OMG What Happened to Geocaching?

7.4k · February 15, 2017

Again, i believe the app limitation is part of the problem.

I think this is true of maintenance issues too. There's a lot of nasty finger-pointing about people not posting NMs, but the bigger issue is that many geocachers don't even have this option on their apps and don't know it's something they can / should do.

I don't know why the decision was made to cripple this functionality. I know it's mildly annoying to get an NM log from a new cacher who doesn't know what it's for, but I'd rather cope with the occasional dumb-dumb posting "Needs maintenance, I didn't like how close to the river the tree was" than have an entire generation of cachers who have no clue that reporting issues is possible and integral to the activity.

And I really don't think that limiting new cachers to the blandest, most mainstream caches available is a good way to bring people into the game in a positive way.

Edited February 15, 2017 by narcissa

6.8k · February 15, 2017

As pointed out, it took bflentje 7 years to complete their grid. I'm pretty sure that's not a hard core grid filler or number finder.

I agree that hard core was not a well chosen term. However what is definitely true is that the majority of cachers meanwhile is numbers driven (not as their only goal and not necessarily the find score).

Yes, I filled in my Fizzy with specific caches but I still don't like wet logs where nothing has been done about them. I found a July 2000 cache but that doesn't mean that I could care less about a messy, broken cache that I actually found. I'd still file my NM log like I would for any other cache I found.

I did not say anything about writing NM logs. The question is just if you could choose between such a cache getting archived a few days before you can get to it or you having still the choice to visit it (if a container is there) what would you choose? I think the latter and I do not blame you for that. I could imagine that getting the rare month, the rare combo and other rewards like the journey will make you think that your cache trip was not a waste of time. Something similar can happen to me if I experienced a nice hike where I find a wet log book at the end. Of course I will report the condition of the cache but I do not experience such caches as a waste of time and I'm not fully disappointed and would not wish I never had went for that cache. Do you get the difference for people who do not mainly care about the container and the contents?

Edited February 15, 2017 by cezanne

February 15, 2017

Again, i believe the app limitation is part of the problem.

I think this is true of maintenance issues too. There's a lot of nasty finger-pointing about people not posting NMs, but the bigger issue is that many geocachers don't even have this option on their apps and don't know it's something they can / should do.

I don't know why the decision was made to cripple this functionality. I know it's mildly annoying to get an NM log from a new cacher who doesn't know what it's for, but I'd rather cope with the occasional dumb-dumb posting "Needs maintenance, I didn't like how close to the river the tree was" than have an entire generation of cachers who have no clue that reporting issues is possible and integral to the activity.

And I really don't think that limiting new cachers to the blandest, most mainstream caches available is a good way to bring people into the game in a positive way.

I agree. If Groundspeak is indeed working on a new app maybe they will add the option or explain when to use a NM/NA log.

On an alternative note,

This generation of cachers is interesting. Not to sound rude or off-putting to them as I love to introduce people to the game but it does seem that people need more explanations and more defined how to's these days. Amongst the long time cachers, I wonder how many were told exactly what to do verses those who taught themselves how to use a gps or looked into what cache should be their first? Although I wish someone would have been there to help me when I first started, I found many sources available on the how to's and made a few mistakes here and there but figured it out. Nowadays it's looks like cache descriptions are including more and more direction on how to log a cache, reminding people to bring their own pen, trade fairly, or rehide because they either don't come with that knowledge or choose not to respect the hide.

6.8k · February 15, 2017

Not necessarily and things are not independent from each other.

I will provide just one example:

Since cache series with say 20 traditionals and one bonus cache along a 5km are allowed, the number of such series has increased and the number of multi caches along a 5km trail (just an arbitrary example as the numbers are concerned) has decreased. Many cache hiders want to get more visits. many cache searchers want to end up with more finds per day and such series create more FPs - cachers can assign 2 FPs generated solely by a single such series.

The game is the same. You find a cache, sign the log, and claim the find. To say so otherwise is irrelevant. The example above does not prove that the game is different. The motives and number of hides are different but it's still played the same way. More finds doesn't mean it's a different game than when it first started. It's exactly the same. What is different, and where we can find some common ground, is that the motives and reasons for placing a cache have changed. The game itself is still exactly the same.

My intent was to say that the increased number orientation (let me call it that way) influenced the offer of caches that are available to me as finder. It's not true that I have the same offer as I had years ago and that is just more difficult to select the caches I enjoy. Their number has decreased also absolutely in my area and not only relative to the number of overall hidden caches.

If you wish you can ignore the part about the reasons. Fact is that multi caches of the type mentioned above are hidden less often and are more often replaced by other formats many of which have not been allowed in earlier years.

2.6k · February 15, 2017

I can look at maps, filter with queries, talk to other cachers, read cache descriptions and logs, all in an effort to try to find caches i might like. That doesn't work in our area because pretty much every cache that comes out now, what few they are, are the same. Up to last year, i was hiding the types of caches i like in an effort to add some variety. Unfortunately, tough traditionals, multis, and mystery caches get very little activity. I realize that some people ignore these because they're difficult but i think the bigger reason caches like these are slow is because people don't know they're even out there. Again, i believe the app limitation is part of the problem.

I genuinely feel sorry for you if your area is like that. In my area, while the "special" caches are a minority, they continue to be published fairly regularly. There are some COs who only publish such caches.

I hate to classify people as numbers cachers or not. But I will say this. I know a few cachers who ONLY will search for "special caches". If it doesn't take at least 2 hours in the field (plus hours or days on a puzzle in most cases), it's not worth doing. But, most of the cachers I know prefer to find trails of caches. Example conversation when I've suggested to a friend he try out a multi-stage puzzle cache that I loved, which took 3 hours to do: "Why would I spend 3 hours to find one cache when I could do a series of 30 in that time".

Now, that series of 30 caches might be a great hike. And I would not call my friend a numbers cacher. But he, and I think many (the majority even) consider the numbers when they plan their caching. I have another friend who almost exclusively does series of caches. He will hike for miles and all day, and find 50 or 100 or whatever. Not park and grabs. But almost always numbers.

An example of mine, which I didn't place as an experiment, but is enlightening. My best cache (in my opinion, but also has > 80% FPs) is a multi-stage puzzle cache which takes around 2 hours to do. In the 3.5 years since it was published, it has 19 finds. The route, the way I designed it, is basically 2/3 of a circle, on a footpath. At that point you find the cache. To return to your car, you either backtrack, or walk the final 1/3 along a (small) road. I put 6 trads on that stretch of road, with the idea to give those who did the puzzle cache something to do on the walk back to the car. Those caches have 120 finds in the same time period. The boring series of traditionals is 10 times more visited. (I do maintain them, and recently replaced several micros with small containers which can at least take trackables).

I continue to hide caches which don't get found very much. But the reason there are lots of trails of caches close together is many, many cachers like them.

Lastly, for full disclosure I'm a bit of a cache omnivore. I will very gladly spend half a day or more doing one special cache. But I've also done 100+ caches in a day. I like both.

Edited February 15, 2017 by redsox_mark

6.8k · February 15, 2017

But he, and I think many (the majority even) consider the numbers when they plan their caching.

That matches well with my observations in particular if one interprets "the numbers" more widely and includes D/T combos, filled days, hidden months, and many number other oriented goals.

Then I really think that in most areas numbers come into play for the majority of cachers. But of course it is not true that majority of cachers are hard core number hounds.

