According to Google Trends, interest in Geocaching is the lowest it's been in well over a decade

[+cerberus1]

in my opinion, having the 'official' app restrict geocaches to 1.5/1.5s or whatever is a terrible way to excite new players

I'd like it to stay as-is thanks.

Now that the few caches we have left are mostly higher terrain, we haven't seen the issues of missing ammo cans by one-weekend-and-done free app users, who read little, if anything ("I thought you were supposed to rehide them...") about this hobby.

Many of us archived our easier hides, and hid higher D/T because of those new players.

[+brendan714]

in my opinion, having the 'official' app restrict geocaches to 1.5/1.5s or whatever is a terrible way to excite new players

I'd like it to stay as-is thanks.

Now that the few caches we have left are mostly higher terrain, we haven't seen the issues of missing ammo cans by one-weekend-and-done free app users, who read little, if anything ("I thought you were supposed to rehide them...") about this hobby.

Many of us archived our easier hides, and hid higher D/T because of those new players.

Why not mark them PMO then?

 

I don't know about you, but it wasn't the 1.5/1.5s that got me excited about this hobby 5 years ago.

It was the challenging hikes and tricky but rewarding puzzles (and really those 2 combined got me hooked). If I were a newbie again and had to pay $30 to even just LOOK at the listings (assuming I don't know the website or other apps exist), I might have said "pfft" and walked right past this hobby.

 

I've had that happen too (the majority of my caches are NOT PMO), but only once on my most popular geocache.

[+cerberus1]

in my opinion, having the 'official' app restrict geocaches to 1.5/1.5s or whatever is a terrible way to excite new players

I'd like it to stay as-is thanks.

Now that the few caches we have left are mostly higher terrain, we haven't seen the issues of missing ammo cans by one-weekend-and-done free app users, who read little, if anything ("I thought you were supposed to rehide them...") about this hobby.

Many of us archived our easier hides, and hid higher D/T because of those new players.

Why not mark them PMO then?

 

I don't know about you, but it wasn't the 1.5/1.5s that got me excited about this hobby 5 years ago.

It was the challenging hikes and tricky but rewarding puzzles (and really those 2 combined got me hooked). If I were a newbie again and had to pay $30 to even just LOOK at the listings (assuming I don't know the website or other apps exist), I might have said "pfft" and walked right past this hobby.

 

I've had that happen too (the majority of my caches are NOT PMO), but only once on my most popular geocache.

We know of many cachers who've played years before us, but remain basic members.

There's a regular here in the forums similar.

I don't think I'd go pmo and exclude them, when it's (now) simple to exclude the ones who are giving us issues.

[+narcissa]

There was a period of immense growth that brought many casual people to the game through app-based geocaching. That growth opportunity has been exhausted. Unless Groundspeak finds another new market to tap into somehow, I think things are going to settle back down to a quieter baseline. That's probably not a bad thing, and will alleviate many of the gripes that people shout about but rarely leave the game over.

First question: Why do you think that "opportunity has been exhausted"? I'd argue that Groundspeak and the hard-working app developers are hoping it's just getting started!

 

Second question: Is a decrease in users really a good thing? If this website were a non-profit, then no issue! But it's a for-profit site. A decrease in users means a decrease in profits. Which could certainly mean bad news for the active players (we are almost like investors in a way, aren't we?).

 

What about for the Groundspeak staff and the website infrastructure? What about investors who are looking for growth on their investments? I don't think it's a secret that a significant investment has gone into the development of the 'official' mobile apps. When there are bills to pay, I just don't see how a decrease in users can ever be a good thing.

 

I don't operate the website or profit from it. What is better for me is when other players behave predictably and respectfully. Mass cache placement has not made the game better for me. Hoards of people who don't understand geocaching culture have not made the game better for me. Most of the site and app developments in the past 5 years have not made the game better for me.

 

There are only so many people in the world who have access to the technology to play this game. There will always be a few people around to tap into, but finding large new groups of customers will require more expansion into non-English speaking parts of the world, and watching for less mature markets where smartphone adoption is still new and exciting.

 

In Canada and the US? I think the game has peaked in terms of popular awareness and adoption. Where in North America will they find new pockets of relatively affluent people who enjoy outdoor activities and technology-based games, but haven't heard of geocaching?

[+Mudfrog]

Attracting people who will stick with it is harder, and retaining the people who have been sticking with it is critical.

 

Locally, it's the veteran geocachers that seem to be leaving or losing interest in the hobby.

 

I seldom ever see any new listings that are interesting, it became a race of junk placed for FTF's.

 

If you do want to find interesting geocaches, then you need a Premium Membership. I wonder if PMO caches locally have been part of the decline.

 

Same here with the veterans. A few of us are still around but none are actually caching very much. I know the group that i ran with have pretty much left the building. Some of them began concentrating too much on numbers and i figure they gave up when they came to the realization there wasn't much of a return for their effort.

 

New listings are few and far between these days. Caches that do make it out are all pretty much the same and there not being placed for FTFs. No need since there's only one person i know of that somewhat routinely goes for them. I used to enjoy the friendly competition myself but it's no longer fun since no one else participates.

 

PMO caches are pretty much non existent around our area.

[+cerberus1]

...Same here with the veterans. A few of us are still around but none are actually caching very much. I know the group that i ran with have pretty much left the building. Some of them began concentrating too much on numbers and i figure they gave up when they came to the realization there wasn't much of a return for their effort.

The "veteran" numbers-crazed folks we've lost are mostly burned out. Maybe just taking a break...

In talks, most realized that expenses just on gas and meals out wasn't much of a return when playing this hobby like a game (with "points"/stats).

We all know who those "winners" are already.

 

Maybe we need prizes !

 

Once all healed up, I'm just gonna cache when one that interests me shows up.

We still haven't seen a pmo hide here that was any different from another, so those who claim them to be should feel happy with their good fortune...

[+narcissa]

Not an original thought but saturation is likely a factor in cache placement. To place new caches, many of us in urban centres have to go some distance to find unused space, or try to wedge caches new into places that are already well served. And while I don't cache enough to run out of caches to find close to home, busier cachers certainly do.

[cezanne]

Not an original thought but saturation is likely a factor in cache placement. To place new caches, many of us in urban centres have to go some distance to find unused space, or try to wedge caches new into places that are already well served. And while I don't cache enough to run out of caches to find close to home, busier cachers certainly do.

 

In my area noone I'm aware of left or almost left because they did not have enough caches to find - actually these people have typically many more caches at their disposition (of course not more caches they enjoy) than when they started. Among those that I know that stopped to hide caches there is noone that stopped due to saturation. Saturation in urban areas mainly keeps some newcomers to hide even more lame micro caches.

 

The effects of number caching (such as powertrails, cut and paste logs, lots of insincerity and questionable practices, lots of caches just to have more caches) and frustration and increased maintenance requirements caused by improper treatment of caches, spoilers, breaking of laws (like ignoring prohibition signs) have a much higher influence on the development than saturation ever could.

