Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 18
Dr Jeckyl and Mr Hide

Is Geocaching Dead?

Recommended Posts

The question related to the Dame Deco point is: If a CO were to archive a cache you like (e.g. an old multi stage cache near you with field puzzles in a great location that you had previously found and loved), and replace it with a brand new adventure (as good or better) but using the same general playing area, how would you feel?

 

It has happened. Meanwhile there's yet another series following the same track and we have walked/biked there 3-4 times already. While we are sure we want to do the series (quality/surroundings), it's on the bottom of our list and we'll only go there again if there's nothing else we can fit in.

 

Caching is a bit like holidays for us, we don't go to the same destination twice except if there's a good reason. We re-visit Tromso (Norway) because we want to go see Aurora Borealis (still fascinating after seeing it several times, easy to get too and affordable) but not to see the town again or the fjords again. B)

Share this post


Link to post

We go for caches we like to do. That means multi or themed/special series. Since most caches are (in our eyes) run of the mill, we skip them. I we can walk out the door, find 20 traditionals "hidden" behind a tree or drive an hour and do one fieldpuzzle/15-20Km multi guess what we'll choose ;)

 

I also go for caches I like (and I expect most of us do). And that is the case whether they are new or old.

 

The question related to the Dame Deco point is: If a CO were to archive a cache you like (e.g. an old multi stage cache near you with field puzzles in a great location that you had previously found and loved), and replace it with a brand new adventure (as good or better) but using the same general playing area, how would you feel?

 

If going to new locations is the most important thing, then you may not be interested.

 

Whilst I like going to new locations, I also enjoy revisiting good locations with a new adventure.

 

There is a CO near me who does excellent multi-stage puzzle caches. And he maintains them. I would never suggest that he should archive any. But, if he decided to archive one of his older caches which I had done and create a completely new one (new theme, new puzzles) in the same area (and the area is also nice), I'd be happy.

 

This is more of what I was thinking. Replacing a guardrail cache with another guardrail cache doesn't make much sense.

 

In my area a great multi was archived. I placed another multi using the same general waypoints but changed up the theme. the original was around 7 years with 81 finds. The new one is about 3 years old and has 37 finds. Interestingly enough 20 of the 31 finders of the new cache found the original. I know most of them and I wouldn't call them numbers cachers.

 

I'm involved with a 62 acre parcel of open space in my town. One of the main goals is foot traffic, getting people out to enjoy the land. I have 6 caches on the property that have been out for almost 4 years. The find count has slowly diminished over the years so I'm thinking of archiving them and placing something new.

One of the caches in the series has 247 finds. Would like to see some of those original finders return.

 

Admittedly I have the advantage of working with 62 acres of beautiful space so changing up the locations and the hides is relatively easy.

 

Part of me has a soft spot for these caches as they were the first ones I ever placed. Another voice whispering "out with the old and in with the new."

 

Some will return for quality caches. Others will return for the location and yes some will come back for the numbers. The reasons don't matter to me much, the fact that they return is what's important.

Edited by justintim1999

Share this post


Link to post

It might make sense to do what you describe for a trail of caches where the caches focus on the hideouts, containers and maybe fields puzzles.

The majority of my caches are about locations and hiking routes and that's also the type of cache I prefer to find.

It does not make sense to rework such caches. The locations and the route stay the same.

 

For me, geocaching is about the journey, the location, AND the geocache. So for me, as a finder, finding a new geocache which involves a location/journey I've already done, but involves a new geocache to find is still of interest.

 

I agree it makes no sense for a CO to renew a cache in this way unless they change the geocache. (And for a multi, at least some of the stages). So at a minimum it needs a different container hid in a different position. And it has to feel right for the CO. One can sometimes alter the journey as well, maybe there are multiple routes one can take to GZ. A multi can lead you on one route; it could be replaced with a multi using a different route. Or even reversing the order of the route can make the journey different.

 

But if a CO is happy with what they have, I'm not saying the SHOULD "renew" it in this way. Just that I can see some positives IF a CO decides to do this.

 

I have seen cases where a CO has archived a cache, then published a new one exactly the same. I'm not advocating that. Though this can happen due to circumstances, e.g. the CO archived the cache as they thought it was missing, then someone found the archived cache, then the CO published a new listing for it.

Share this post


Link to post

For me, geocaching is about the journey, the location, AND the geocache.

 

What I tried to say is that the type of container and the hideout do not play a role for me. The journey and the locations involved in a geocache are the main ingredients of

the geocache to me.

 

So for me, as a finder, finding a new geocache which involves a location/journey I've already done, but involves a new geocache to find is still of interest.

 

I do not mind either if I'm sent along trails that I have walked along before or if I happen to know some locations. However just a new hideout or a new container and nothing else is not

what is appealing to me. I do not enjoy the search for containers and I do not care about the containers. For me containers with logbooks are a simply a way of proving that I have been there.

 

 

Just that I can see some positives IF a CO decides to do this.

 

As I said before it of course depends on the cache and also on one personal preferences. COs can decide what to do with their caches anyway. What I do not like however is pushing COs towards archiving their caches

after some years. That just does not feel right to me.

Share this post


Link to post

As I said before it of course depends on the cache and also on one personal preferences. COs can decide what to do with their caches anyway. What I do not like however is pushing COs towards archiving their caches

after some years. That just does not feel right to me.

 

I agree with you there.

