides, BUT they have 250+ hides on their other account - with no finds (a couple with two different accounts).  Are they a TAKER or a GIVER? Why would you label people as such?

 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
18 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

 

I think the culture is now a 'power trail' culture. The people that remain are into geocaching for the smiley mostly. 

 

All the people that are posting on here still cache (perhaps not frequently, but still).  Are you saying that we're all into it for the smiley?  I'm in complete disagreement with the idea that it's a power trail culture.  If that were the case, a large majority of the caches placed and published would be power trails.  We have had very few power trail type series published (since the peak around 2013) but certainly had some published that meet the criteria during the 2010-2013 peak in my area.  I"m NOT saying that power trails aren't being published and that they aren't part of the culture.  They most certainly are, but to make a blanket statement that the culture is only a power trail culture and people that remain caching are into it for the smileys (mostly) is simplifying things way too much.  PTs have most definitely affected the game, but you seem to place ALL the blame on PTs and those who are in it for the numbers.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
16 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

 

I think we can reasonably say that in North America 50% of smalls are actually micros (pill bottles, key holders, film canisters, preform tubes (average is 1oz capacity), hollow bolt, matchstick holder, diabetes strip container). 

 

Again, a blanket statement.  YOU might find that to be the case in your area, but it's not in mine.  Someone recently posted about a magnetic key holder and size on our FB page, since it's been awhile since his last cache was published.  90% of the people that chimed in said micro and only 10% said small.  I might give you 25%, but even that is certainly high for my area.  I've noticed some size creep as well, but more in the small/large/regular area.  Yes, there are certainly many caches mislabeled out there, but I find it hard to believe the rate is 1 out of every 2 when it comes to micros being called smalls.

 

I also don't think that the size creep is that much of a factor when it comes to this particular topic.  Maybe for a very small minority of cachers.

Link to comment
On ‎5‎/‎11‎/‎2018 at 3:56 PM, Twentse Mug said:

 

This is nonsens. You can see that in the statistics.

What Mudfrog has been saying makes perfect sense and is quite accurate to what I've seen.  With my own two eyes. 

 

I don't necessarily believe easy park and grabs are the reason newbies quickly leave the game.  Discovery and adventure are what grabs you and makes you want to see more.   A person has to have that in them to enjoy Geocaching.  

Edited by justintim1999
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
19 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

 

I think the culture is now a 'power trail' culture. The people that remain are into geocaching for the smiley mostly. 

 

Hmm, there are no power trails at all in my local government area, not a one. If you're right about caching having turned into a power trail culture, perhaps that's why there are so few cachers here now - no power trails to breed them on. Do you think, for the good of the game, I should start hiding power trails instead of higher D/T adventure caches?

Link to comment
23 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Hmm, there are no power trails at all in my local government area, not a one. If you're right about caching having turned into a power trail culture, perhaps that's why there are so few cachers here now - no power trails to breed them on. Do you think, for the good of the game, I should start hiding power trails instead of higher D/T adventure caches?

 

If you want your cache hides to end up treated like a PT cache, go for it. 

Link to comment
20 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

 

I think the culture is now a 'power trail' culture. The people that remain are into geocaching for the smiley mostly. 

 

20 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Hmm, there are no power trails at all in my local government area, not a one. If you're right about caching having turned into a power trail culture, perhaps that's why there are so few cachers here now - no power trails to breed them on. Do you think, for the good of the game, I should start hiding power trails instead of higher D/T adventure caches?

 

The culture has certainly changed but i'm not sure i'd call it the "power trail" culture. Again, the main problem i see is that newer people pretty much only see one thing. Easier to find, almost all small traditionals. The easy is what the app gives them, unless they pony up for premium, and the small is what cachers like placing these days. I'm sure most people get excited when they find their first easy micro using their phone but, how long does the excitement last afterwards? From my observations, not very long for most. :(.

Link to comment
36 minutes ago, Mudfrog said:

The culture has certainly changed but i'm not sure i'd call it the "power trail" culture. Again, the main problem i see is that newer people pretty much only see one thing. Easier to find, almost all small traditionals. The easy is what the app gives them, unless they pony up for premium, and the small is what cachers like placing these days. I'm sure most people get excited when they find their first easy micro using their phone but, how long does the excitement last afterwards? From my observations, not very long for most. :(.