The number orientation (in the above sense) has increased over the years with a significant impact on how geocaching has developped.

3.8k · February 15, 2017

1487129460[/url]' post='5636274']
1487127202[/url]' post='5636271']
Wow ... I just started this hobby last August and have had no problem finding caches that are challenging

This.

Lord knows I am not the smartest one in the room. But I certainly do not struggle AT ALL in identifying the caches that I like to find. No problems here at home or on the road.

You have over 12000 finds. You are heavily in to statistics, grid filling, and challenges. The game is perfect for you.

You making false or ill-informed judgments about my geocaching methods and philosophies is akin to me making judgments about your forum participation. Do you ever go out and cache or do you sit here all day posting opinions just to see your name in print?

6.8k · February 15, 2017

You have over 12000 finds. You are heavily in to statistics, grid filling, and challenges. The game is perfect for you.

You making false or ill-informed judgments about my geocaching methods and philosophies is akin to me making judgments about your forum participation.

I agree that what Lone.R wrote does not seem to capture well a cacher like you who among others has hidden 155 Wherigos which is very amazing.

Personally I do not care about the container aspect and even less about swag (it often even annoys me when I need to handle a container in difficult terrain or with muggle danger ahead).

I think however that I can understand to some extent the pain Lone.R and other cachers feel who appreciated the role swag once played. These people have never been numerous in my area but they existed and I recall a few who enjoyed very much to create small items with all sorts of creative techniques (mostly female cachers) for leaving them in caches and who also enjoyed finding such stuff which has been left by other like-minded cachers.

It is very hard to impossible to judge from home when selecting caches whether the contents of the container will be a pleasant experience for those who like to sweep through all sorts of geoswag and signature items.

Many of us can compensate more easily if they did not like a particular aspect of a geocache if they enjoyed another aspect. The more uni-dimensional your preferences are, the more difficult this becomes. This is of course something on the personal level but still it is true that geocaching has changed and has made people happy in the early years who now are not happy any longer. On the other hand however the modern geocaching makes people happy who would have been very frustrated in the early years. There are winners and losers.

Edited February 15, 2017 by cezanne

2k · February 15, 2017

As pointed out, it took bflentje 7 years to complete their grid. I'm pretty sure that's not a hard core grid filler or number finder.

I agree that hard core was not a well chosen term. However what is definitely true is that the majority of cachers meanwhile is numbers driven (not as their only goal and not necessarily the find score).

But finding a specific month or D/T cache to fill your grid is NOT numbers driven. I'll give you goal oriented but certainly not number oriented. Statistics oriented - yes, but with the caveat that it's a cache that's specifically filtered out for a very specific reason, just like the caches I normally filter in order to find the types of caches I enjoy. I LIKE finding old caches. In fact, I'm heading to Branson, MO for spring break and have a trip planned to get Arkansas' oldest cache in Mountain Home. I very specifically chose that cache to be included in my filtered (still on-going) list of caches for this trip. I contend that you're conflating goal oriented cachers with number seekers that don't selectively choose which caches to go after. They go after ALL that are going to be rather quick and relatively easy while goal oriented caching is, in many cases, even more selective than the type of filtering we're talking about in this thread right now.

In other threads I see people lamenting about how it's all about the smiley. They find the cache and log the find, even if it's a log only now that needs to be maintained by its CO but most likely never will, FOR THE SAKE OF THE FIND COUNT. Fizzy and Jasmer fillers aren't concerned about the numbers but instead are concerned about finding old caches (certainly NOT a high number of those left) and filling D/T slots, again, certainly not a high numbers prospect. Those are selective cachers, just in a different manner. They're filtering caches to find the types of caches that meet a specific criteria, just like those of us who attempt to filter through all the caches to determine which ones we want to find. Numbers, at least to me, are a direct correlation to find count.

6.8k · February 15, 2017

But finding a specific month or D/T cache to fill your grid is NOT numbers driven.

If number means find score definitely not. But of course all these goals are driven by features described with numbers and not by features like nice view, fun with friend, nice swag, creative container etc

I prefer number oriented to statistics oriented as there are number orientations that I would not see as statistical in nature though most are of course in some sense statistical.

When I use number oriented I do not have specifically those in mind which only care about smileys. That's not the meaning of number.

Edited February 15, 2017 by cezanne

2k · February 15, 2017

I did not say anything about writing NM logs. The question is just if you could choose between such a cache getting archived a few days before you can get to it or you having still the choice to visit it (if a container is there) what would you choose? I think the latter and I do not blame you for that. I could imagine that getting the rare month, the rare combo and other rewards like the journey will make you think that your cache trip was not a waste of time. Something similar can happen to me if I experienced a nice hike where I find a wet log book at the end. Of course I will report the condition of the cache but I do not experience such caches as a waste of time and I'm not fully disappointed and would not wish I never had went for that cache. Do you get the difference for people who do not mainly care about the container and the contents?

You implied that a wet log was far less as important as the specific cache I might have been focusing on finding. "If you have such goals, you care more about these parameters of a cache and care less if you encounter a wet log book for such a cache." The NM log is to show that I care just as much about a wet log to run the risk of it going through the process that might actually end up with it being archived.

As to your first question, it's my belief that if ANY cacher had to choose between the two options, they'd choose to find a cache rather than have it archived. That's really not much of a choice for geocachers. If the cache I chose to find gets archived before I can get there to try to find it, well, then it gets archived and I'll need to find another very specific cache to fill that particular goal I had set out with the original cache in question.

As to your second question, of course I understand. I never made that claim. LOne.R, however, has stated, somewhere in this forum, that a wet and soggy log in a broken and unmaintained cache would ruin the hike and the experience.

21.9k · February 15, 2017

Again, i believe the app limitation is part of the problem.

I think this is true of maintenance issues too. There's a lot of nasty finger-pointing about people not posting NMs, but the bigger issue is that many geocachers don't even have this option on their apps and don't know it's something they can / should do.

I don't know why the decision was made to cripple this functionality. I know it's mildly annoying to get an NM log from a new cacher who doesn't know what it's for, but I'd rather cope with the occasional dumb-dumb posting "Needs maintenance, I didn't like how close to the river the tree was" than have an entire generation of cachers who have no clue that reporting issues is possible and integral to the activity.

And I really don't think that limiting new cachers to the blandest, most mainstream caches available is a good way to bring people into the game in a positive way.

I agree. If Groundspeak is indeed working on a new app maybe they will add the option or explain when to use a NM/NA log.

Please note, the official Geocaching® apps were updated on February 8th to add "report a problem" functionality. You can read the details in the Release Notes.

6.8k · February 15, 2017

You implied that a wet log was far less as important as the specific cache I might have been focusing on finding. "If you have such goals, you care more about these parameters of a cache and care less if you encounter a wet log book for such a cache." The NM log is to show that I care just as much about a wet log to run the risk of it going through the process that might actually end up with it being archived.

Apparently I formulated my statement in an unfortunate manner. I do not know you and I did not intend to rank what is more important for you than something else.

I meant for cachers like you and also me (for different reasons) encountering a wet log is something we put less importance on than someone for whom the container is the key reason to visit that cache and who feels that visiting a cache with a broken container is a waste of time.

As to your first question, it's my belief that if ANY cacher had to choose between the two options, they'd choose to find a cache rather than have it archived. That's really not much of a choice for geocachers.