 

The reason why I posted on this subject was timing and my own recent experience. I saw these new caches published. I thought - "isn't that the same area where I previously found caches by the same CO"? I then went to check my finds and compare the maps, and saw that the route was the same. My initial reaction was "why do this"? But I knew it was a nice walk, and I knew the CO does nice hides (lots of custom made containers and field puzzles). And it was close to home and I wanted a walk. So I found them.

 

I enjoyed it so much that I changed my attitude. Rather than ask why, I was pleased the CO did this.

 

So my point is just that a CO archiving caches to replace them with new ones can be a good thing. But certainly not that they should feel pressured to do this.

Share this post


Link to post

Just to clarify--I don't mean archiving and replacing in the same spot. I mean archiving after 5 or 6 years and replacing in a different spot, or a different kind of cache--or letting someone else take the spot so that you can find the cache in your favorite park. I'd just like to see more turnover in geocaching, that's all. And for those special caches placed by special cache hiders--wouldn't you like some new caches by them if they archived their old ones?

Share this post


Link to post

Just to clarify--I don't mean archiving and replacing in the same spot.

 

My favourite caches are not single stage caches and the hideout of the final is the least interesting part. If the final changes, but the route and the stages are the same, it's still the same cache for me.

 

I'd just like to see more turnover in geocaching, that's all.

 

For me a nice cache stays a nice cache. The existence of caches of the type I like as examples for newer caches is more important for me than to have new caches to find for myself in a certain area.

 

And for those special caches placed by special cache hiders--wouldn't you like some new caches by them if they archived their old ones?

 

Yes, but that's not a matter of archiving caches and freeing spots in my case but rather a question whether those hiders are still into geocaching and are still motivated to hide hiking caches.

 

I'm glad that there exist caches like this one

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GCG5J2_golden-eye?guid=8b2d68b1-26b0-4aa8-8750-c8ceca27d4b8

 

It makes no sense at all to archive such caches without necessity.

Share this post


Link to post
I'd just like to see more turnover in geocaching, that's all.
For me a nice cache stays a nice cache. The existence of caches of the type I like as examples for newer caches is more important for me than to have new caches to find for myself in a certain area.
When I introduce new people to geocaching, I especially enjoy taking them to some of the good caches that I found years ago. One of my Favorites is one of the four caches I found the day I was introduced to geocaching, and it's still being found and being maintained. And I've taken multiple new geocachers to it so they could enjoy finding it as well.

 

I see no reason to churn the location just because the cache is almost 12 years old.

Share this post


Link to post

Just to clarify--I don't mean archiving and replacing in the same spot. I mean archiving after 5 or 6 years and replacing in a different spot, or a different kind of cache--or letting someone else take the spot so that you can find the cache in your favorite park. I'd just like to see more turnover in geocaching, that's all. And for those special caches placed by special cache hiders--wouldn't you like some new caches by them if they archived their old ones?

Odd that the logs on the older ones we watch often say, "The oldest cache we've found!", "Thanks for keeping this one going! It's been on the radar a long time!"", and "Finally met my challenge!".

"Lonely cache" finders seem to appreciate them too.

There's currently a thread on a very old cache, and it's meaning to some.

 

Of course the hiders/finders of nondescript pill bottles every 500+ feet may have a different opinion.

...and that cache type may well best be served with an occasional cleaning... :)

Share this post


Link to post
When I introduce new people to geocaching, I especially enjoy taking them to some of the good caches that I found years ago. One of my Favorites is one of the four caches I found the day I was introduced to geocaching, and it's still being found and being maintained. And I've taken multiple new geocachers to it so they could enjoy finding it as well.

 

I see no reason to churn the location just because the cache is almost 12 years old.

We do that too, as we want to show the reason we started (awesome/unique locations) this odd hobby.

Those we've taken under wing are/were like-minded. :)

Share this post


Link to post

It might make sense to do what you describe for a trail of caches where the caches focus on the hideouts, containers and maybe fields puzzles.

The majority of my caches are about locations and hiking routes and that's also the type of cache I prefer to find.

It does not make sense to rework such caches. The locations and the route stay the same. [Emphasis added]

You appear to have a very narrow view of locations and routes, if you believe they stay the same. Here in Canada, a hike along a particular trail can be a very different experience depending on which season of the year you walk it, what time of day you go, weather conditions, what types of wildlife and wildflowers you encounter, which friends you hike with, etc.

 

There certainly are many trails where I enjoy repeating a hike even if a newly placed cache doesn't have an interesting hideout, container, or field puzzle. Heck, there are some trails I enjoy hiking multiple times even when there are no new caches to find.

 

“No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he's not the same man.” ― Heraclitus

Edited by CanadianRockies

Share this post


Link to post

I see no reason to churn the location just because the cache is almost 12 years old.

I agree, churning is pointless. On the other hand, there's nothing wrong deciding to let a cache go after it's lived its life, making room for something new to take root. People that don't understand the "make room" comment see caches like buildings that shouldn't be demolished without good reason. People that say "make room" see caches more like flowers that are removed and replanted regularly. I think both views are fine.

Share this post


Link to post

It might make sense to do what you describe for a trail of caches where the caches focus on the hideouts, containers and maybe fields puzzles.

The majority of my caches are about locations and hiking routes and that's also the type of cache I prefer to find.

It does not make sense to rework such caches. The locations and the route stay the same. [Emphasis added]

You appear to have a very narrow view of locations and routes, if you believe they stay the same. Here in Canada, a hike along a particular trail can be a very different experience depending on which season of the year you walk it, what time of day you go, weather conditions, what types of wildlife and wildflowers you encounter, which friends you hike with, etc.