 

Right, and so there are some of us in the community that do like to try to encourage and promote other aspects of geocaching (and in many cases still not exclusively). And I am seeing on social many, many more posts and blogs and photos and videos from people who are experiencing outdoors, nature, longer hikes, walks, views, social connections, discovering things, because they decided to go 'find a geocache' out beyond just the one around the corner in town. The more we try to show what geocaching can be, more than nanos and micros surrounded by muggles within the city, the more that (inevitably still a small portion of) people will realize how great geocaching can be on the long term, and stick around.

 

OTOH, the more we complain that the community landscape is changing (arguably 'for the worse'), the more of a self-fulfilling prophecy it'll become.   Even if you think Groundspeak is overly promoting the 'power trail' culture (which they really aren't - they're promoting many many aspects of geocaching) that doesn't stop you or I from promoting what we think are the most rewarding experiences geocaching can offer.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

"I know of cachers who have 50,000 finds and 1 hide.  That is a TAKER. 

If that person knows that do not have the time or money to adequately produce a good cache and keep it maintained that to me is a responsible cacher. "

L0ne.r

If that person has TIME to find 50,000 caches, then they have time to hide and maintain a few.  Yes, it is work, but so is FINDING caches.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment

To answer the Original Poster, Geocaching is not dead, it is just ever evolving.  Urban caching requires nano's and micro's or the homeless, children and other's will muggle it in no time.  I have hidden everything from the black nano's to five gallon buckets.  Sometimes, my hide is about the LOCATION and not the cache itself.  Other times, it is about the fancy cache container.  While power trails are about the numbers, while power trail caching, I have seen herds of wild horses, herds of wild antelope, snakes, scorpions, spiders, old buildings, old rail road tracks, thunder storms, dust storms, and so much more.  Things you won't see under a lamp shade post across the street from Disneyland.  But if you are visiting Disneyland, it's nice to grab a quick one nearby.  I have done power trails solo, with 2 of us, 3 of us and with 4 of us.  The best time is with 4 as the social aspect is really active.  We bring folding chairs and a picnic basket for lunch.  We trade stories. We trade ideas.  We even talk investing.  I guess I really enjoy the many friends I have made geocaching and I have cached with over 150 different people!

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Inmountains said:

If that person has TIME to find 50,000 caches, then they have time to hide and maintain a few.  Yes, it is work, but so is FINDING caches.

Not necessarily. Some people find a lot of caches because they travel a lot, and therefore aren't in one place long enough to meet the 3-month minimum for the cache permanence guideline.

 

Besides, they may give back in some other way. There ARE ways to give back to the geocaching community other than hiding caches, you know.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Inmountains said:

If that person has TIME to find 50,000 caches, then they have time to hide and maintain a few.  Yes, it is work, but so is FINDING caches.

 

Similar to niraD, we know a few people retired and travel the country by rv.  Hiding caches and that "vacation" thing frowned on by the site...

One holds events time-to-time.   

One has a lot of  trackables owned, and they'll often stop and compare with the other 2/3rds (over coffee) whenever  they're driving by.

 - And maybe while waiting for a load of laundry.  :D  

Aren't they contributing to the hobby?  

 We haven't discussed it with others, we're usually having too much fun socializing to bother them with petty stuff.

 

My personal opinion is I'd rather they didn't hide if they're not comfortable with the idea.

 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
8 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

My personal opinion is I'd rather they didn't hide if they're not comfortable with the idea.

Yep. Some people contribute more by NOT hiding caches than they would by hiding caches.

 

One of the things I appreciate about Groundspeak is that they discourage "seed caches" or challenges that require owning caches or other situations that pressure people to hide caches for reasons other than the desire and ability to own and maintain a cache for the long term.