That's true for me in some cases, but not all and there seem to be cachers out there for whom it is never the first option and that's the point I tried to make.

LOne.R, however, has stated, somewhere in this forum, that a wet and soggy log in a broken and unmaintained cache would ruin the hike and the experience.

I'm aware of that and I try to take into account that she feels that way and from that perspective I can understand why she has issues with selecting caches neither you nor I do have (I have other difficulties but not those).

2k · February 15, 2017

But finding a specific month or D/T cache to fill your grid is NOT numbers driven.

If number means find score definitely not. But of course all these goals are driven by features described with numbers and not by features like nice view, fun with friend, nice swag, creative container etc

I prefer number oriented to statistics oriented as there are number orientations that I would not see as statistical in nature though most are of course in some sense statistical.

When I use number oriented I do not have specifically those in mind which only care about smileys. That's not the meaning of number.

Then you're in the minority. You're entitled to that opinion but most cachers that hear about a numbers oriented cacher are thinking of find count, not someone filling a Jasmer or a Fizzy.

6.8k · February 15, 2017

But finding a specific month or D/T cache to fill your grid is NOT numbers driven.

If number means find score definitely not. But of course all these goals are driven by features described with numbers and not by features like nice view, fun with friend, nice swag, creative container etc

I prefer number oriented to statistics oriented as there are number orientations that I would not see as statistical in nature though most are of course in some sense statistical.

When I use number oriented I do not have specifically those in mind which only care about smileys. That's not the meaning of number.

Then you're in the minority. You're entitled to that opinion but most cachers that hear about a numbers oriented cacher are thinking of find count, not someone filling a Jasmer or a Fizzy.

That might well be because a lot of abuse of language has become common in geocaching. I however did my best to describe that I include aspects like grid filling, D/T combos etc. so in my case it was not about someone being forced to guess what I mean with numbers. In German there are two different words: Anzahl and Zahl but in English number has both meanings and I do see that as fact backed up by the meaning of number which is not something invented by geocachers.

Edited February 15, 2017 by cezanne

1k · February 15, 2017

.... Cant you look at a satellite map, look for a nearby park or deep woods and find the hiking caches that way?

Satellite view is the best search/filter tool there is.

7.5k · February 15, 2017

That might well be because a lot of abuse of language has become common in geocaching. I however did my best to describe that I include aspects like grid filling, D/T combos etc. so in my case it was not about someone being forced to guess what I mean with numbers. In German there are two different words: Anzahl and Zahl but in English number has both meanings and I do see that as fact backed up by the meaning of number which is not something invented by geocachers.

No, sorry, "numbers" is, in fact, a geocaching term disconnected from its English meaning. Someone that caches for the numbers is focused on counting finds rather than searching for caches. I've actually never seen anyone like that -- even the high volume cachers in my area seem much more interested in finding caches than in counting that they are finding caches -- but I still understand the concept and recognize the invective. So when you try to lump people that are grid filling in with people focused on only the numbers, I think you've made a serious mistake. It's like accusing you of being in it for the numbers because you are more interested in multicaches that involve longer distances because, after all, mileage is measured with numbers.

But even though I think you're using the wrong term, I think you're making a valid point: geocaching has become focused on geocaches, and that can be seen in the behavior of many groups, not just numbers seekers, but also grid fillers, high volume seekers, and, in fact, just the casual weekend cachers. When they say to themselves "I want to go geocaching", they look for where the geocaches are without being too worried about the specific quality of each cache. Even when they want to filter, their needs are fairly simple and can be accomplished with the tools available.

In contrast, there's another group such as yourself that's become accustomed to using caches as a way to find those things unrelated to geocaching that really interest them, such as nice walks to interesting locations. This once worked, but the geocaching hobby has become more focused, so that incidental correspondence between caches and interesting locations has disappeared. I understand why some people are disappointed in that, but I see it as a logical and even healthy trend even as I recognize this unfortunate side effect.

7.5k · February 15, 2017

Wow ... I just started this hobby last August and have had no problem finding caches that are challenging

This.

Lord knows I am not the smartest one in the room. But I certainly do not struggle AT ALL in identifying the caches that I like to find. No problems here at home or on the road.

You have over 12000 finds. You are heavily in to statistics, grid filling, and challenges. The game is perfect for you.

You making false or ill-informed judgments about my geocaching methods and philosophies is akin to me making judgments about your forum participation. Do you ever go out and cache or do you sit here all day posting opinions just to see your name in print?

It's not a slight. It's an observation. For you there are plenty of caches you enjoy. You find the game to be quite satisfactory as is.

Me, after 16 years of participating, I find it really difficult to participate anymore. I'm frustrated. I want to participate but unless I adopt a for-the-numbers mentality I'm out of luck.

I like to take a 3-day weekend as a geocaching vacation each year. But I don't know where to go for maximum enjoyment. Last year's experience was a costly frustrating bust. I ended up logging NMs and NAs on most of the caches I sought out. Most of the area was saturated by a johnny-appleseed type of addicted cache owner that didn't even live in the country (based on the last 2 year's finds in their profile). I cut the vacation short and went home after caching the afternoon, then the next morning in the area.

The best geo-vacations have been when I find a great hider (nod to BC & Miss Kitty and Dundeejim) - responsible, uses good containers, maintains, monitors, doesn't plant for the numbers, hides to provide an all-round good experience. Lists accurate sizes and D/T ratings, doesn't screw or drill things into trees/posts/fences, plants inclusive caches with moderate D/T ratings. But once you've found most of their caches, you're left floundering again. And if you go to a new area, you may miss out on those great cache hiders. If only there was a way to filter for the kind of cache hiders we might like.

Edited February 15, 2017 by L0ne.R

7.5k · February 15, 2017

As to your second question, of course I understand. I never made that claim. LOne.R, however, has stated, somewhere in this forum, that a wet and soggy log in a broken and unmaintained cache would ruin the hike and the experience.

No, I said it would lessen a good hiking experience rather then enhance it. (Ruined was narcissa's hyperbole). I would have been better off just enjoying the hike and view at the end, rather then finish it off with a wet/soggy/broken mess of a cache.

Edited February 16, 2017 by L0ne.R

6.8k · February 15, 2017

That might well be because a lot of abuse of language has become common in geocaching. I however did my best to describe that I include aspects like grid filling, D/T combos etc. so in my case it was not about someone being forced to guess what I mean with numbers. In German there are two different words: Anzahl and Zahl but in English number has both meanings and I do see that as fact backed up by the meaning of number which is not something invented by geocachers.

No, sorry, "numbers" is, in fact, a geocaching term disconnected from its English meaning. Someone that caches for the numbers is focused on counting finds rather than searching for caches.

When I use number in many of my cache listings it means exactly number and not necessarily something to be counted.

Saying someone is caching for the numbers is not the same than saying that someone focuses on number oriented goals/aspects.

So when you try to lump people that are grid filling in with people focused on only the numbers,

I never intended to put them all into the same drawer. My intent was to contrast number oriented goals from non number oriented goals.

In my first years of caching noone in my area knew about grids/day matrices/months to fill etc

Now the most common thing when I meet someone out caching is that they have some argument related to numbers why they are visiting this cache today.

It's like accusing you of being in it for the numbers because you are more interested in multicaches that involve longer distances because, after all, mileage is measured with numbers.

First of all, number oriented goals are not negative per se. Hence accuse does not make sense.