 

That's true in my area too and I never said anything to the contrary.

 

There certainly are many trails where I enjoy repeating a hike even if a newly placed cache doesn't have an interesting hideout, container, or field puzzle.

 

There are certainly many hikes (usually they are composed of several trails and not just one due to the different situation around here) where I enjoy repeating the hike to visit a cache I have visited before for the second or even third time. Often when it comes to caching with a friend from another region in my region I choose a cache I have already found and liked very much as this is the much better choice than going for a cache I have not yet found but which cannot compete with the chosen one.

 

Heck, there are some trails I enjoy hiking multiple times even when there are no new caches to find.

 

True for me too, see the above.

 

I cannot see any kind of argument in what you wrote that is in favour of archiving perfectly fine caches just for the purpose to have a faster turnaround and offer new finds.

 

The idea of my hiking caches is to provide the visitors with a route suggestion - whether they wish to follow it once or more often is up to them. The route suggestion and the locations to which I try to attract attention stay the same. Weather, season, wildlife of course influence the experience but that does not warrant in my opinion to ask that caches are archived after a while to be replaced by new ones.

Edited by cezanne

Share this post


Link to post

To answer the question, I hope not! I've only just been able to start up again after not being well for a while but itching, Itching, to get back out there. I had one find and 2 weeks later, bam, a bug that wouldn't go. It'd be devestated to find everyone's winding down whilst I'm just gearing up.

 

To add to the conversation: Although I am a newb and my opinion probably counts for little... there are some caches near me (ish) in lovely areas where the logs go back 4 or 5 years with frequent visits, and the history of a cache is part of the game for me. I know it's up to the CO to do with it what they want if they're still active, but it would be sad if every couple of years people just wanted to start afresh because it was old. Lots of things are old. Liverpool and it's surrounding areas is full of old things, it's part of their charm.

 

Anyway, that's just this one newbs opinion.

Share this post


Link to post

I see no reason to churn the location just because the cache is almost 12 years old.

I agree, churning is pointless. On the other hand, there's nothing wrong deciding to let a cache go after it's lived its life, making room for something new to take root. People that don't understand the "make room" comment see caches like buildings that shouldn't be demolished without good reason. People that say "make room" see caches more like flowers that are removed and replanted regularly. I think both views are fine.

 

We have a local cache who would churn his caches every year or two. That seems to have stopped since the county now requires permission to hide a cache. Albeit pretty parks. But I've hiked them several times already. Nice parks, but they're on my nearby list. Got tired of keeping going back to clear the parks again. Yes, I could ignore them and go for further cache hiking. Churning for the sake of churning strikes me as dumb. Can't you do anything better?

Share this post


Link to post

It might make sense to do what you describe for a trail of caches where the caches focus on the hideouts, containers and maybe fields puzzles.

The majority of my caches are about locations and hiking routes and that's also the type of cache I prefer to find.

It does not make sense to rework such caches. The locations and the route stay the same. [Emphasis added]

You appear to have a very narrow view of locations and routes, if you believe they stay the same. Here in Canada, a hike along a particular trail can be a very different experience depending on which season of the year you walk it, what time of day you go, weather conditions, what types of wildlife and wildflowers you encounter, which friends you hike with, etc.

That's true in my area too and I never said anything to the contrary.

If you look at your bolded sentence, above, then what you said is quite contrary to my comments about locations and routes constantly changing.

 

I cannot see any kind of argument in what you wrote that is in favour of archiving perfectly fine caches just for the purpose to have a faster turnaround and offer new finds.

I never suggested that cache owners should feel any obligation to archive perfectly fine caches. I simply took exception to your claim that people who enjoy locations and routes rather than clever hides, containers, or field puzzles don't get something new when a cache owner opts to replace an existing cache with a new cache. These types of people can get a new experience hiking the same trail again and again.

Share this post


Link to post

Also responding to the OP, I suppose it depends upon your area.

 

Where I live it continues to thrive and new caches are popping up all the time. There are aspects of the game which have become significantly less interesting than they once were and other aspects which have ascended in priority.

 

Just going for numbers isn't very interesting to me, while travel and exploring new areas has become the prime motivation.

 

Mega events aren't attractive as they once where (they're just events with a lot of people, some vendors and some activities), I find small events are far more enjoyable. Chasing icons isn't what it once was, some have become dilluted with substandardness and saturation, while a few (webcam and virtual) are still interesting because there's fewer all the time. (Ever notice how things get taken away from the game and not much replaces them?)

 

Players are the innovation - coming up with inventive new hides and exploring new territory in how one satisfies the find are the life blood of the game. As long as we make the game interesting it will be. When we forced to a rigid set of rules which converts hides into uninteresting sameness then numbers are about all there is left to pursue.

 

Rather than complain about how little interest some are taking, be the innovator, be the creator, be the standard setter. There are hiders, like TattleTales, who put out few, but very creative hides (and thus garner lots of favorites) and encourage people to travel simply to experience those caches.

Share this post


Link to post

I simply took exception to your claim that people who enjoy locations and routes rather than clever hides, containers, or field puzzles don't get something new when a cache owner opts to replace an existing cache with a new cache. These types of people can get a new experience hiking the same trail again and again.

 

I still think that different seasons, different weather etc are not an argument for a new cache and it would seem absurd to me to archive one of my hiking caches and come up with a new one which only differs by having slightly moved the final just to provide those who need a new find with a find.