 

It's natural that in areas like mine the exponential growth that we experienced for a while when it came to the number of active cachers did not continue. That's anyhow nothing that I saw positive. What concerns me however is that so many cachers that started years ago (almost all of those that started at the same time than myself, but also so many of those who started considerably later) lost the interest due how geocaching locally developped. Some still happen to visit some mountain caches from time to time, some left completely. Almost none of them hides caches any longer, the very few who still hide caches have tried to find a niche audience like hiking caches in very demanding terrain and in areas where one has to walk very far for coming back with one or at most two finds.

 

I'm not Groundspeak. So I do not have any interest into many new cachers entering geocaching who focus on an aspect of geocaching which I do not care about at all. The potential among newcomers to hide caches that appeal to me is relatively low. So for me it rather would be about not frustrating so many of the oldtimers and motivating them to reconsider hiding caches.

[+narcissa]

Not an original thought but saturation is likely a factor in cache placement. To place new caches, many of us in urban centres have to go some distance to find unused space, or try to wedge caches new into places that are already well served. And while I don't cache enough to run out of caches to find close to home, busier cachers certainly do.

 

In my area noone I'm aware of left or almost left because they did not have enough caches to find - actually these people have typically many more caches at their disposition (of course not more caches they enjoy) than when they started. Among those that I know that stopped to hide caches there is noone that stopped due to saturation. Saturation in urban areas mainly keeps some newcomers to hide even more lame micro caches.

 

The effects of number caching (such as powertrails, cut and paste logs, lots of insincerity and questionable practices, lots of caches just to have more caches) and frustration and increased maintenance requirements caused by improper treatment of caches, spoilers, breaking of laws (like ignoring prohibition signs) have a much higher influence on the development than saturation ever could.

 

It's natural that in areas like mine the exponential growth that we experienced for a while when it came to the number of active cachers did not continue. That's anyhow nothing that I saw positive. What concerns me however is that so many cachers that started years ago (almost all of those that started at the same time than myself, but also so many of those who started considerably later) lost the interest due how geocaching locally developped. Some still happen to visit some mountain caches from time to time, some left completely. Almost none of them hides caches any longer, the very few who still hide caches have tried to find a niche audience like hiking caches in very demanding terrain and in areas where one has to walk very far for coming back with one or at most two finds.

 

I'm not Groundspeak. So I do not have any interest into many new cachers entering geocaching who focus on an aspect of geocaching which I do not care about at all. The potential among newcomers to hide caches that appeal to me is relatively low. So for me it rather would be about not frustrating so many of the oldtimers and motivating them to reconsider hiding caches.

 

If there are no new places to hide caches in a given area, cache placement in that area will naturally decline whether people intentionally quit or not.

 

Your niche personal preferences, while as valid as anyone else's, likely aren't contributing to widespread decline in cache placement or participation.

[+Mudfrog]

Not an original thought but saturation is likely a factor in cache placement. To place new caches, many of us in urban centres have to go some distance to find unused space, or try to wedge caches new into places that are already well served. And while I don't cache enough to run out of caches to find close to home, busier cachers certainly do.

I'm sure there are a few areas where more caches can't be "squeezed" in but i'm also certain this isn't a common situation. It may have a slight effect but i wouldn't think it would cause too much of a decrease in overall activity. I agree that running out of closeby caches to find will slow things down for some. But then again, people that want to find caches will travel to get them.

 

These do contribute but there are other, more important reasons for why the decrease is occurring.

[+dprovan]

I'm sure there are a few areas where more caches can't be "squeezed" in but i'm also certain this isn't a common situation. It may have a slight effect but i wouldn't think it would cause too much of a decrease in overall activity. I agree that running out of closeby caches to find will slow things down for some. But then again, people that want to find caches will travel to get them.

My area's not saturated, but there are a lot of caches, and what I've noticed is that there are always new caches to find in the area just through normal turn over.

[cezanne]

If there are no new places to hide caches in a given area, cache placement in that area will naturally decline whether people intentionally quit or not.

 

That goes without saying. My point was however that there is still a log of place for hiding caches (and also at nice locations) in the areas I'm familiar with which are outside of city centres and yet the decrease I described can be observed.

 

Your niche personal preferences, while as valid as anyone else's, likely aren't contributing to widespread decline in cache placement or participation.

 

In the early years 95% of the geocachers in my area had an interest in hiking and visiting interesting locations. That was not at all a niche preference. The focus on numbers certainly has a huge impact on turning away those who care about hiking and locations and that's what I wrote. I simply explained why most that left or almost left in my area left or decided not to hide any longer caches. Saturation did not play a role for any among them.

[+narcissa]

Not an original thought but saturation is likely a factor in cache placement. To place new caches, many of us in urban centres have to go some distance to find unused space, or try to wedge caches new into places that are already well served. And while I don't cache enough to run out of caches to find close to home, busier cachers certainly do.

I'm sure there are a few areas where more caches can't be "squeezed" in but i'm also certain this isn't a common situation. It may have a slight effect but i wouldn't think it would cause too much of a decrease in overall activity. I agree that running out of closeby caches to find will slow things down for some. But then again, people that want to find caches will travel to get them.

 

These do contribute but there are other, more important reasons for why the decrease is occurring.

 

I think it would cause a decline actual cache placement over time, or at least contribute to one.

 

I have never tried to suggest that there is a single cause. There are many causes.

[+narcissa]

If there are no new places to hide caches in a given area, cache placement in that area will naturally decline whether people intentionally quit or not.

 

That goes without saying. My point was however that there is still a log of place for hiding caches (and also at nice locations) in the areas I'm familiar with which are outside of city centres and yet the decrease I described can be observed.

 

Your niche personal preferences, while as valid as anyone else's, likely aren't contributing to widespread decline in cache placement or participation.

 

In the early years 95% of the geocachers in my area had an interest in hiking and visiting interesting locations. That was not at all a niche preference. The focus on numbers certainly has a huge impact on turning away those who care about hiking and locations and that's what I wrote. I simply explained why most that left or almost left in my area left or decided not to hide any longer caches. Saturation did not play a role for any among them.

 

My comment was about urban areas. I didn't claim that saturation might be a factor in rural areas. There are many factors at play, as much as people like to think their personal pet peeve is the one thing that is killing geocaching.

[+barefootjeff]

Looking at the number of caches hidden in each calendar year in my local government area (Gosford, NSW, Australia) shows an interesting pattern:

 

2001 - 9

2002 - 8

2003 - 15

2004 - 10

2005 - 41

2006 - 48

2007 - 50

2008 - 30

2009 - 18

2010 - 41

2011 - 39

2012 - 73

2013 - 79

2014 - 92

2015 - 97

2016 - 47

 

In the first month of 2017 there have been just 2 hides. Also in the 2016 figure, 10 of those hides were mine. So yes, it's not just my imagination, there's been a sharp decline in new caches around here in the last year.

 

It's interesting to note the dip around 2009 - I wonder if that was when the first generation cachers lost interest and then a couple of years later the second generation swung into action. The next few years will be interesting to watch to see if another generation comes along.

[cezanne]

My comment was about urban areas. I didn't claim that saturation might be a factor in rural areas. There are many factors at play, as much as people like to think their personal pet peeve is the one thing that is killing geocaching.