Second, I like all caches that send me on a long walk and allow me to report all my experiences in one log. The area where I live allows that much more easily for a multi cache.

Third, my satisfaction after a walk does not come from the length and elevation data but from how it changes my emotions and how I feel physically.

But even though I think you're using the wrong term, I think you're making a valid point: geocaching has become focused on geocaches,

That was not all the point I tried to make. Lone.R misses the old times and it always has been about geocaches (the container) for her. I maybe understand what you mean, but I do not think that your statement above captures that.

Most cachers I know care more about what I call number oriented goals than about the real properties of a geocache. For example if they need the 50-th cache classified as large most of them do not care that much whether their 50-th cache is a real large in the sense of Groundspeak or rather untypically large for the area and thus classified as large by the cache owner.

Someone like Lone.R cares about what is really to be found at the cache site.

Edited February 15, 2017 by cezanne

3.8k · February 15, 2017

Me, after 16 years of participating, I find it really difficult to participate anymore. I'm frustrated. I want to participate but unless I adopt a for-the-numbers mentality I'm out of luck.

I get that it's changed, for better or for worse. But if you're struggling that much with it why then do you torture yourself and stick around? I understand what both you and Cezanne are saying but I am really finding it difficult to understand why you and those with your position have not moved on? It's ok to move on... << and I am being sincere and not suggesting anything nefarious.

6.8k · February 15, 2017

Me, after 16 years of participating, I find it really difficult to participate anymore. I'm frustrated. I want to participate but unless I adopt a for-the-numbers mentality I'm out of luck.

I get that it's changed, for better or for worse. But if you're struggling that much with it why then do you torture yourself and stick around? I understand what both you and Cezanne are saying but I am really finding it difficult to understand why you and those with your position have not moved on? It's ok to move on... << and I am being sincere and not suggesting anything nefarious.

For Lone.R maybe this explains it all

The best geo-vacations have been when I find a great hider (nod to BC & Miss Kitty and Dundeejim) - responsible, uses good containers, maintains, monitors, doesn't plant for the numbers, hides to provide an all-round good experience. Lists accurate sizes and D/T ratings, doesn't screw or drill things into trees/posts/fences, plants inclusive caches with moderate D/T ratings. But once you've found most of their caches, you're left floundering again. And if you go to a new area, you may miss out on those great cache hiders. If only there was a way to filter for the kind of cache hiders we might like.

It sounds like she could still enjoy geocaching in areas with suitable hiders if she were able to find the areas and the suitable hiders there.

7.4k · February 15, 2017

Again, i believe the app limitation is part of the problem.

I think this is true of maintenance issues too. There's a lot of nasty finger-pointing about people not posting NMs, but the bigger issue is that many geocachers don't even have this option on their apps and don't know it's something they can / should do.

I don't know why the decision was made to cripple this functionality. I know it's mildly annoying to get an NM log from a new cacher who doesn't know what it's for, but I'd rather cope with the occasional dumb-dumb posting "Needs maintenance, I didn't like how close to the river the tree was" than have an entire generation of cachers who have no clue that reporting issues is possible and integral to the activity.

And I really don't think that limiting new cachers to the blandest, most mainstream caches available is a good way to bring people into the game in a positive way.

I agree. If Groundspeak is indeed working on a new app maybe they will add the option or explain when to use a NM/NA log.

Please note, the official Geocaching® apps were updated on February 8th to add "report a problem" functionality. You can read the details in the Release Notes.

I don't cache with app devices, so I missed that. Good to hear.

February 15, 2017

I see you are a Charter Member. Kudos to you. I wish I'd have done that. I've been a cacher since 2003. I don't have many finds for being a cacher of 14 years, but I've seen the game change. First, I understand your feelings. Back in the day, caching was as you described. Now, every time I read, "It's not about the numbers" I think, bunk. Yet, this game is about the participants, not about the reviewers. It has evolved, for good or bad, from interesting places to lamp post, guard rail hides. Since there are a limited number of interesting places in any area, folks hide caches where they can.

I suggest this, hide caches you would like others to find. Try to find places that others would find interesting. I know, it is hard. Someone quickly places an LPC and a couple hundred feet away is a nice view or city park with a sculpture. Many times I've gone after a micro and thought, 'If you only looked around, there is a good place for a regular fifty feet away.

But as I said, this game is about the players and not the reviewers. The reviewers are volunteers. They abide by the guidelines set forth by GC. Don't blame them. Don't blame GC. The players want power trails. The players want park and grabs. The players want numbers. But even as I write this I will say that just today, Feb. 15, 2017, I found a nice trail in a park in Cleveland, OH. 10 caches hidden along a horse trail in a Metropark.

Don't lose hope. I still love to geocache. There are many hides that take me to places I would never have visited. Any time I travel, I geocache. I recall one in Florence Italy, GC425XH. While it was a small, it took me to place where resistance fighters had a radio to broadcast news against the Third Reich. I think about caches like Mingo, GC30, a very old hide. (one I have not had the pleasure of finding.) Or some of the creative containers I've found. And geocachers can be very creative.

I recall the old days. But change is the only constant in life. Geocaching is what one makes of it. Take off those old glasses and look at the game anew. You can still find wonder.

7.4k · February 15, 2017

As to your second question, of course I understand. I never made that claim. LOne.R, however, has stated, somewhere in this forum, that a wet and soggy log in a broken and unmaintained cache would ruin the hike and the experience.

No, I said it would lessen a good hiking experience rather then enhance it. I would have been better off just enjoying the hike and view at the end, rather then finish it off with a wet/soggy/broken mess of a cache.

While this attitude is indeed unfortunate, it's not something that can be fixed by anybody else. Even when cache owners are extremely diligent about cache maintenance, there is always some risk that a given geocacher will be the first person to find a cache after it has been damaged or vandalized.

There is simply no way to appease a geocacher who honestly feels his/her experience has been lessened by extremely common and unavoidable issues.

We cannot reasonably operate the game based the preferences of geocachers with extreme, unrealistic expectations and an inability to self-moderate in situations that are challenging or disappointing. It's just not possible, and it's unreasonable to expect everybody else in the game to cater to this way of thinking.

February 15, 2017

GarminArmin

Have we seen what you are talking about? Sure. But we're also firm believers that geocaching, much like anything else, is what you make of it. We started in Connecticut in 2005, then moved to Maryland in 2006. Great fortune for us (which is not to say anything negative about Connecticut), as Maryland has a very engaged and pro-active local caching organization, the Maryland Geocaching Society. They host 6 events or so a year across the state, and are focused on what we think of as a quality caching experience. Since we've moved here, there have been numerous geo-trails established (not talking power trails, but rather a series of caches that take you to places of cultural interest), such as the Captain John Smith geo-trail, the Washington County geo-trail, the Star Spangled Banner geo-trail, and most recently, the Heart of the Civil War Heritage geo-trail, just to name a few. We hosted geowoodstock a year ago, and have hosted an annual event called Cache Across Maryland (CAM) annually for 15 years. Every one of the 10 hides placed across the entire state for last year's CAM were placed in National Parks, with permission.