 

My statement about the trails and locations was made within a context. What I meant was that a cache with the same route and the same stages stays the same cache for me. If a cache owner opts to rework a cache and leaves the stages and the locations the same, that's up to him/her and it's up to me whether I like it or not. Advocating that cache owners should renew their caches after a few years, is something else.

 

I'm perfectly fine if someone uses the same area and the same route for a newly designed cache (e.g. this approach is ok if the cache focuses on creative stages, fields puzzles and things of that type) but if a cache which is about the locations and the route gets republished, then it feels for me just like feeding those who are keen on increasing their find score.

Share this post


Link to post
Advocating that cache owners should renew their caches after a few years, is something else.

I don't think anyone here is doing that.

Saying a CO may want to and can provide a new experience that some might like by refreshing one of their old caches is not the same as advocating that COs do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Advocating that cache owners should renew their caches after a few years, is something else.

I don't think anyone here is doing that.

 

Dame Deco did it (of course she also is fine with someone else hiding a new cache in the freed spot) and two others agreed that they appreciate this kind of turnaround. I do not own a single cache where I think it would be appropriate to archive it and to rework it after 5-6 years (several of my caches are already considerably older).

Edited by cezanne

Share this post


Link to post

Geocaching is about going out and finding caches. If caches just sit there forever taking up all the space, and there are no new hides, then perhaps geocaching really will die. Folks decry oldtimers leaving the hobby because cache quality is down--maybe they're leaving the hobby because there's nothing close to go search for anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Geocaching is about going out and finding caches. If caches just sit there forever taking up all the space, and there are no new hides, then perhaps geocaching really will die. Folks decry oldtimers leaving the hobby because cache quality is down--maybe they're leaving the hobby because there's nothing close to go search for anymore.
I live in one of the most cache-dense areas of the world. Yet every week, I receive an email from Groundspeak listing new caches that have been hidden in the area.

 

Once upon a time, the guidelines actually explained that the ultimate goals of the saturation guideline are "to encourage you to seek out new places to hide caches rather than putting them in areas where caches already exist and to limit the number of caches hidden in a particular area".

 

It's a good thing for cache owners to seek out new places to hide caches.

Share this post


Link to post

Geocaching is about going out and finding caches.

 

Not for everyone.

We like to see different areas. However, we also like caches to be at least a little challenging and interesting. Given a choice between a route/track already taken and a new area we go to the new area even if it takes us further from home. To go the same place is only done if the caches are more interesting.

 

For us, it's about going out and find interesting (disclamer: ymmv) caches. There have been a few caches within 500m from where we live we didn't even bother to look for (one I saw 100's of times driving by at less than 10m distance, didn't stop for it).

Share this post


Link to post

Geocaching is about going out and finding caches.

 

It's equally about going out and hiding and maintaining caches.

 

My old caches get still visited and I still go out and maintain them.

 

If caches just sit there forever taking up all the space, and there are no new hides, then perhaps geocaching really will die.

 

I hardly know any not very small area (like say a small city park) that is really fully saturated.

 

Folks decry oldtimers leaving the hobby because cache quality is down--maybe they're leaving the hobby because there's nothing close to go search for anymore.

 

I know many oldtimers who left or almost left but none of them left because there was nothing close to go search for anymore.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm sure I read somewhere here that the average age of a cache from publication to archival is only a few years, meaning there's a natural cycle of renewal over the longer term. In my own case, I've already archived the first two hides I put out in 2013 - one had a large tree fall on its hiding place and the other was washed out to sea in a storm last June - and many of the caches I found in my first year have since gone to cache heaven.

 

The caching population around here also goes in cycles. At the time I started, many of the established old-timers were fading away, but a new generation kicked off in around 2014 with many great hides in amazing locations. A lot of those have now lost interest, either partly or fully, but just recently a few new ones have started up and are showing great promise.

 

I think the important thing is to keep hiding quality hides so that the newer generations can learn by example. I know I learnt a hell of a lot from the cachers who came before me and I hope I can pass something of that onto those who follow.

Share this post


Link to post

Geocaching is about going out and finding caches.

 

Not for everyone.

We like to see different areas. However, we also like caches to be at least a little challenging and interesting. Given a choice between a route/track already taken and a new area we go to the new area even if it takes us further from home.

 

I could have written this. Over the last year I think there were more new caches placed than any year since I started. However, most of them were placed by the same CO, all using the same type of container hidden in the same manner and rarely more than 50 from a road. I couple of years after I started I had found every cache within 15 miles but now there are dozens of unfound caches within 2-3 miles that'll drive by all the time. If I am away from home I am much more likely going to try and find a cache or two than when I'm home, and the further I am away, the more likely that'll try to find some time for some caching. Given the choice between finding a few caches a close to and driving (or flying) further away and finding a few caches I would always prefer discovering new areas.

Share this post


Link to post

The one thing that I think is being overlooked here is the fact that there is a limited amount of "new areas" to discover unless your willing to travel. There are plenty of guard rails and lamp posts but these are not the type of areas I'm talking about.

 

Where I live there are many beautiful state parks and open space areas within a 20 mile radius. Problem is most of these areas already have caches in them. Many of these caches are long standing. A new cache in these areas would require cachers to re-visit the locations anyway. I don't see much difference in placing a new cache in an established area or archiving an existing cache and placing a new one.