 

The question is just what urban area means. I would not say that I live in a rural area (the second largest city of my country and within 20 minutes of the city centre when walking) though the only region where saturation plays a role is the inner city of the city where I live. There would be space for hundreds of caches in my city and much more in the outskirts and the surroundings which are faster to reach than parts of the city in a large city with 1 million and more inhabitants. None of the oltimers that I'm aware of having left was a fan of hiding caches in inner cities.

 

I never ever meant to say that what I described is the one thing causing a decline in geocaching. I just meant to say that what I described are the reasons why many oldtimers in my area lost interest. That's a completely different thing.

[+colleda]

Looking at the number of caches hidden in each calendar year in my local government area (Gosford, NSW, Australia) shows an interesting pattern:

 

2001 - 9

2002 - 8

2003 - 15

2004 - 10

2005 - 41

2006 - 48

2007 - 50

2008 - 30

2009 - 18

2010 - 41

2011 - 39

2012 - 73

2013 - 79

2014 - 92

2015 - 97

2016 - 47

 

In the first month of 2017 there have been just 2 hides. Also in the 2016 figure, 10 of those hides were mine. So yes, it's not just my imagination, there's been a sharp decline in new caches around here in the last year.

 

It's interesting to note the dip around 2009 - I wonder if that was when the first generation cachers lost interest and then a couple of years later the second generation swung into action. The next few years will be interesting to watch to see if another generation comes along.

Jeff, that 2013/2015 spurt could be partially due to noobs with phone apps then the novelty wearing off? I know that a few of the long term cachers in the area also put out quite a few during that time and maybe they've got enough out now and have eased back. Are you including Wyong in those numbers?

[+barefootjeff]

Looking at the number of caches hidden in each calendar year in my local government area (Gosford, NSW, Australia) shows an interesting pattern:

 

2001 - 9

2002 - 8

2003 - 15

2004 - 10

2005 - 41

2006 - 48

2007 - 50

2008 - 30

2009 - 18

2010 - 41

2011 - 39

2012 - 73

2013 - 79

2014 - 92

2015 - 97

2016 - 47

 

In the first month of 2017 there have been just 2 hides. Also in the 2016 figure, 10 of those hides were mine. So yes, it's not just my imagination, there's been a sharp decline in new caches around here in the last year.

 

It's interesting to note the dip around 2009 - I wonder if that was when the first generation cachers lost interest and then a couple of years later the second generation swung into action. The next few years will be interesting to watch to see if another generation comes along.

Jeff, that 2013/2015 spurt could be partially due to noobs with phone apps then the novelty wearing off? I know that a few of the long term cachers in the area also put out quite a few during that time and maybe they've got enough out now and have eased back. Are you including Wyong in those numbers?

No, they don't include Wyong. The Wyong numbers follow a similar pattern:

 

2001 - 3

2002 - 1

2003 - 2

2004 - 1

2005 - 10

2006 - 16

2007 - 21

2008 - 22

2009 - 6

2010 - 13

2011 - 22

2012 - 155

2013 - 52

2014 - 79

2015 - 71

2016 - 35

 

There's the same dip in 2009 that occurred in Gosford. The big numbers in 2012, 2014 and 2015 are dominated by one hider who put out some power-trail-like series in those years.

 

Looking at who was doing most of the hiding in the 2012 to 2015 years in both areas, it was people who came into the game a few years before me and were pre-smartphone cachers. Most of those have now gone quiet so it'll be interesting to see if a new generation picks up the mantel in the next couple of years.

[+narcissa]

My comment was about urban areas. I didn't claim that saturation might be a factor in rural areas. There are many factors at play, as much as people like to think their personal pet peeve is the one thing that is killing geocaching.

 

The question is just what urban area means. I would not say that I live in a rural area (the second largest city of my country and within 20 minutes of the city centre when walking) though the only region where saturation plays a role is the inner city of the city where I live. There would be space for hundreds of caches in my city and much more in the outskirts and the surroundings which are faster to reach than parts of the city in a large city with 1 million and more inhabitants. None of the oltimers that I'm aware of having left was a fan of hiding caches in inner cities.

 

I never ever meant to say that what I described is the one thing causing a decline in geocaching. I just meant to say that what I described are the reasons why many oldtimers in my area lost interest. That's a completely different thing.

 

What would you say the ratio of "oldtimers" to other cachers is?

 

A good portion of the "oldtimers" here have faded away but there were only a couple dozen of them in the first place, so they're really quite negligible when discussing significant patterns in the overall numbers.

 

Not that it isn't a loss when an oldtimer leaves the game, but this thread is about big changes in the numbers, not personal grievances.

[cezanne]

What would you say the ratio of "oldtimers" to other cachers is?

 

The number of real oldtimers is not that large. However as I explained meanwhile also a large portion of those who started around 2009 and 2010 and also some later who had similar preferences than the oldtimers

followed a similar path than the oldtimers.

 

I'd say that the number of short term cachers increases and the number of long term cachers decreases. Short term cachers keep interested for a shorter period of time and if they hide caches at all they decide to ignore or archive them relatively soon: 2 years becomes then already a long period of time. Many caches do not even reach the 2 years limit.

 

If someone who has shown a much stronger commitment leaves, it's worrying me more than if those who never have really been committed lose interest.

 

Those who stay motivated due to the numbers aspect (not necessarily the find score. it could also be fulfilling certain challenge caches, meeting certain personal goals, obtaining a new project-gc badge etc), typically are not affected if most of the new caches that show up are hidden mainly for the numbers aspect while those cachers who need caches at interesting locations have it much harder to stay motivated when most of the caches available to them do not fit into what they enjoy.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Looking at the number of caches hidden in each calendar year in my local government area (Gosford, NSW, Australia) shows an interesting pattern:

 

2001 - 9

2002 - 8

2003 - 15

2004 - 10

2005 - 41

2006 - 48

2007 - 50

2008 - 30

2009 - 18

2010 - 41

2011 - 39

2012 - 73

2013 - 79

2014 - 92

2015 - 97

2016 - 47

 

In the first month of 2017 there have been just 2 hides. Also in the 2016 figure, 10 of those hides were mine. So yes, it's not just my imagination, there's been a sharp decline in new caches around here in the last year.

 

It's interesting to note the dip around 2009 - I wonder if that was when the first generation cachers lost interest and then a couple of years later the second generation swung into action. The next few years will be interesting to watch to see if another generation comes along.

 

I believe that sometime in 2009 was when the guidelines changes and the "don't place a geocache every 600 feet just because you can" language was removed. When that guideline was in place it "mostly" prevented power trails or strings of caches in a series that are so common today. When the guideline was changed it pretty much opened up the flood gate to power trails and a single person creating a series of 50-100 caches and that might contribute to the steady increase in the number of hides. However, simply counting the number of hides doesn't tell the whole story regarding the vibrancy or interest in geocaching. In one area one person could create a series of 50 caches. In another area, 8 cachers could create 5 new caches each for a total of 40 caches. I'd contend that the area with 40 hides would be far more vibrant and the level of interest in the overall community much higher than the area with 50 new hides by one person.

[+Mudfrog]

What would you say the ratio of "oldtimers" to other cachers is?