We tend to use the term"local" as most geocachers would, meaning at the least all adjacent states, and often something a bit further out than that. Locally (in West Virginia), we are most fortunate to have a very innovative geocacher by the name of WVTim, who's has created a number of geo-trails you may have heard of as well. More importantly, he hosts a geocaching seminar each March to welcome new cachers to the hobby, and provide veteran cachers with lessons taught by experts on aspects of interest. Following his lead, my wife and I established a geocaching symposium with much the same format hosted at a local university each fall. From a more personal standpoint, we host a monthly event that is in it's fourth year, at which we provide mini-lectures on aspects of the hobby. That started small, but rapidly developed a steady following of 20-25 people who attend each month. We promote quality caching at these events, and have been rewarded with a group of dedicated cachers (the Carroll County Caching Fellowship) who place great hides, and have a great sense of camaraderie. I would note that there are at least four or five events that are held routinely on a monthly basis across the state. One is dedicated to puzzle caches, which are a big thing here.

For us, that is what has happened to geocaching. We've invested time, effort, energy, and have been very well rewarded. Wherever you live, you may not have some of the advantages we have here, but I would argue that we might not have much more than you other than dedicated cachers with vision who work hard to grow the community into what we think it should be. There is no doubt we've been challenged by some of the changes that have occurred at Groundspeak over the years, and we certainly have our fair share of power cachers, numbers hounds, and LPCs. Every place always will. But over the past two years, we've had a dedicated group of cachers not formally organized, but more of a grass roots effort, creating challenge caches where the challenge is to find the oldest 10 or 15 hides in each county in the state. I don't think they're done yet (challenge caches are not necessarily our thing), but they've made good progress, and those old caches, well, their the ones I'd bet you'd like to go after. So there is one seed idea for where you could start.

If you build it, they will come. Here in Maryland, we're living proof of it.

So while I hear your shock and dismay, and feel your pain, my recommendation is this: if your local caching community isn't what you want it to be, then lead by example, put in the time effort, energy, and most of all heart, and make it what you want it to be.

Navigation is a metaphor for life; it is knowing where you are at and where you want to be. Geocaching is the pursuit of pleasure along that road (or up that tree, or under that lake, or in that cave...)

Happy hunting!

Zekester

Edited February 15, 2017 by Zekester & Simon

15.3k · February 15, 2017

But even though I think you're using the wrong term, I think you're making a valid point: geocaching has become focused on geocaches, and that can be seen in the behavior of many groups, not just numbers seekers, but also grid fillers, high volume seekers, and, in fact, just the casual weekend cachers. When they say to themselves "I want to go geocaching", they look for where the geocaches are without being too worried about the specific quality of each cache. Even when they want to filter, their needs are fairly simple and can be accomplished with the tools available.

In contrast, there's another group such as yourself that's become accustomed to using caches as a way to find those things unrelated to geocaching that really interest them, such as nice walks to interesting locations. This once worked, but the geocaching hobby has become more focused, so that incidental correspondence between caches and interesting locations has disappeared. I understand why some people are disappointed in that, but I see it as a logical and even healthy trend even as I recognize this unfortunate side effect.

I see the distinction you're making between a focus on geocaches themselves vs a focus on geocaches as a means to something else. In a sense, this is the classic distinction referred to by often-referenced quote by briansnat: "When you go to hide a geocache, think of the reason you are bringing people to that spot. If the only reason is for the geocache, then find a better spot."

But I see another distinction, which is perhaps more related to cezanne's use of the phrase "numbers driven". Some people are focused on the specific caches they search for, whether that focus includes the container itself, or something they encounter (e.g., the view, the hike, the history lesson) while searching for the container itself, or some combination of these.

Others are focused on some sort of meta-game, and the specific caches are just stepping stones along the path towards playing that meta-game. The meta-game may be increasing find count (classic "numbers hounds"), or it may be grid filling (e.g., Fizzy, Jasmer, 366 days), or it may be challenge completion, or it may be maintaining a streak, or it may be something else entirely. For example, consider the difference between the following logs:

"What a challenging hike! This cache certainly earns its T4.5 rating! [...]"

"I'm working on the Xyzzy Challenge, and needed a T4.5 cache. [...]"

7.4k · February 15, 2017

Narcissa -

Have we seen what you are talking about? ***EDIT: SNIPPED THE HUGE POST***

So while I hear your shock and dismay, and feel your pain, my recommendation is this: if your local caching community isn't what you want it to be, then lead by example, put in the time effort, energy, and most of all heart, and make it what you want it to be.

Navigation is a metaphor for life; it is knowing where you are at and where you want to be. Geocaching is the pursuit of pleasure along that road (or up that tree, or under that lake, or in that cave...)

Happy hunting!

Zekester

I think something was lost in the quotes. I don't feel pain, and am very impressed by my local geocaching community. Personally, I feel I am successful at making the game what I want it to be and I enjoy the vast majority of caches I find in some way. Perhaps your comment would be better directed at a different user.

Edited February 15, 2017 by narcissa

6.8k · February 15, 2017

But I see another distinction, which is perhaps more related to cezanne's use of the phrase "numbers driven".

[stuff deleted]

Others are focused on some sort of meta-game, and the specific caches are just stepping stones along the path towards playing that meta-game.

[stuff deleted]

"What a challenging hike! This cache certainly earns its T4.5 rating! [...]"

"I'm working on the Xyzzy Challenge, and needed a T4.5 cache. [...]"

Yes, what you wrote describes what I had in mind better than my own attempt. Thanks.

14k · February 15, 2017

I see some reasons why it's difficult to filter but I'm still having touble understanding. Cant you look at a satellite map, look for a nearby park or deep woods and find the hiking caches that way? What kind of selected caches are we talking about here? Ones that have nice swag, nicely maintained, larger than a sandwich container?

I can look at a map and see caches that aren't close to a road. Getting a collection of those caches onto a GPS from the map requires selecting each cache, one at a time adding it to a list, creating a PQ from the list, then downloading the results of a PQ to the GPS so that we can navigate to the cache. I'm getting the impression that "look at a satellite map" means one is using a mobile app with satellite imagery, which suggest that if one wants to be selective for the types of caches they want to find the should use a mobile phone for geocaching rather than a handheld GPS.

7.5k · February 16, 2017

As to your second question, of course I understand. I never made that claim. LOne.R, however, has stated, somewhere in this forum, that a wet and soggy log in a broken and unmaintained cache would ruin the hike and the experience.

No, I said it would lessen a good hiking experience rather then enhance it. I would have been better off just enjoying the hike and view at the end, rather then finish it off with a wet/soggy/broken mess of a cache.

While this attitude is indeed unfortunate, it's not something that can be fixed by anybody else. Even when cache owners are extremely diligent about cache maintenance, there is always some risk that a given geocacher will be the first person to find a cache after it has been damaged or vandalized.

Of course I'm not complaining about a recently wet/broken container. Where did I give you that idea? It's not about cache where the owner hasn't been notified yet of a problem, or it's less then a month or two since the report, (hopefully the CO has responded with a note). It's the cache with repeated logs that say: the lid is broken, water is getting in. Then 4 months later people leave messages that the log is pulp and unsignable. The contents wet and deteriorated, maybe moldy. The one with no response from the long-gone CO. Or worse, the shirker - an active cache owner who continues to hide caches. His idea of maintenance is to let the reviewer archive the cache eventually if anyone will log an NM and finally an NA. So again, it's not the accidental short-term messy cache, it's the one ignored by the CO. And to make it more in-line with the OP's original post, that goes for PT caches too.

http://support.Groun...g=kb.page&id=57

6.3. Maintenance expectations

To make sure your geocache is in good health, monitor the logs and visit the cache site periodically. Unmaintained caches may be archived.