 

People who don't own caches can give back to the geocaching community some other way.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment

I do agree that there are a select few who are not able to hide caches, like permanent traveler's.  BUT, what is Geocaching, at it core?  One person hides a container, posts the coordinates, and other's are able to find it and log it.  So expecting most cachers to have a few hides is not asking too much, in my opinion.  My mother was fighting, and eventually died, from Breast Cancer.  And yet she still found time to hide quality caches, some that were hidden in 2005 and still active today, even though she passed in 2010.  So I am amiable to agree to disagree as I believe most folks that do not hide, just don't want to, and thus are 'takers.'  Thank goodness for the HIDERS, for without them, there we be NO GEOCACHING!

Link to comment
23 minutes ago, Inmountains said:

I do agree that there are a select few who are not able to hide caches, like permanent traveler's.  BUT, what is Geocaching, at it core?  One person hides a container, posts the coordinates, and other's are able to find it and log it.  So expecting most cachers to have a few hides is not asking too much, in my opinion.  My mother was fighting, and eventually died, from Breast Cancer.  And yet she still found time to hide quality caches, some that were hidden in 2005 and still active today, even though she passed in 2010.  So I am amiable to agree to disagree as I believe most folks that do not hide, just don't want to, and thus are 'takers.'  Thank goodness for the HIDERS, for without them, there we be NO GEOCACHING!

I get what your saying and believe me I'd love to see more new and interesting caches being placed but I have to agree with the consensus on this one.   Being a cache owner isn't for everyone.  Although some may like the idea of being a cache owner they are being much more responsible by not doing so if they know they won't be able to give it the attention it needs.    Over the past few years I've become more of a cache owner than a cache finder and to be honest I enjoy it.    There will always be more finders than hiders and that's ok.  I'd rather have someone hiding a cache because they really want to rather than hiding one because they think it's expected of them.   

 

 

Edited by justintim1999
On
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
8 hours ago, L0ne.R said:
9 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Hmm, there are no power trails at all in my local government area, not a one. If you're right about caching having turned into a power trail culture, perhaps that's why there are so few cachers here now - no power trails to breed them on. Do you think, for the good of the game, I should start hiding power trails instead of higher D/T adventure caches?

 

If you want your cache hides to end up treated like a PT cache, go for it. 

 

I was being facetious when I said that, but now, looking at the map at what a basic member using only the app would have available in this area, there's really not that many - they could probably knock them all off in just a weekend. This covers an area of roughly 16km by 12km of what was once the Gosford City local government area, now the southern half of the Central Coast Council area.

 

LocalCaches.png.11282b39e3c7323b96a58e04013c1517.png

 

By contrast, these are the T2 and higher caches in the same area that a basic member using just the app won't see, Not only are there a lot more of them, they also offer a much richer and diverse caching experience.

 

LocalCachesT2Plus.png.ce56756d8e800e5a0c5c9d4894a96b68.png

 

Edited by barefootjeff
Link to comment

The logic that links the behavior is simply "the scoring system".  If you get one "point" per cache no matter how hard or easy it is, the easy ones will get more "points".  If on the other hand you consider a the favorite point/finds ratio, the more interesting caches get more "points", though far fewer finds.  I don't actually think there is a dichotomy when it comes to hides though:  I think some people like to create interesting hides (not a high percentage of folks) and some people like to find them, but most people like to hide easy to find and easy to get to caches which is what most people go out and find, though they don't actually like them very much according to the fav pt/find ratios.  In other words the most popular caches (in terms of finds) are the least popular (in terms of favorite points per find).  To give a concrete example:  my most popular cache has 450 finds and three favorite points,  while my least popular caches have 447 finds (36 caches in all) and 162 finds:  36% fav pt ratio  

To me this is the real dichotomy:  the more popular a cache is, the less people like it.  

Only some people want to find interesting (difficult) caches.  And even fewer folks want to hide (and maintain) difficult ones.  Most caches are easy to hide and easy to find right by the roadside, popular and unloved...

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
7 hours ago, edexter said:

I think some people like to create interesting hides (not a high percentage of folks) and some people like to find them, but most people like to hide easy to find and easy to get to caches which is what most people go out and find, though they don't actually like them very much according to the fav pt/find ratios.