 

The number of real oldtimers is not that large. However as I explained meanwhile also a large portion of those who started around 2009 and 2010 and also some later who had similar preferences than the oldtimers

followed a similar path than the oldtimers.

 

I'd say that the number of short term cachers increases and the number of long term cachers decreases. Short term cachers keep interested for a shorter period of time and if they hide caches at all they decide to ignore or archive them relatively soon: 2 years becomes then already a long period of time. Many caches do not even reach the 2 years limit.

 

If someone who has shown a much stronger commitment leaves, it's worrying me more than if those who never have really been committed lose interest.

 

Those who stay motivated due to the numbers aspect (not necessarily the find score. it could also be fulfilling certain challenge caches, meeting certain personal goals, obtaining a new project-gc badge etc), typically are not affected if most of the new caches that show up are hidden mainly for the numbers aspect while those cachers who need caches at interesting locations have it much harder to stay motivated when most of the caches available to them do not fit into what they enjoy.

This is my take on it as well. Many of the old timers looked at and enjoyed our hobby differently than how newer people are doing. There was more of an emphasis on quality and numbers weren't pushed when they came on board. Many of them aimed to put out more than just the routine fast hides we are seeing today. Most cared more about our hobby and tended to give back more than what most newer people do these days. There may have been less old timers but their ways of thinking helped our hobby.

 

I know many of you downplay my belief that "quality" is an issue. But imo, the lack of it is a major cause of geocaching's loss of interest. People want new, they want variety, and they want fun. They certainly aren't getting very much of this with geocaching today, especially if they're using an app that limits them to pretty much one kind of cache. It's natural that a good many lose interest relatively quickly and move on to something they think will be more fun.

[+L0ne.R]

 

I believe that sometime in 2009 was when the guidelines changes and the "don't place a geocache every 600 feet just because you can" language was removed. When that guideline was in place it "mostly" prevented power trails or strings of caches in a series that are so common today. When the guideline was changed it pretty much opened up the flood gate to power trails and a single person creating a series of 50-100 caches and that might contribute to the steady increase in the number of hides. However, simply counting the number of hides doesn't tell the whole story regarding the vibrancy or interest in geocaching. In one area one person could create a series of 50 caches. In another area, 8 cachers could create 5 new caches each for a total of 40 caches. I'd contend that the area with 40 hides would be far more vibrant and the level of interest in the overall community much higher than the area with 50 new hides by one person.

 

This ^^^

 

In my area the hiders are generally power hiders. The people finding those cachers are mostly the power finders. Most trails are saturated by one hider/team.

[+narcissa]

What would you say the ratio of "oldtimers" to other cachers is?

 

The number of real oldtimers is not that large. However as I explained meanwhile also a large portion of those who started around 2009 and 2010 and also some later who had similar preferences than the oldtimers

followed a similar path than the oldtimers.

 

I'd say that the number of short term cachers increases and the number of long term cachers decreases. Short term cachers keep interested for a shorter period of time and if they hide caches at all they decide to ignore or archive them relatively soon: 2 years becomes then already a long period of time. Many caches do not even reach the 2 years limit.

 

If someone who has shown a much stronger commitment leaves, it's worrying me more than if those who never have really been committed lose interest.

 

Those who stay motivated due to the numbers aspect (not necessarily the find score. it could also be fulfilling certain challenge caches, meeting certain personal goals, obtaining a new project-gc badge etc), typically are not affected if most of the new caches that show up are hidden mainly for the numbers aspect while those cachers who need caches at interesting locations have it much harder to stay motivated when most of the caches available to them do not fit into what they enjoy.

 

I also find it more worrying when an oldtimer leaves, but I don't think oldtimers leaving is why people are Google searching for "geocaching" less often.

[+narcissa]

What would you say the ratio of "oldtimers" to other cachers is?

 

The number of real oldtimers is not that large. However as I explained meanwhile also a large portion of those who started around 2009 and 2010 and also some later who had similar preferences than the oldtimers

followed a similar path than the oldtimers.

 

I'd say that the number of short term cachers increases and the number of long term cachers decreases. Short term cachers keep interested for a shorter period of time and if they hide caches at all they decide to ignore or archive them relatively soon: 2 years becomes then already a long period of time. Many caches do not even reach the 2 years limit.

 

If someone who has shown a much stronger commitment leaves, it's worrying me more than if those who never have really been committed lose interest.

 

Those who stay motivated due to the numbers aspect (not necessarily the find score. it could also be fulfilling certain challenge caches, meeting certain personal goals, obtaining a new project-gc badge etc), typically are not affected if most of the new caches that show up are hidden mainly for the numbers aspect while those cachers who need caches at interesting locations have it much harder to stay motivated when most of the caches available to them do not fit into what they enjoy.

This is my take on it as well. Many of the old timers looked at and enjoyed our hobby differently than how newer people are doing. There was more of an emphasis on quality and numbers weren't pushed when they came on board. Many of them aimed to put out more than just the routine fast hides we are seeing today. Most cared more about our hobby and tended to give back more than what most newer people do these days. There may have been less old timers but their ways of thinking helped our hobby.

 

I know many of you downplay my belief that "quality" is an issue. But imo, the lack of it is a major cause of geocaching's loss of interest. People want new, they want variety, and they want fun. They certainly aren't getting very much of this with geocaching today, especially if they're using an app that limits them to pretty much one kind of cache. It's natural that a good many lose interest relatively quickly and move on to something they think will be more fun.

 

I believe that quality is an issue for people who are invested in the game, and I think that a better onboarding process would help us engage a higher caliber of new player over time. It probably wouldn't boost the numbers very much.

 

I don't think quality is the driving factor in the Google trend that the post is about.

[cezanne]

I also find it more worrying when an oldtimer leaves, but I don't think oldtimers leaving is why people are Google searching for "geocaching" less often.

 

I do not think that either but I interpreted the topic in a broader sense than why people are searching for geocaching less often on Google as I think that the OP just used these numbers as a metric for the interest.

Edited February 6, 2017 by cezanne

[+barefootjeff]

Looking at the number of caches hidden in each calendar year in my local government area (Gosford, NSW, Australia) shows an interesting pattern:

 

2001 - 9

2002 - 8

2003 - 15

2004 - 10

2005 - 41

2006 - 48

2007 - 50

2008 - 30

2009 - 18

2010 - 41

2011 - 39

2012 - 73

2013 - 79

2014 - 92

2015 - 97

2016 - 47

 

In the first month of 2017 there have been just 2 hides. Also in the 2016 figure, 10 of those hides were mine. So yes, it's not just my imagination, there's been a sharp decline in new caches around here in the last year.

 

It's interesting to note the dip around 2009 - I wonder if that was when the first generation cachers lost interest and then a couple of years later the second generation swung into action. The next few years will be interesting to watch to see if another generation comes along.