Here is a list of your responsibilities as a cache owner:

- Choose an appropriate container that is watertight.
- Replace broken or missing containers.
- Clean out your cache if contents become wet.
- Replace full or wet logbooks.
- Temporarily disable your cache if it's not accessible due to weather or seasonal changes.
- Mark trackables as missing if they are listed in the inventory but no longer are in the cache.
- Delete inappropriate logs.
- Update coordinates if cache location has changed.

After you maintain your cache, make sure to

remove the "Needs Maintenance" icon

.

If you no longer want to maintain your cache, retrieve the container and

archive your listing

.

Edited February 16, 2017 by L0ne.R

7.5k · February 16, 2017

But I see another distinction, which is perhaps more related to cezanne's use of the phrase "numbers driven".

[stuff deleted]

Others are focused on some sort of meta-game, and the specific caches are just stepping stones along the path towards playing that meta-game.

[stuff deleted]

"What a challenging hike! This cache certainly earns its T4.5 rating! [...]"

"I'm working on the Xyzzy Challenge, and needed a T4.5 cache. [...]"

Yes, what you wrote describes what I had in mind better than my own attempt. Thanks.

I also agree. Although dprovan says the game has become more about the geocache, it has IMO become less about the geocache and more about the listing/type/DT-rate/smiley to get the ultimate reward qualifying for the meta-game. Sometimes whether the cache is there or not doesn't matter - a throwdown will suffice as long as the listing remains alive for the meta-game. Whether there's a 100ml+ capacity dry cache for families and those who like the "cache" part of a geocache doesn't matter, as long as there's a log (any log) and the listing is left alive.

Edited February 16, 2017 by L0ne.R

7.5k · February 16, 2017

I see the distinction you're making between a focus on geocaches themselves vs a focus on geocaches as a means to something else. In a sense, this is the classic distinction referred to by often-referenced quote by briansnat: "When you go to hide a geocache, think of the reason you are bringing people to that spot. If the only reason is for the geocache, then find a better spot."

Yes, that's it. Geocaching went in a different directions because of forces that are obvious in hindsight, and there's no reason at all to think the things that drove geocaching away from location can somehow be reversed. When people can't use geocaching to find wonderful hikes to great locations anymore, that's not because geocaching is broken, it's because there was a lucky coincidence of interests in the beginning that they should remember fondly.

But I see another distinction, which is perhaps more related to cezanne's use of the phrase "numbers driven"....

I'm going to have to think about this. My initial reaction is that this distinction is entirely unrelated to the overall change in focus of the hobby.

38.2k · February 16, 2017

I was against the change in the power trail guideline. I felt that it would ultimately change the focus of the game and I was right. I also was concerned that these trails changed geocaching from a low impact, low visibility game to a high impact, high visibility game. I was also right about that. It was these power trails that caused NJ's state park system, wich was very geocaching friendly, to introduce a highly restrictive policy. Park supervisors who for years would see 20-30 caches in their parks saw hundreds practically overnight and were alarmed about that. I'm sure that is a concern elsewhere

Yet these power trails are hugely popular among a large segment of geocachers. People come from all over the world to do the ET trail and others. The original version of the ET was archived because of the impact, yet the impact of visitors on the local economy caused it to be reinstated.

Power trails have nothing to offer me. I've done some bike rides along power trails on rail trails and found stopping every minute or so distracting. So I stopped only when the area looked interesting.I passed by dozens on those trips.

There was one power tral that was well done. It wasn't all micros every .1 mile. There were ammo boxes, Lock n Locks and micros. Many were a significant walk off (several hundred feet at times) of the bike trail. I guess that really isn't a "power trail" per se, but it looks like one on the map.

I agree that it now takes work to separate the chaff from the good stuff, but that was an issue even before power trails were introduced. It was about 2004ish when I started encountering a plethora of Walmart and strip mall micros. That really dampened my enthusiasm for geocaching for a long time, but I learned to keep driving if I saw my GPS was pointing to a strip mall or parking lot. When a several hundred long power trail appeared within my usual pocket query range I was annoyed. But now I filter out that cache owner from in GSAK so I no longer have to worry about them.

Sure the days when you could load up your GPS and generally expect to be be taken to cool places are long gone. Yet there are way more cool caches than ever out there. It's just getting through the chaff that is difficult. Favorite points are imperfect, but they are helpful. Knowing which COs generally place garbage goes a long way. I have several cache owners filtered out in GSAK and I also have a file of the good CO's in my head.

Despite my disappointment in the direction that geocaching has taken I still can find enough of the sort of caches I like, which is why I'm still doing this after 16 years.

Edited February 16, 2017 by briansnat

February 16, 2017

Just to clarify, I do have goals within this hobby. Those are for me only and not to compete with anyone. And yes, I do like caches in a series, even ones placed just 528ft apart. Exercise is so much less boring this way. But "numbers cachers"?...I don't have it in me to go find 500 caches in a 24 hour period (which is my definition). If someone else does, good for them for trying.

Anyhow, my first response was simple. Sometimes these forums really are the worst part of the hobby for me and it gets frustrating when trying to learn something to have to skim through and weed out the griping. I took the original poster's post as a "oh dear, another person that thinks all us new folks are ruining the game" type post. It was just nice to see a newer person, like me, share pretty much the same perspective I have. Maybe that'll change later in life, I'll adjust.

7.4k · February 16, 2017

As to your second question, of course I understand. I never made that claim. LOne.R, however, has stated, somewhere in this forum, that a wet and soggy log in a broken and unmaintained cache would ruin the hike and the experience.

No, I said it would lessen a good hiking experience rather then enhance it. I would have been better off just enjoying the hike and view at the end, rather then finish it off with a wet/soggy/broken mess of a cache.

While this attitude is indeed unfortunate, it's not something that can be fixed by anybody else. Even when cache owners are extremely diligent about cache maintenance, there is always some risk that a given geocacher will be the first person to find a cache after it has been damaged or vandalized.

Of course I'm not complaining about a recently wet/broken container. Where did I give you that idea? It's not about cache where the owner hasn't been notified yet of a problem, or it's less then a month or two since the report, (hopefully the CO has responded with a note). It's the cache with repeated logs that say: the lid is broken, water is getting in. Then 4 months later people leave messages that the log is pulp and unsignable. The contents wet and deteriorated, maybe moldy. The one with no response from the long-gone CO. Or worse, the shirker - an active cache owner who continues to hide caches. His idea of maintenance is to let the reviewer archive the cache eventually if anyone will log an NM and finally an NA. So again, it's not the accidental short-term messy cache, it's the one ignored by the CO. And to make it more in-line with the OP's original post, that goes for PT caches too.

http://support.Groun...g=kb.page&id=57

6.3. Maintenance expectations

To make sure your geocache is in good health, monitor the logs and visit the cache site periodically. Unmaintained caches may be archived.

Here is a list of your responsibilities as a cache owner:

Choose an appropriate container that is watertight.

Replace broken or missing containers.

Clean out your cache if contents become wet.

Replace full or wet logbooks.

Temporarily disable your cache if it's not accessible due to weather or seasonal changes.

Mark trackables as missing if they are listed in the inventory but no longer are in the cache.

Delete inappropriate logs.

Update coordinates if cache location has changed.

After you maintain your cache, make sure to
remove the "Needs Maintenance" icon
.