 

Perhaps this is an oddball region, but that's not what's happening here. "Easy to find and easy to get to" are a small minority of hides. From the two maps I posted yesterday comparing the "easy" (D/T 1.5 or less traditionals) with the "not so easy" (all cache types of T2 or greater), there are nearly five times as many in the latter group than the former. This pattern continues in the newest hides too - of the 22 new caches published on the Central Coast this year, only 4 were "easy" traditionals, the rest were tougher traditionals (T2 or higher) or other cache types (2 multi, 12 mystery and 1 EC).

 

I presume this is the opposite of what people are seeing elsewhere so I'm curious why that is.

Edited by barefootjeff
Grammar
Link to comment
9 hours ago, edexter said:

To me this is the real dichotomy:  the more popular a cache is, the less people like it.

I'm not sure why you find that surprising. Tourist traps are disliked precisely because so many people go there.

 

I think you're looking at this wrong. I like easy finds, but I tend to like caches much more when they are trickier or require more thought or effort. I think most cachers are that way.

Link to comment
14 hours ago, dprovan said:

I'm not sure why you find that surprising. Tourist traps are disliked precisely because so many people go there.

 

I think you're looking at this wrong. I like easy finds, but I tend to like caches much more when they are trickier or require more thought or effort. I think most cachers are that way.

 

It makes sense that most all cachers would enjoy finding quality caches that have some thought/effort put into them. Question is, why do so many of those same cachers refrain from hiding the same?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
On ‎5‎/‎15‎/‎2018 at 10:09 AM, edexter said:

The logic that links the behavior is simply "the scoring system".  If you get one "point" per cache no matter how hard or easy it is, the easy ones will get more "points". 

 

There is another caching site that scores it's members by the caches they find.  I could go and find two "5T" caches similarly rated there, and it would give more "points" than someone finding a lot more 1.5 roadside hides.  Site's no where near as popular as this one.

When the hobby becomes a "point" game only based on finds, and not what it takes to get those finds, sure, the easy ones are gonna be more popular.  :)

Link to comment
On 5/8/2018 at 1:54 AM, pingurus said:

One has to look at the data with care though. The numbers for the last week are usually negative, since updating their database has a time lag. Same goes for the last month, but the effect is lower. If you look at the maximum range available ( January 1st until today), the number of active cachers and of found caches are only down by 2% and 4%. So I'd say, yes there's a decline but nothing dramatic.

^This

I would not make any conclusions based on PGC's "Overview" stats.  PGC even puts a disclaimer on that page:

 

image.png.37869970e2ce406e1fa32ddc249794f4.png

 

 

 

On 5/12/2018 at 3:20 AM, MartyBartfast said:

showed a general decline for Norway between 2016 and 2017, although there was a slight increase in cache finds, but a decrease in every other stat.

 

The equivalent stats now, between 2017 and 2018 show a massive decline in every statistic, so that's two consecutive "unhealthy" years for Norway.

 

 

Link to comment

This topic included "Overview" stats from Project-GC, but those stats are questionable to use for any conclusions.  I recently came across some different stats that I think might be more informative?

 

Below are PGC's stats for "Logs per date".  I'm not sure if this is just Found It logs, or all log types, but it seems to show a more steady rate of logging.  I find it a pretty interesting view of data, although I'd like to dive into it further to better understand what it's actually representing.  For example, I'm not sure what the difference is between the grey and blue bars.  You can drag a rectangle over an area and it will zoom in to that area.  You can also filter by country and lower regions, and by cache type.

 

Below are some Logs Per Date histogram views for Traditional Caches only, in Canada, Australia, and USA.  I zoomed in to the last decade only, as the earlier years were so short that it was hard to see the difference in heights of the bars for more recent years.  There's also a Hidden Per Date stat, but I haven't dived into that one yet.

 

image.png.662dcec93abf80ce07dbd3df711d2c34.png

 

image.png.1f11f621b0d9877cbbc78b104269fe4e.png

 

image.png.319e48098ce20c7e827cd4cf376c3928.png

Edited by noncentric
Removed dupe chart
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...