 

I believe that sometime in 2009 was when the guidelines changes and the "don't place a geocache every 600 feet just because you can" language was removed. When that guideline was in place it "mostly" prevented power trails or strings of caches in a series that are so common today. When the guideline was changed it pretty much opened up the flood gate to power trails and a single person creating a series of 50-100 caches and that might contribute to the steady increase in the number of hides. However, simply counting the number of hides doesn't tell the whole story regarding the vibrancy or interest in geocaching. In one area one person could create a series of 50 caches. In another area, 8 cachers could create 5 new caches each for a total of 40 caches. I'd contend that the area with 40 hides would be far more vibrant and the level of interest in the overall community much higher than the area with 50 new hides by one person.

While the numbers in Wyong are certainly inflated in 2012 and to a lesser extent 2014 and 2015 by one hider producing a series of power trails, that's not the case in Gosford except for the 35-cache Classic Motorcycles series hidden in 2015. In 2016, the top hider hid 13 quite different and widely spaced caches, and next was me with 10 which included my Chasing Waterfalls series of 5 multis on 5 different watercourses with widely varying terrains (T2 to T5) so that's not a power trail by any stretch of the imagination.

 

I'm still curious why the number of hides in both areas dropped to almost nothing in 2009 compared to the preceding years. The change in guidelines might have lifted the numbers in later years but it wouldn't have caused that dip. Was there an "Is caching dead?" thread in the forums back then?

[+CanadianRockies]

There still appears to be some confusion over what the Google Trends data indicate. The generally declining trend line linked to in the original post does not necessarily mean "people are searching for geocaching less often."

 

The trend indicates that the percentage of Google searches devoted to "geocaching" is declining versus the total number of Google searches. But that's true for most things, since people are using Google to search for a much wider range of topics now versus five years ago. More people are using Google to look up word definitions, as a substitute for White Pages and Yellow Pages, to read reviews of restaurants/movies/cars, to find the cheapest refrigerator in town, to learn how to change their furnace filter, to select recipes, etc. More and more people are realizing that the Internet provides information they wouldn't have thought about being online a few years ago.

 

If mixed martial arts (MMA) isn't the fastest growing sport in the world, then it's one of the fastest. But if you look at Google Trends for "mixed martial arts" searches, you'll see a trend line that isn't all that different from the "geocaching" trend line. Yet nobody's suggesting that MMA is half as popular as it was five years ago. That's just nonsense.

[+colleda]

There still appears to be some confusion over what the Google Trends data indicate. The generally declining trend line linked to in the original post does not necessarily mean "people are searching for geocaching less often."

 

The trend indicates that the percentage of Google searches devoted to "geocaching" is declining versus the total number of Google searches. But that's true for most things, since people are using Google to search for a much wider range of topics now versus five years ago. More people are using Google to look up word definitions, as a substitute for White Pages and Yellow Pages, to read reviews of restaurants/movies/cars, to find the cheapest refrigerator in town, to learn how to change their furnace filter, to select recipes, etc. More and more people are realizing that the Internet provides information they wouldn't have thought about being online a few years ago.

 

If mixed martial arts (MMA) isn't the fastest growing sport in the world, then it's one of the fastest. But if you look at Google Trends for "mixed martial arts" searches, you'll see a trend line that isn't all that different from the "geocaching" trend line. Yet nobody's suggesting that MMA is half as popular as it was five years ago. That's just nonsense.

I think you're right. I guess we have a tendency to read more into things rather than taking it for what it is.

A bit like conspiracy theorists?

[+brendan714]

There still appears to be some confusion over what the Google Trends data indicate. The generally declining trend line linked to in the original post does not necessarily mean "people are searching for geocaching less often."

 

The trend indicates that the percentage of Google searches devoted to "geocaching" is declining versus the total number of Google searches. But that's true for most things, since people are using Google to search for a much wider range of topics now versus five years ago. More people are using Google to look up word definitions, as a substitute for White Pages and Yellow Pages, to read reviews of restaurants/movies/cars, to find the cheapest refrigerator in town, to learn how to change their furnace filter, to select recipes, etc. More and more people are realizing that the Internet provides information they wouldn't have thought about being online a few years ago.

 

If mixed martial arts (MMA) isn't the fastest growing sport in the world, then it's one of the fastest. But if you look at Google Trends for "mixed martial arts" searches, you'll see a trend line that isn't all that different from the "geocaching" trend line. Yet nobody's suggesting that MMA is half as popular as it was five years ago. That's just nonsense.

We can compare consecutive years with relative confidence though. The total number of all Google searches between years is probably the same +/- 10% or so. Using July 2011 as a score of 100, we see that January 2015 had a score of 42, January 2016 was 34 and January 2017 was 22. I think it's fair to say that the total number of searches hasn't doubled in 2 years (this site has some old data that says searches only increased by 10% in 2012). So this data would tell us that, with a few assumptions, the total number of Google searches for Geocaching over the past few months of January has been decreasing.

 

Here's an interesting side note. I posted some other stats from Project GC showing a drop of between 33%-39% active geocachers between January 2016 and January 2017. Let's say the total number of all Google searches increased 10%. We can bump January 2017's score up by 10% to account for that - say it's 24 now. (Jan 2017 adjusted score) / (Jan 2016 score) = 24/34 = 0.705. 2017 is 70.5% of 2016, meaning the score dropped 29.5%. That's pretty close to Project GC's numbers! I'm sure there's a direct correlation between the number of active geocachers and the number of Google searches for Geocaching.

 

Let's take it one step further with some more data we have access to. Another post showed the number of active USA geocachers between 2015 and 2016 to have dropped by about 8%. I did some math: the average Google trends score (July 2011 being 100) across 2015 was 48 and across 2016 was 39. Let's add 10% to 2016's score to account for the increase in the total number of Google searches - that brings 2016's adjusted average score to 43. (2016 adjusted score) / (2015 score) = 43/48 = 0.896. 2016's score is 89.6% of 2015's score, meaning the score dropped 10.4%.

 

Are these numbers close to the Project-GC numbers just by coincidence or is there a correlation? The 10% increase in total searches between years might be off, but I think that's a reasonable approximation.

 

With the data available to us we can conclude that the number of active geocachers and Google searches for Geocaching are both declining in recent years.

Edited February 6, 2017 by brendan714

[+CanadianRockies]

We can compare consecutive years with relative confidence though. The total number of all Google searches between years is probably the same +/- 10% or so. Using July 2011 as a score of 100, we see that January 2015 had a score of 42, January 2016 was 34 and January 2017 was 22. I think it's fair to say that the total number of searches hasn't doubled in 2 years (this site has some old data that says searches only increased by 10% in 2012). So this data would tell us that, with a few assumptions, the total number of Google searches for Geocaching over the past few months of January has been decreasing.

Your analysis is only as good as your assumptions, and your assumptions are wildly speculative. Google is deliberately very vague about its total number of searches, and the estimates I've seen are all over the place. So while you might be relatively confident about your conclusions, please color me skeptical.

 

Using July, 2011, as a score of 100, we see that Jan., 2014, had a score of 48 while Jan., 2015, had a score of 41. To some, that looks like a nearly 15% decline in Google searches for "geocaching." But the total number of Google searches probably increases most years. By one estimate, there were a total of 2.095 trillion Google searches in 2014 vs. 2.835 trillion searches in 2015. That's more than a 35% increase in total searches in a single year.