If you no longer want to maintain your cache, retrieve the container and
archive your listing
.

Yes, we all know that maintenance is part of the game. Quoting bits of the website at people who regularly post NM and NA logs isn't useful and doesn't elucidate any kind of point.

Sometimes, as finders, we're going to be the ones who have to report maintenance. Sometimes, despite our best efforts, we're going to find geocaches that just aren't what we wanted.

If finding a cache in a state of needing maintenance is going to derail an otherwise good experience, that's a matter of poor attitude more than anything else. Note the poor maintenance in an appropriate log and move on. I would love it if every cache was a nice dry ammo can with an interesting logbook and no junk / swag in it. Most caches aren't. Yet somehow, life goes on and I enjoy other caches too.

Geocaches are containers outside in the elements. Sometimes they get damaged. It is not realistic to expect caches to be in a state of perfect repair at all times, nor is it realistic to expect all other geocachers to share such an extreme expectation. It is not reasonable to expect other geocachers to assign FPs on the criteria that is important to you, and it's absurd to expect the website to be redesigned to somehow filter on qualities that are ephemeral and unsustainable.

6.8k · February 16, 2017

I see the distinction you're making between a focus on geocaches themselves vs a focus on geocaches as a means to something else. In a sense, this is the classic distinction referred to by often-referenced quote by briansnat: "When you go to hide a geocache, think of the reason you are bringing people to that spot. If the only reason is for the geocache, then find a better spot."

Yes, that's it. Geocaching went in a different directions because of forces that are obvious in hindsight, and there's no reason at all to think the things that drove geocaching away from location can somehow be reversed.

The somehow ironic thing is just that briansnat's quote is part of the cache placing guidelines at gc.com.

But I see another distinction, which is perhaps more related to cezanne's use of the phrase "numbers driven"....

I'm going to have to think about this. My initial reaction is that this distinction is entirely unrelated to the overall change in focus of the hobby.

Actually this is a reason for the change to the negative that I regard as far more essential than the other aspect. Some of the early cache demonstrate well that not every cache back then was a hiking cache hidden at a nice location.

If someone for example does not care about location but likes challenging search aspects or creative containers or difficult puzzles or caches filled with nice swag, they still care about something which is a real aspect of the cache and it is also more likely that they will comment in their log if something is wrong with the cache.

If a meta level is what a cache visit is really about, the focus changes which has a number of unfortunate impacts.

2.6k · February 16, 2017

I can look at a map and see caches that aren't close to a road. Getting a collection of those caches onto a GPS from the map requires selecting each cache, one at a time adding it to a list, creating a PQ from the list, then downloading the results of a PQ to the GPS so that we can navigate to the cache. I'm getting the impression that "look at a satellite map" means one is using a mobile app with satellite imagery, which suggest that if one wants to be selective for the types of caches they want to find the should use a mobile phone for geocaching rather than a handheld GPS.

I use a GPS. If I'm caching close to home I always have the nearest 6000 caches loaded. If caching in another area, I download all caches in that area. Then I look at the detailed map (in my case Ordnance Survey) and choose caches I want to do. I print out a paper map and circle them and write down the names. I've never thought about trying to only download selected caches.

2k · February 16, 2017

If a meta level is what a cache visit is really about, the focus changes which has a number of unfortunate impacts.

What would those be? You seem to think this negatively affects the game or the cache somehow. I also fail to see how that personally impacts you with the sole exception of your example of a trail having multiple caches versus a walking multi, which isn't meta level at all, it's a numbers count.

6.8k · February 16, 2017

If a meta level is what a cache visit is really about, the focus changes which has a number of unfortunate impacts.

What would those be? You seem to think this negatively affects the game or the cache somehow. I also fail to see how that personally impacts you with the sole exception of your example of a trail having multiple caches versus a walking multi, which isn't meta level at all, it's a numbers count.

I had a much more general picture in mind than just my own geocaching experiences. There are so many impacts on different levels. Some impacts have been mentioned by briansnat as the counting is part of what I mean with number-orientation (it's a subset).

Some other examples: D/T ratings and attributes are originally thought to be descriptive and to help the cache searchers and not to offer people a chance to fill a gap in their grids or obtain a badge.

It helps the cache hider and future visitors of cache if information on the condition of a cache is provided in logs - they do not profit that much from logs which have become common in many areas which repeat the same log over the whole day and which mention the caches were found more or less easily and that some log books were wet (but not which).

People start to write that they do not have time to write individual logs already when visiting say 6 caches a day.

It can take months until it turns out that a cache has a problem and that's unfortunate both for the owner and for cachers who care about the condition and who care about whether there is a signable log book at the end. Cachers like Lone.R will in this manner not be able to filter out such caches.

If people have goals like find 7 cache types per day, fill in two extra D/T combos, get a souvenir etc they often do not care about the caches itself that much and a wrong 5/5 serves their purpose just as well as a correct 5/5 so why should they even comment that the rating is not correct. Why should they care about a full log book when they can provide a photo and log a photo log and still achieve their goal. A properly maintained container and/or a description that accurately describes the geocache become much less important under such circumstances.

If the main goal for a found it log is to mark a cache as found like hook off some task on some list, the log will likely have a different function and style than if the log is thought to share experiences.

7.5k · February 17, 2017

I see the distinction you're making between a focus on geocaches themselves vs a focus on geocaches as a means to something else. In a sense, this is the classic distinction referred to by often-referenced quote by briansnat: "When you go to hide a geocache, think of the reason you are bringing people to that spot. If the only reason is for the geocache, then find a better spot."

Yes, that's it. Geocaching went in a different directions because of forces that are obvious in hindsight, and there's no reason at all to think the things that drove geocaching away from location can somehow be reversed.

The somehow ironic thing is just that briansnat's quote is part of the cache placing guidelines at gc.com.

I don't think "ironic" is the right word. I might find it disturbing if I thought it The Powers really thought that's what today's geocaching was all about. But even though it's in the guidelines, it's not a guideline itself, it's just a suggestion. Reviewers are not allowed to reject a cache because the cache isn't interesting enough. But I see no problem with GS encouraging people to consider factors beyond the container. That does make better caches, but not having a raison d'être doesn't make a cache bad.

If a meta level is what a cache visit is really about, the focus changes which has a number of unfortunate impacts.

You've listed some things that I agree are undesirable and would discourage. My problem isn't with talking about those problems, it's with blaming those problems on one way of playing the game or another. For example, someone can enjoy filling the grid without losing sight of the individual caches. I can still enjoy the hike, log my impressions, and complement the cache even though I picked that cache because it was D3.5/T4.

7.5k · February 17, 2017

You've listed some things that I agree are undesirable and would discourage. My problem isn't with talking about those problems, it's with blaming those problems on one way of playing the game or another. For example, someone can enjoy filling the grid without losing sight of the individual caches. I can still enjoy the hike, log my impressions, and complement the cache even though I picked that cache because it was D3.5/T4.

I think the problem is that Groundspeak doesn't seem to want to consider selective cachers. They would rather cater to the numbers. Why can't we have it both ways. Make the database attractive to the numbers majority and to the selective minority. But the majority say - it can't be done, the selective people must conform, work harder, or quit.

2k · February 17, 2017

I had a much more general picture in mind than just my own geocaching experiences. There are so many impacts on different levels. Some impacts have been mentioned by briansnat as the counting is part of what I mean with number-orientation (it's a subset).