 

I have nothing against good cache owners keeping there hides but in some cases I've seen large areas basically land-locked with very little hope of ever getting an opportunity to place a cache there. Of course all these caches have been found by the locals years ago and now see a limited number of finds by new cachers and people visiting the area.

 

And so they sit there.

 

If your argument posterity, I'll buy that. But it seems to me that keeping the game fresh in interesting (and somewhat local) would benefit new cachers as well as old ones.

Edited by justintim1999

Share this post


Link to post

Geocaching is about going out and finding caches. If caches just sit there forever taking up all the space, and there are no new hides, then perhaps geocaching really will die. Folks decry oldtimers leaving the hobby because cache quality is down--maybe they're leaving the hobby because there's nothing close to go search for anymore.

 

When geocaching was in it's infancy, pretty much everyone had to travel longer distance in order to find a geocache yet somehow the game grew and grew to what it is today, where many geocachers expect that they only need to get in their car and drive around town to rack up thousands of finds. For many, geocaching isn't just about going out and finding caches. It's about exploring new places, going on long hikes, being challenge by an especially difficult hide, and many other reasons.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

But it seems to me that keeping the game fresh in interesting (and somewhat local) would benefit new cachers as well as old ones.

 

Well said.

 

It doesn't mean anyone should be pressured to archive or renew. It doesn't mean I don't also prefer to explore new places. But I'm also happy to return to a nice area and find new, different, quality caches. Sometimes I want to geocache for an hour or 2 and don't want to drive, or drive far.

 

Now this does happen naturally already. So I guess the only debate is, would more of this ("renewal") be a good thing, and bad thing, or don't care.

On balance I think it is a good thing.

 

When I look to place a new cache, I generally either choose an area I already know, or I look at a detailed map (OS map in the UK) looking for areas which look interesting and don't have caches, then I explore those.

 

With my most recent caches, I had a new idea (new to me). I looked at the map of my finds, and looked for areas with archived caches. I found some which I remembered the location/area was a nice walk, and the caches were archived either due to the CO dropping out, or a CO simply deciding an old cache had a long enough run. I.e. not because there was any issue with the location. I placed 2 caches in this "reused" area. This another way to refresh the local area.

 

And as I said before, I have 5 caches which are coming up to 7 years old in a nice area, and I'm thinking to renew these; with new hides and containers. To both improve them, and provide new local caches for others to find. I see no harm in that. If cachers who found the current caches aren't interested in returning to my new caches in the same area, they don't have to look for them.

Share this post


Link to post

Local caching is important to some. If I only have 2 hours free on a weekend to go out caching, I'd rather not spend half of that driving to/from a location and spend as much time as possible out walking and finding caches. If I only have 2 hours some weekends, I'd like to enjoy that. If I have 6+ hours, I might not mind a longer drive to a new location. Sometimes I might have even less time then 2 hours and really appreciate a couple of new local caches to get out and breathe some fresh, albeit sometimes very cold & windy air.

 

I find that some folks posting in this thread feel "their way" of caching is how everyone likes or should cache or that what they like about caching somehow precludes others that like geocaching in a different way. Seems there are as many "likes" as there are cachers and those that seem to oppose suggestions or feel they aren't needed are rather pretentious.

Edited by Team DEMP

Share this post


Link to post

Sometimes I might have even less time then 2 hours and really appreciate a couple of new local caches to get out and breathe some fresh, albeit sometimes very cold & windy air.

 

If I want to get to some place where I can breathe fresh air I need to spend at least 30 minutes (per direction) anyway regardless of whether I go for a cache or not.

So it's certainly a matter of perspective. I can hardly believe that there are many rural areas where cache density blocks further caches and in urban areas one needs a certain time

anyhow to reach spots with fresh air.

 

I find that some folks posting in this thread feel "their way" of caching is how everyone likes or should cache or that what they like about caching somehow precludes others that like geocaching in a different way. Seems there are as many "likes" as there are cachers and those that seem to oppose suggestions or feel they aren't needed are rather pretentious.

 

I made it very clear several times that there are different preferences. Do you think however that everyone who owns old caches should archive them just because some cachers wish that there is a huge influx of new caches?

I do think that my old caches have their value.

 

To get out caching a single cache should suffice - why do you need a couple of them?

Share this post


Link to post

I don't see how anything posted after contradicts the first part of what I wrote: "Geocaching is about going out and finding caches." That is the definition of geocaching, is it not?

Share this post


Link to post

If I want to get to some place where I can breathe fresh air I need to spend at least 30 minutes (per direction) anyway regardless of whether I go for a cache or not.

So it's certainly a matter of perspective. I can hardly believe that there are many rural areas where cache density blocks further caches and in urban areas one needs a certain time

anyhow to reach spots with fresh air.

 

 

There are all sorts of different types of places. Where I live, in 15 minutes walking I can be in the center of my city (albeit a small city), or by walking the other direction in 15 minutes I reach the start of a footpath where I have caches, and hills to walk up and down - nice countryside for walking and caches. These "rural but near urban" areas are common in my area.

 

They aren't completely full. I've hidden 2 new caches recently; in woods less than 2 miles from home. And whilst setting those, I made notes of other possible locations. But still.. and I know I'm repeating myself, I'm going to renew some of my caches too.

 

Now, what I have done which I think slightly annoys some of my friends and local cachers, is I return to the same general area. E.g. at the start of November I hid a new puzzle cache. Three weeks later I decided to create another puzzle cache, and I put it in the same general area as my previous one. I've done that a lot; when hiding a cache I make note of other possible locations. For the local cachers, it means they find my cache, then 3 weeks later there is another one nearby, and the most obvious route takes them past my earlier one. I don't do this to annoy them, it is just natural if I've found an area I like to revisit it later and hide more caches.