 

If that estimate is true, then the number of "geocaching" Google searches actually increased by about 16% from Jan., 2014, to Jan., 2015, rather than declining nearly 15%. Of course, I have no idea how accurate that estimate is. The same source claims Google searches probably declined from 2013 to 2014.

 

I'm not saying geocaching isn't on the decline; it might very well be. I'm simply saying the Google Trends data aren't showing what some people think they're showing. If you aren't careful, it's easy to be misled by certain statistics.

[+narcissa]

True statistical correlation (which is not present here) can still be a coincidence.

 

The fact that these patterns exist is interesting and worthy of discussion, but hijacking the mere existence of tenuous data patterns in order to gripe about pet grievances is problematic at best, and intentionally misleading at worst.

[+brendan714]

We can compare consecutive years with relative confidence though. The total number of all Google searches between years is probably the same +/- 10% or so. Using July 2011 as a score of 100, we see that January 2015 had a score of 42, January 2016 was 34 and January 2017 was 22. I think it's fair to say that the total number of searches hasn't doubled in 2 years (this site has some old data that says searches only increased by 10% in 2012). So this data would tell us that, with a few assumptions, the total number of Google searches for Geocaching over the past few months of January has been decreasing.

Your analysis is only as good as your assumptions, and your assumptions are wildly speculative. Google is deliberately very vague about its total number of searches, and the estimates I've seen are all over the place. So while you might be relatively confident about your conclusions, please color me skeptical.

 

Using July, 2011, as a score of 100, we see that Jan., 2014, had a score of 48 while Jan., 2015, had a score of 41. To some, that looks like a nearly 15% decline in Google searches for "geocaching." But the total number of Google searches probably increases most years. By one estimate, there were a total of 2.095 trillion Google searches in 2014 vs. 2.835 trillion searches in 2015. That's more than a 35% increase in total searches in a single year.

 

If that estimate is true, then the number of "geocaching" Google searches actually increased by about 16% from Jan., 2014, to Jan., 2015, rather than declining nearly 15%. Of course, I have no idea how accurate that estimate is. The same source claims Google searches probably declined from 2013 to 2014.

 

I'm not saying geocaching isn't on the decline; it might very well be. I'm simply saying the Google Trends data aren't showing what some people think they're showing. If you aren't careful, it's easy to be misled by certain statistics.

You're right, it's just a guess (the numbers sure worked out well though!). There's no point contending numbers because they're all just estimates.

 

But, as I've mentioned before, it's hard to argue with the Project-GC stats. I find it hard to believe that the number of active geocachers is significantly declining (fact, according to PGC) without the number of Google searches for Geocaching declining as well.

[+CanadianRockies]

We can compare consecutive years with relative confidence though. The total number of all Google searches between years is probably the same +/- 10% or so. Using July 2011 as a score of 100, we see that January 2015 had a score of 42, January 2016 was 34 and January 2017 was 22. I think it's fair to say that the total number of searches hasn't doubled in 2 years (this site has some old data that says searches only increased by 10% in 2012). So this data would tell us that, with a few assumptions, the total number of Google searches for Geocaching over the past few months of January has been decreasing.

... I'm not saying geocaching isn't on the decline; it might very well be. I'm simply saying the Google Trends data aren't showing what some people think they're showing. If you aren't careful, it's easy to be misled by certain statistics.

But, as I've mentioned before, it's hard to argue with the Project-GC stats. I find it hard to believe that the number of active geocachers is significantly declining (fact, according to PGC) without the number of Google searches for Geocaching declining as well.

Again, I'm not saying that geocaching is not on the decline. As I've mentioned before, "If I was working at the Lily Pad, then I'd be far more concerned about the much clearer Project GC numbers than I would be about the very vague Google Trends data."

 

Even if we had an accurate read on the number of "geocaching" Google searches, the connection between that number and the interest in geocaching is rather tenuous. A drop in the number of searches could reflect a more saturated awareness of the activity; far more people today know about geocaching than five years ago, so they don't need to look it up on Google. Or maybe more people are using Google competitors as their primary search engines today than five years ago.

 

Even an increase in Google searches wouldn't necessarily indicate a favorable interest in geocaching. For example, I'm sure search numbers jump in localities where there have been recent geocache bomb scares.

[+brendan714]

Again, I'm not saying that geocaching is not on the decline. As I've mentioned before, "If I was working at the Lily Pad, then I'd be far more concerned about the much clearer Project GC numbers than I would be about the very vague Google Trends data."

Alright, if I can put words in your mouth it sounds like you've answered the first question from my first post (So, the first question is whether you believe the trend is accurate?) as something like:

"I don't necessarily believe the Google Trends data, but I believe it's possible that overall interest in geocaching could be on the decline."

 

So, do you have any opinion on the second question? (Next, do you agree with any of the points these other geocachers have made? If you said yes to either of those (or if have your own suggestion), what are some possible solutions, in your opinion?)

[cezanne]

True statistical correlation (which is not present here) can still be a coincidence.

 

The fact that these patterns exist is interesting and worthy of discussion, but hijacking the mere existence of tenuous data patterns in order to gripe about pet grievances is problematic at best, and intentionally misleading at worst.

 

It appears to me that you seem to overlook that the real interest of the OP is not in statistics and even less in the Google data itself. In my understanding several observations brought him to feel that geocaching is on decline and he then looked at some data and asked cachers who left or almost left for the reasons why they left. The title of the OP is certainly a bit misleading as it focuses too much on Google and not on what the main interest of the OP seems to be.

 

Of course a discussion on whether someone believes that geoocaches is on decline in sufficiently many areas to make it a topic of interest and on what are the reasons for the alleged decline and what could be done will never be like a sound statistical study - by the nature of the topic a lot of subjective beliefs and hypotheses will enter the discussion.

[+CanadianRockies]

So, do you have any opinion on the second question? (Next, do you agree with any of the points these other geocachers have made?)

I'm sure many different factors cause many different people to be more or less interested in geocaching. And I'm sure the points that individual geocachers have made are valid for their own experiences; but the reasons that apply to them won't apply to everyone else.

[+narcissa]

True statistical correlation (which is not present here) can still be a coincidence.

 

The fact that these patterns exist is interesting and worthy of discussion, but hijacking the mere existence of tenuous data patterns in order to gripe about pet grievances is problematic at best, and intentionally misleading at worst.

 

It appears to me that you seem to overlook that the real interest of the OP is not in statistics and even less in the Google data itself. In my understanding several observations brought him to feel that geocaching is on decline and he then looked at some data and asked cachers who left or almost left for the reasons why they left. The title of the OP is certainly a bit misleading as it focuses too much on Google and not on what the main interest of the OP seems to be.

 

Of course a discussion on whether someone believes that geoocaches is on decline in sufficiently many areas to make it a topic of interest and on what are the reasons for the alleged decline and what could be done will never be like a sound statistical study - by the nature of the topic a lot of subjective beliefs and hypotheses will enter the discussion.

 

I haven't overlooked that at all.

 

It's fine if people want to start a post to complain about everything, but it's disingenuous to present this litany of complaints as "analysis." Gussying it up with words like "correlation" make that even worse.