Share this post


Link to post
Advocating that cache owners should renew their caches after a few years, is something else.

I don't think anyone here is doing that.

 

Dame Deco did it (of course she also is fine with someone else hiding a new cache in the freed spot) and two others agreed that they appreciate this kind of turnaround. I do not own a single cache where I think it would be appropriate to archive it and to rework it after 5-6 years (several of my caches are already considerably older).

I didn't read Dame's comments as "COs should archive their caches, regardless of quality or popularity or any other factor, after a number of years merely to turn over the area for new caches." No, I read it as "if a CO decides to archive and republish or free up an area for new caches, that is a good thing."

There's a difference. One is imposing ("should" as you quote), the other is passive. Subtle. But different.

But hey, maybe I missed a 'should' there somewhere.

 

But it seems to me that keeping the game fresh in interesting (and somewhat local) would benefit new cachers as well as old ones.

Well said.

It doesn't mean anyone should be pressured to archive or renew. It doesn't mean I don't also prefer to explore new places. But I'm also happy to return to a nice area and find new, different, quality caches. Sometimes I want to geocache for an hour or 2 and don't want to drive, or drive far.

Indeed!

 

With my most recent caches, I had a new idea (new to me). I looked at the map of my finds, and looked for areas with archived caches. I found some which I remembered the location/area was a nice walk, and the caches were archived either due to the CO dropping out, or a CO simply deciding an old cache had a long enough run. I.e. not because there was any issue with the location. I placed 2 caches in this "reused" area. This another way to refresh the local area.

Another way to look at it is there are always newcomers to the hobby. An old cache most people in the area may have found. But while an area may seem old or overused for some, for newcomers it'll be their first visit there. An area is never "old" for everyone. So, pertaining to placing caches in a free area that may have had many older caches before, perhaps people need to remember to think about the newbies ph34r.giflaughing.gif

 

Geocaching is about going out and finding caches. If caches just sit there forever taking up all the space, and there are no new hides, then perhaps geocaching really will die. Folks decry oldtimers leaving the hobby because cache quality is down--maybe they're leaving the hobby because there's nothing close to go search for anymore.

---

I don't see how anything posted after contradicts the first part of what I wrote: "Geocaching is about going out and finding caches." That is the definition of geocaching, is it not?

While technically true, since geocaching would not be geocaching without geocaches, geocaches can also be seen as incentive towards enjoying a different activity, like hiking or water travel, or site-seeing. One can enjoy geocaching and ignore the location, or one can enjoy geocaching and place very little value on the cache having used it to guide their visit (even though the intent was still to find it and log it).

 

I've made the argument before that if one only enjoys hiking, they why geocache if you couldn't care less about the cache? If you're geocaching, you are, fundamentally, looking for a container, regardless of how little you value the container or finding it. So yes, it's about finding caches - but that's the extreme reductionist perspective.

 

I was just in Iceland and rather than first turning to tourism websites for what to see, I used the geocaching map. Many earthcaches, sparsely populated, but caches existed in all the tourist attractive places and much more. I used geocaching to help form my itinerary and road trip. My trip wasn't about the numbers, and in some cases I even felt like the finding of the cache hindered my ability just to enjoy a location by taking up extra time in the search rather than the amazement of the area.

 

That said, there is inherent value attached to numerous properties of a geocache, which different people weigh by their own standards - between location, container, and statistics. If it seems like your region is dead, maybe your local community is just focused on a minimal set of standards rather than a more rounded out appreciation for what geocaching has to offer.

 

Maybe you can change that. *shrug*

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post

Sometimes I might have even less time then 2 hours and really appreciate a couple of new local caches to get out and breathe some fresh, albeit sometimes very cold & windy air.

 

If I want to get to some place where I can breathe fresh air I need to spend at least 30 minutes (per direction) anyway regardless of whether I go for a cache or not.

So it's certainly a matter of perspective. I can hardly believe that there are many rural areas where cache density blocks further caches and in urban areas one needs a certain time

anyhow to reach spots with fresh air.

 

I find that some folks posting in this thread feel "their way" of caching is how everyone likes or should cache or that what they like about caching somehow precludes others that like geocaching in a different way. Seems there are as many "likes" as there are cachers and those that seem to oppose suggestions or feel they aren't needed are rather pretentious.

 

I made it very clear several times that there are different preferences. Do you think however that everyone who owns old caches should archive them just because some cachers wish that there is a huge influx of new caches?

I do think that my old caches have their value.

 

To get out caching a single cache should suffice - why do you need a couple of them?

Though my previous comment wasn't directed at any individual person in the thread, you responded so I'll respond back directly to you. Your comments are EXACTLY what is pretentious about the posts. Why do YOU care what I want to do?

 

In your first point above I never referenced archiving caches so why are you suggesting I somehow feel cache owners should archive them for new caches? I don't care what a cache owner does - that's their business. I do care that others feel they should influence that decision.

 

In your second point above why do you care if I prefer a 90 minute walk that nets me 3 or 4 caches in a nice loop or just 1 cache? Again, why do you care what others find enjoyable? I'd offer that driving 1 hour each way to a cache could be much less enjoyable to some then spending 2 more hours out in the fresh air, but if that's what someone wants to do, I certainly don't care.