 

Several bright people have suggested plausible alternative explanations for the pattern that are far more believable. These explanations aren't exciting because they don't validate everyone's feelings about power trails and wet logbooks.

[cezanne]

 

Several bright people have suggested plausible alternative explanations for the pattern that are far more believable.

 

For the google data, yes but in my understanding they have never been the real focus of interest of the OP. But definitely not for the fact that while geocaching still prospers in many areas, it has lost a lot of its attraction in other areas.

[+brendan714]

Now would seem like a good time to explicitly explain the purpose of the original post!

 

I've noticed my own interest in the game decline as of late. I find that surprising, since I really enjoy it! After much thought, I discovered that the biggest issue for me really stems from the fact that there's now been a barrier on new geocache placements in our parks. Given that about 95% of all the mountain hiking routes and 99% of the best mountain places within a daytrip drive are in the parks and are now off limits to geocaching, I find it hard to be really excited about the future of the game for backcountry geocaching.

 

Backcountry caching is my favourite and it's what got me hooked onto the game in the first place - but what about urban caching? Most geocachers in our community don't head into the mountains to geocache. So why does it seem like the game is stagnating or declining in our local urban environment as well? My first thought was denial - but upon looking to Google Trends (take it or leave it), Project-GC and other sources it does, in fact, look like overall interest is declining.

 

Why?

 

That's where the original post to the other forum came in. I found that beginner/former geocachers had many different reasons for leaving the game, and I actually agreed with a lot of their comments! Of course the responses were much different (as expected) when I posted on this forum.

 

Will I continue to love this game if a major chunk of it is removed? If the game continues its current course (ie stagnation), then I doubt it! I have no interest whatsoever in the app or making the website look more like the app (this seems to be the major focus of the game developers). My interest in geocaching for statistics (find count, Fizzy, Jasmer, challenges), which I once enjoyed quite a bit, is declining rapidly. One plus is that I still really enjoy placing geocaches and reading logs. But something new and interesting would really be nice - the game hasn't really evolved at all since I started playing in 2012.

 

Numbers, statistics and correlations aside - will geocaching flourish over the next decade like it did for the previous decade? I really hope so. But I just don't see it happening personally or even in our community at this rate.

[+Manville Possum]

Which Parks are off limits? Locally we are now being allowed to place new caches by permit in Tennessee State Parks. The Backcountry we have lost locally is National Forest property.

[+brendan714]

Which Parks are off limits? Locally we are now being allowed to place new caches by permit in Tennessee State Parks. The Backcountry we have lost locally is National Forest property.

Our provincial and national parks in Alberta, Canada - as of about a year ago now. Parks effectively cover about 95% of our accessible mountain terrain so it's very disappointing for local backcountry geocachers.

[+redsox_mark]

 

Backcountry caching is my favourite and it's what got me hooked onto the game in the first place - but what about urban caching? Most geocachers in our community don't head into the mountains to geocache. So why does it seem like the game is stagnating or declining in our local urban environment as well? My first thought was denial - but upon looking to Google Trends (take it or leave it), Project-GC and other sources it does, in fact, look like overall interest is declining.

 

 

For me personally, most of my enjoyment geocaching involves hiking in nice countryside to find caches. It is the core of the game for me. If it was mainly urban hides I would lose interest too. That's not saying that is the cause of google stats, I'm just agreeing with you. Urban caches can be great - they can bring you to a hidden gem place of interest, and they can be clever hides/gadgets etc. And you can get exercise walking in urban environments as much as in nature. I'll find urban caches (specially when travelling), but when I have a free few hours at home to go geocaching, I look to the country.

 

So if the country areas near me suddenly became off limits for geocaches, I'd lose interest too. That hasn't happened in my area, and there are still lots of great walks I can do to find caches.

[+barefootjeff]

Which Parks are off limits? Locally we are now being allowed to place new caches by permit in Tennessee State Parks. The Backcountry we have lost locally is National Forest property.

Our provincial and national parks in Alberta, Canada - as of about a year ago now. Parks effectively cover about 95% of our accessible mountain terrain so it's very disappointing for local backcountry geocachers.

What I and others have done here as a work-around is to create multis with virtual waypoints at the interesting features within the national parks and put the physical container just outside the official park boundary (the NSW national parks service geocaching policy specifically states that there are no restrictions on virtual waypoints within parks). The boundaries are often straight-line segments so it's not too hard to find somewhere on a road corridor, waterway or adjoining council park where the container can be placed. All my Chasing Waterfalls series (GC6E1W2 et al) are done this way.

 

I should add that there is a permit system in place here for physical caches within national parks, but I've yet to have any success with that as every location I've wanted to use has come up on their database as close to an Aboriginal site where physical caches aren't allowed.

[+narcissa]

Our provincial and national parks in Alberta, Canada - as of about a year ago now. Parks effectively cover about 95% of our accessible mountain terrain so it's very disappointing for local backcountry geocachers.

What I and others have done here as a work-around is to create multis with virtual waypoints at the interesting features within the national parks and put the physical container just outside the official park boundary (the NSW national parks service geocaching policy specifically states that there are no restrictions on virtual waypoints within parks). The boundaries are often straight-line segments so it's not too hard to find somewhere on a road corridor, waterway or adjoining council park where the container can be placed. All my Chasing Waterfalls series (GC6E1W2 et al) are done this way.

 

I should add that there is a permit system in place here for physical caches within national parks, but I've yet to have any success with that as every location I've wanted to use has come up on their database as close to an Aboriginal site where physical caches aren't allowed.

 

Multis are a good strategy that I wish people would use more for cases like this. They can also be a used to keep people on a trail system in areas where caching is allowed, but any sort of bushwhacking isn't.

 

The real shame is that these park systems don't realize how easy it would be to work with local geocachers to create something awesome that generates park revenue. Ontario Parks hasn't seen a dime from us in years, in part because of their anti-geocaching policies. We spend our camping dollars in Quebec instead.

[+brendan714]

What I and others have done here as a work-around is to create multis with virtual waypoints at the interesting features within the national parks and put the physical container just outside the official park boundary (the NSW national parks service geocaching policy specifically states that there are no restrictions on virtual waypoints within parks). The boundaries are often straight-line segments so it's not too hard to find somewhere on a road corridor, waterway or adjoining council park where the container can be placed. All my Chasing Waterfalls series (GC6E1W2 et al) are done this way.

 

I should add that there is a permit system in place here for physical caches within national parks, but I've yet to have any success with that as every location I've wanted to use has come up on their database as close to an Aboriginal site where physical caches aren't allowed.

 

Multis are a good strategy that I wish people would use more for cases like this. They can also be a used to keep people on a trail system in areas where caching is allowed, but any sort of bushwhacking isn't.

 

The real shame is that these park systems don't realize how easy it would be to work with local geocachers to create something awesome that generates park revenue. Ontario Parks hasn't seen a dime from us in years, in part because of their anti-geocaching policies. We spend our camping dollars in Quebec instead.

Unfortunately the Parks have more of an issue with public safety (ie unprepared geocachers heading into the backcountry and potentially getting in trouble) than anything else. They do care about going off-trail as well, but that seems like a lesser concern (people go off-trail around here all the time). I really don't think there's a reasonable solution at this point. I actually don't think they're too concerned with the actual physical container, as far as I understand from my discussions with Parks reps.