 

Again, why do others feel the need to tell folks that how they enjoy the hobby isn't ok? Just nonsense!!

 

Edit: Spelling correction 10:26am ET

Edited by Team DEMP

Share this post


Link to post
Again, why do others feel the need to tell folks that how they enjoy the hobby isn't ok? Just nonsense!!

Because forum. ph34r.giftongue.gif

Share this post


Link to post

Again, why do others feel the need to tell folks that how they enjoy the hobby isn't ok? Just nonsense!!

 

I did not tell anyone here that the way they geocache is not ok.

My question why you need several caches for one walk was only a harmless question out of curiosity and not intended to be

pretentious at all.

 

Dame Deco wrote that she wishes that caches are archived after 5-6 years to allow cachers like her to find new caches without driving 30 minutes,

and some others agreed with her. As I own a number of caches that are older (actually the majority of my caches is older) I felt a need to reply and to argue why I do not think that

old caches should be archived without any necessity. The way I read some posts here is that keeping caches for 10+ years is not ok in the eyes of some

cachers.

Edited by cezanne

Share this post


Link to post

The one thing that I think is being overlooked here is the fact that there is a limited amount of "new areas" to discover unless your willing to travel. There are plenty of guard rails and lamp posts but these are not the type of areas I'm talking about.

 

Where I live there are many beautiful state parks and open space areas within a 20 mile radius. Problem is most of these areas already have caches in them. Many of these caches are long standing. A new cache in these areas would require cachers to re-visit the locations anyway. I don't see much difference in placing a new cache in an established area or archiving an existing cache and placing a new one.

 

I have nothing against good cache owners keeping there hides but in some cases I've seen large areas basically land-locked with very little hope of ever getting an opportunity to place a cache there. Of course all these caches have been found by the locals years ago and now see a limited number of finds by new cachers and people visiting the area.

 

And so they sit there.

 

If your argument posterity, I'll buy that. But it seems to me that keeping the game fresh in interesting (and somewhat local) would benefit new cachers as well as old ones.

 

You're definitely right about that. I started caching two summers ago and thought it was a great activity for myself and my young two sons. Now, although there are still caches on my radar, I'm finding that going out to find some caches has become more of production because I have to drive out of town. This wouldn't be an issue if I weren't super busy with work and family responsibilities. The crux of what I'm saying is that after a while, it becomes more difficult for many casual cachers to keep going regularly.

Share this post


Link to post

The one thing that I think is being overlooked here is the fact that there is a limited amount of "new areas" to discover unless your willing to travel. There are plenty of guard rails and lamp posts but these are not the type of areas I'm talking about.

 

Where I live there are many beautiful state parks and open space areas within a 20 mile radius. Problem is most of these areas already have caches in them. Many of these caches are long standing. A new cache in these areas would require cachers to re-visit the locations anyway. I don't see much difference in placing a new cache in an established area or archiving an existing cache and placing a new one.

 

I have nothing against good cache owners keeping there hides but in some cases I've seen large areas basically land-locked with very little hope of ever getting an opportunity to place a cache there. Of course all these caches have been found by the locals years ago and now see a limited number of finds by new cachers and people visiting the area.

 

And so they sit there.

 

If your argument posterity, I'll buy that. But it seems to me that keeping the game fresh in interesting (and somewhat local) would benefit new cachers as well as old ones.

 

You're definitely right about that. I started caching two summers ago and thought it was a great activity for myself and my young two sons. Now, although there are still caches on my radar, I'm finding that going out to find some caches has become more of production because I have to drive out of town. This wouldn't be an issue if I weren't super busy with work and family responsibilities. The crux of what I'm saying is that after a while, it becomes more difficult for many casual cachers to keep going regularly.

 

It becomes more difficult for avid cachers as well. There are plenty of puzzle caches around my local area I haven't found. Unfortunately I'm too stupid to figure them out, although I'd like to. They look like a lot of fun.

 

I guess if you prefer cetin types of caches and hides you're going to run into this problem sooner or later. Only three solutions. Learn to enjoy other hides, travel, or find like minded cachers in your area and start hiding caches for each other.

Share this post


Link to post

It becomes more difficult for avid cachers as well. There are plenty of puzzle caches around my local area I haven't found. Unfortunately I'm too stupid to figure them out, although I'd like to. They look like a lot of fun.

 

I guess if you prefer cetin types of caches and hides you're going to run into this problem sooner or later. Only three solutions. Learn to enjoy other hides, travel, or find like minded cachers in your area and start hiding caches for each other.

There's a fourth solution: Go hunt the unfound puzzles with some like minded cachers who aren't too stupid. That's what I do. :anicute:

Share this post


Link to post

It seems to come down to the fact that it all has to go faster. I'm sure we would have missed out on a lot of great caches if CO's would archive and re-publish caches.

We have caches that are partly done but, because of changing places to go caching, we continue only the next year or even longer after starting them. There's even one on our radar for about 3 years now. A great multi + one night (multi)cache around the same theme. It's to far away for a one day trip and we planned on doing them while staying in a nearby B&B, both caches have had regular times of being unavailable making it hard to plan in advance. Unfortunately the nightcache is already archived so we're going to try and find the remaining multi this year. As the cache is near the Belgian coast it gets very busy there in summer and during holidays so we have to plan going during a quieter time. Placed in 2012, I hope we're not going to be too late.

 

So especially for these "high quality" caches "refreshing" would be a very bad thing.

 

I can see the problem for people who just have a 1-2-3 hour timeperiod to go out finding caches but then, at least in our area, there are plenty of traditionals around for "quick finds".

Share this post


Link to post

It becomes more difficult for avid cachers as well. There are plenty of puzzle caches around my local area I haven't found. Unfortunately I'm too stupid to figure them out, although I'd like to. They look like a lot of fun.

 

I guess if you prefer cetin types of caches and hides you're going to run into this problem sooner or later. Only three solutions. Learn to enjoy other hides, travel, or find like minded cachers in your area and start hiding caches for each other.

There's a fourth solution: Go hunt the unfound puzzles with some like minded cachers who aren't too stupid. That's what I do. :anicute:

 

I would cache away the hours

Not being one who glowers

and enjoy the sun and rain

 

My head I'd stop scratching

oh the caches I'd be caching

If I only had a brain.

Share this post


Link to post

It becomes more difficult for avid cachers as well. There are plenty of puzzle caches around my local area I haven't found. Unfortunately I'm too stupid to figure them out, although I'd like to. They look like a lot of fun.

 

I guess if you prefer cetin types of caches and hides you're going to run into this problem sooner or later. Only three solutions. Learn to enjoy other hides, travel, or find like minded cachers in your area and start hiding caches for each other.

There's a fourth solution: Go hunt the unfound puzzles with some like minded cachers who aren't too stupid. That's what I do. :anicute:

 

I would cache away the hours

Not being one who glowers

and enjoy the sun and rain

 

My head I'd stop scratching

oh the caches I'd be caching

If I only had a brain.

 

:yikes:

 

 

:laughing:

Share this post


Link to post
. A new cache in these areas would require cachers to re-visit the locations anyway.

 

We have this situation here, which is why I try to make a new cache be about the cache itself. I see no point just putting out another lock 'n lock in the same area that only the locals are going to go visit. So a good story with an interesting hide changes the dynamic of the hide. Yeah, you've been there before but you've got something to hold your attention and make you smile.

 

Problem is getting others to give the same investment in hiding.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
. A new cache in these areas would require cachers to re-visit the locations anyway.

 

We have this situation here, which is why I try to make a new cache be about the cache itself. I see no point just putting out another lock 'n lock in the same area that only the locals are going to go visit. So a good story with an interesting hide changes the dynamic of the hide. Yeah, you've been there before but you've got something to hold your attention and make you smile.

 

Problem is getting others to give the same investment in hiding.

 

Right. And, new cachers may inadvertently place a cache in the exact same spot as another existed before it was archived, before they began caching. So through no fault of their own, new caches may also take old timers back to the same spot merely, to them, for a new run of the mill cache, while to the newcomer it's a brand new experience. If the oldtimer rags on them for not placing "interesting" caches, well, it doesn't really put that oldtimer in a good light.

 

We all need to realize that experiences are different, caching careers are different, preferences are different... helping people understand the nuances of this differencial is a touchy thing, towing the line between being friendly and welcoming vs being cranky and bitter.

Share this post


Link to post

We all need to realize that experiences are different, caching careers are different, preferences are different... helping people understand the nuances of this differencial is a touchy thing, towing the line between being friendly and welcoming vs being cranky and bitter.

 

I agree, however that's not only something which plays a role when it comes how to deal with new cachers. Actually some posts in this thread made me wonder whether I should feel bad and guilty because I own several old caches and do not regard archiving them and reworking them into new caches as a reasonable option (for my caches, not meant in general).

Share this post


Link to post
My question why you need several caches for one walk was only a harmless question out of curiosity and not intended to be pretentious at all.
One of the things I learned while working on a geocaching streak is that a single geocache can be plenty.

 

When I first started, I would find a few caches a day, and I cleared out a significant blast radius around my home. I also cleared out significant blast radii around my workplace, around my church, and around other places I visited frequently. And I had to travel further and further to reach any unfound caches.

 

Years later, I started working on a geocaching streak. To facilitate that streak, I limited myself to one find per day when I was near home, or when I was near somewhere that I visited frequently. And you know what? I was able to enjoy a lot more geocaching hikes in the same parks and open spaces, because I wasn't clearing out all the nearby geocaches every time I went geocaching.

Share this post


Link to post

Geocaching is about going out and finding caches. If caches just sit there forever taking up all the space, and there are no new hides, then perhaps geocaching really will die. Folks decry oldtimers leaving the hobby because cache quality is down--maybe they're leaving the hobby because there's nothing close to go search for anymore.

 

No, the old timers i know, i'm one of them, don't cache much anymore because there's nothing interesting to find these days. I drive by unfound caches all the time, some i've actually parked within a couple of feet of. There are many within a few miles of my house, last i checked, over 500 within 50 miles. The vast majority are micros placed the same way, in parking lots and the such. Nope, not interested!

Share this post


Link to post

I live in one of the most cache-dense areas of the world. Yet every week, I receive an email from Groundspeak listing new caches that have been hidden in the area.

I live in the same cache-dense area as niraD, and it makes a big difference in how I see this issue. We see caches go through their life cycle all the time, so without anyone intentionally churning caches, there is, nevertheless, a constant turnover that strikes me as both healthy and convenient. So when someone makes a comment about "opening up for new caches", I read it as simply reflecting the normal conditions: if that CO decides they don't want to continue having a cache in a nice area, someone else might decide to come in an use that nice area for something else.

 

So the two extremes -- people intentionally churning on the one end of the spectrum, and an area becoming complete stagnant at the other end -- don't enter into my thinking.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 18

×