 

What our Parks don't understand is that the majority of geocachers that set out on a backcountry trail are well prepared and knowledgeable backcountry travellers. Grandfathered cache pages have typically described hazards, terrain, distance, etc - I would argue that a geocacher is actually more knowledgeable than the average Joe hiker. And absolutely nothing stops you from doing the hike / bike / scramble / kayak / rock/ice climb anyway - those activities aren't restricted in the slightest!

 

And yes, I agree, there's certainly a market they can tap into for revenue / positive public exposure.

[ohgood]

... And absolutely nothing stops you from doing the hike / bike / scramble / kayak / rock/ice climb anyway - those activities aren't restricted in the slightest!

 

 

just don't say "geepee esss" or "dirtbike" and you're golden. everyone with a gps or dirtbike has to up to something evil.

[+Manville Possum]

Which Parks are off limits? Locally we are now being allowed to place new caches by permit in Tennessee State Parks. The Backcountry we have lost locally is National Forest property.

Our provincial and national parks in Alberta, Canada - as of about a year ago now. Parks effectively cover about 95% of our accessible mountain terrain so it's very disappointing for local backcountry geocachers.

What I and others have done here as a work-around is to create multis with virtual waypoints at the interesting features within the national parks and put the physical container just outside the official park boundary (the NSW national parks service geocaching policy specifically states that there are no restrictions on virtual waypoints within parks). The boundaries are often straight-line segments so it's not too hard to find somewhere on a road corridor, waterway or adjoining council park where the container can be placed. All my Chasing Waterfalls series (GC6E1W2 et al) are done this way.

 

I should add that there is a permit system in place here for physical caches within national parks, but I've yet to have any success with that as every location I've wanted to use has come up on their database as close to an Aboriginal site where physical caches aren't allowed.

 

Sounds like they have found a work around as well.

[+barefootjeff]

Which Parks are off limits? Locally we are now being allowed to place new caches by permit in Tennessee State Parks. The Backcountry we have lost locally is National Forest property.

Our provincial and national parks in Alberta, Canada - as of about a year ago now. Parks effectively cover about 95% of our accessible mountain terrain so it's very disappointing for local backcountry geocachers.

What I and others have done here as a work-around is to create multis with virtual waypoints at the interesting features within the national parks and put the physical container just outside the official park boundary (the NSW national parks service geocaching policy specifically states that there are no restrictions on virtual waypoints within parks). The boundaries are often straight-line segments so it's not too hard to find somewhere on a road corridor, waterway or adjoining council park where the container can be placed. All my Chasing Waterfalls series (GC6E1W2 et al) are done this way.

 

I should add that there is a permit system in place here for physical caches within national parks, but I've yet to have any success with that as every location I've wanted to use has come up on their database as close to an Aboriginal site where physical caches aren't allowed.

 

Sounds like they have found a work around as well.

Yes, I'm beginning to think the whole park is an Aboriginal site .

[+coachstahly]

A Wherigo is another work around that can be used where physical caches aren't allowed.

 

I've been caching since summer 2010 and I consider myself an omni-cacher, meaning I'll find most anything most anywhere, although I certainly have my preferences. I'm in the Indianapolis area and most of the state parks (with the exception of one) are about an hour away or farther. The Hoosier National Forest is about 1.5 hours away. Trails are plentiful (particularly in the HNF) and caches are there to be found, although in 2012 the state DNR did a large purge of caches on state lands. State forests were declared off limits and parks and other DNR properties needed a permit to place. There was a policy in place but there was complicity by all involved that caused the DNR to actively enforce its policy, which meant that quite a few caches ended up getting archived. We have very few power trails around the city (I'd argue that we don't really have any because the largest trail with caches is a rails to trails series that runs right through the city and they aren't P & Gs) but certainly have our fair share of LPCs, guardrail caches, and other urban hides and a plethora of micros. Smalls and larger are certainly in the minority, until you venture farther outside the city to areas that get explored less often.

 

My interest really peaked during my first two years of caching, during which I completed a year long streak. After my streak was over, I still was interested but found that I didn't want to go out every day or every other day to cache. I ended up being more selective with regard to the caches I chose and found it maintained my interest, but in a way that wasn't the same as my first year in, which was to find them all. I was focusing on challenge caches, specifically the challenge of the century ones. Through my first year of caching and a large chunk of my second year of caching, I avoided most non-traditional caches like they were the plague, especially ECs. The only non-traditional caches I liked were puzzles I had to solve. I found out that I liked ECs so much that, along with virtuals, they are the first ones I add to a list when getting ready to take a trip. I also discovered that I loved multis more than any other kind of cache.

 

After that second year, my caching habits changed again as I was working on finding all caches to get my D/T average up to a 2/2 after having it in the 1.5/1.5 range for so long. I found kayak/paddle caches (and a new hobby) and made trips for those when feasible.

 

My fourth year in was a focus on harder challenge caches like the Jasmer and Fizzy, as well as continuing working on other challenges. I was also focusing more on non-traditional caches than traditional ones.

 

My fifth year (2015) was my lowest total to date and about 1/2 of what I averaged each year up to that point. Even though I still enjoyed caching, it just didn't hold the same thrill for me. I'd cache in new locations when we were visiting and I'd still mainly focus on non-traditional caches but I only went out 87 days that year. That is the year (for me) that best fits this thread. I can't explain my waning interest that particular year. There wasn't anything new in my life, life didn't get in the way, and the caches were out there still to be found. I know gas prices had dropped from 2014 so that wasn't a factor either. I still enjoyed it but didn't have an urge to go out and cache on even a semi-regular basis. I wasn't burnt out either. It just seemed less important to me. That's really the only justification I can come up with for that year.

 

2016 and the short time here in 2017 have found me in between my slowest year and my average as my interest, for whatever reason, has returned somewhat. I cache/cached more frequently, still focusing on non-traditional caches, to the point that almost 40% of my finds are non-traditional caches. I have to drive farther to have the types of days I really enjoy but I enjoy it as much as I used to earlier in my short time of doing this. There are hundreds of traditional hides within an hour of me but I can't muster up the desire to find them because they don't hold the interest for me that they used to. I'll look for higher D/T combos, ones older than 10 years, ones with either a high FP total or a high FP percentage, as well as ones in old cemeteries (we have the ISQ - Indiana Spirit Quest - series). Other than that, most traditional caches don't hold my interest any more. I've gone from a find them all mentality my first year to a much more selective cacher and I think that alone is the reason I still cache. Had I "found them all" for a couple years, I'm guessing I would have been done within three years.

 

I don't think there's a one size fits all answer to the question. I think there are quite a few reasons for why the interest doesn't appear to be as great as it used to be. Many of the cachers I started with don't cache much any more (once a month at best). I know saturation has certainly limited the space to place caches in my area, which means I rarely see new caches more than once a month within 10 miles of my home. I've found most of the non-traditional caches in my area (puzzles being the sole counter to this point) but I've enjoyed my day trips to the outlying areas of my home state.