You mentioned meta level caching impact, not numbers based caching impact. I agree that that's certainly something that's affected the game over time in a manner that I find disturbing but not overly concerned about because it doesn't affect the manner in which I cache. I'm not disputing that aspect.

Some other examples: D/T ratings and attributes are originally thought to be descriptive and to help the cache searchers and not to offer people a chance to fill a gap in their grids or obtain a badge..

Seriously? How has that had an "unfortunate" impact? It's something that makes use of a rating on a cache that's supposed to be there anyway. Would cachers still go after a 3.5/3.5 cache if there were no grid to fill? There will always be cachers who will go after those types. There might not be as many cachers who would do it willingly unless the grid spot was needed to be filled, but it exposes them to caches they might not otherwise experience and that's usually a good thing when you get challenged to do something you might not do on your own and actually succeed. That would be a fortunate impact.

It helps the cache hider and future visitors of cache if information on the condition of a cache is provided in logs - they do not profit that much from logs which have become common in many areas which repeat the same log over the whole day and which mention the caches were found more or less easily and that some log books were wet (but not which)..

Logs are irrelevant with regard to the meta game and wet logs play NO part in filling a Fizzy or Jasmer. Are they a bit of an issue? Certainly but that's not unexpected or unusual for ANY cache that's out there.

They can provide more information to help on the hide and how to get there (if detailed enough) but I highly doubt those cachers who repeat the same log over and over are going after 3.5/3.5 caches since those cachers are numbers based cachers (find count) more often than not, and those caches take longer to get to as well as to find. This is a problem regarding logging etiquette, which runs across the spectrum, not just number cachers (find count), although they certainly do have a tendency to post the same logs for multiple caches when on a cache run.

People start to write that they do not have time to write individual logs already when visiting say 6 caches a day. .

Again, seriously? I'm not finding that to be too much of an issue in my area. Perhaps your area but again, that's not related to meta level caching. That's about lazy loggers, which, once again, runs across the spectrum of cachers.

It can take months until it turns out that a cache has a problem and that's unfortunate both for the owner and for cachers who care about the condition and who care about whether there is a signable log book at the end. Cachers like Lone.R will in this manner not be able to filter out such caches..

What? How is this an unfortunate impact due to meta level caching? That can happen on any cache at any time if people don't mention it or file the appropriate NM log.

If people have goals like find 7 cache types per day, fill in two extra D/T combos, get a souvenir etc they often do not care about the caches itself that much and a wrong 5/5 serves their purpose just as well as a correct 5/5 so why should they even comment that the rating is not correct. Why should they care about a full log book when they can provide a photo and log a photo log and still achieve their goal. A properly maintained container and/or a description that accurately describes the geocache become much less important under such circumstances..

You're making an assumption that might be true or it might not. Making a claim like this doesn't prove anything because there's no way to show that it's a trend. How do you know that they didn't care about the 7 caches that they selected for 7 types in a day? Perhaps they chose those specific 7 because they had the most favorite points out of all the ones in the area. Perhaps they knew that the COs were really good at maintaining their caches and they knew they'd get a nice experience.

I can play this hypothetical game you're playing as well. You're making situations up that fit your idea of an unfortunate impact without any proof that it's truly a problem. It could be a problem. It could also NOT be a problem.

If the main goal for a found it log is to mark a cache as found like hook off some task on some list, the log will likely have a different function and style than if the log is thought to share experiences..

Again, you're making an assumption about something without any actual proof. Are there some people that write logs that reinforce what you believe? Yes. Unequivocally, yes. Are there some people who cache like I used to (my Fizzy and Jasmer are complete), to fill a D/T spot or a calendar spot but who absolutely care about their experience to and from the cache? Yes. You're making broad generalizations that apply to some cachers while there are plenty of cachers who care about each and every cache they have filtered out. I do find that many of the unfortunate impacts you've described are more prevalent in cachers who cache for the find count but even there, I know a couple of really high number cachers who take the time to point out things about their experiences on each cache they find, so even that can be proven to be inaccurate in some cases.

2k · February 17, 2017

You've listed some things that I agree are undesirable and would discourage. My problem isn't with talking about those problems, it's with blaming those problems on one way of playing the game or another. For example, someone can enjoy filling the grid without losing sight of the individual caches. I can still enjoy the hike, log my impressions, and complement the cache even though I picked that cache because it was D3.5/T4.

I think the problem is that Groundspeak doesn't seem to want to consider selective cachers. They would rather cater to the numbers. Why can't we have it both ways. Make the database attractive to the numbers majority and to the selective minority. But the majority say - it can't be done, the selective people must conform, work harder, or quit.

So what would you suggest? All I've mostly heard is complaints and laments and the only suggestion that makes any sense to help filter out some of these things is the power trail icon. The problem isn't Groundspeak. The problem is that there are so many types of selective cachers that they'd never be able to figure out a way to appease all of them. Selective cachers have so many individual preferences when it comes to caching and the caches they choose to go after that it would be asinine of them to even try to narrow it down even more than they already have.

You can run a PQ that filters by type, size, premium/non-premium, TBs/no TBs, found/not found recently, disabled/enabled, specific D/T ratings or all D/T ratings, specific states, cities, nations, towns, zip code, specific coordinates, distance from starting point, specific placed dates, attributes to include and attributes to exclude. You can run a search by type, D/T rating, size, minimum FP, name of cache contains, not found by, hidden by, limiting the search location, enabled/disabled, premium/basic, and corrected/not corrected coordinates. Then, once the search is run, you can sort the results by distance, FPs, size, D and T, last found date, and placed date. After all of that, you can then put the PQ and search caches in a list (if you'd like) and narrow it down even more based on maintenance issues and previous logs as well as the cache description to determine if it's one that sounds like you'd be interested in trying.

And you want MORE?

There's no way to guarantee that every cache is a well maintained cache. There's no way to guarantee that every cache is properly sized. There's no way to guarantee that the D/T ratings are accurate for every cache. There's no way to guarantee that loggers write meaningful logs that offer more than a simple recap of a cacher's day or a TFTC.

There are things in place to try to address these things but with such a large demographic of cachers with varying degrees of interest and commitment, it's virtually impossible to get the utopian geocaching experience you appear to want. So, they're left with the choice to keep things as they are with some occasional tweaks to the system or to come up with an "easy" way to filter caches based on individual preferences for each and every selective cacher out there. I can certainly see why they chose the first option with some tweaks that allow for some specificity to sort out caches that any cacher might not be interested in.

February 17, 2017

As to your second question, of course I understand. I never made that claim. LOne.R, however, has stated, somewhere in this forum, that a wet and soggy log in a broken and unmaintained cache would ruin the hike and the experience.

No, I said it would lessen a good hiking experience rather then enhance it. I would have been better off just enjoying the hike and view at the end, rather then finish it off with a wet/soggy/broken mess of a cache.

While this attitude is indeed unfortunate, it's not something that can be fixed by anybody else. Even when cache owners are extremely diligent about cache maintenance, there is always some risk that a given geocacher will be the first person to find a cache after it has been damaged or vandalized.

Of course I'm not complaining about a recently wet/broken container. Where did I give you that idea? It's not about cache where the owner hasn't been notified yet of a problem, or it's less then a month or two since the report, (hopefully the CO has responded with a note). It's the cache with repeated logs that say: the lid is broken, water is getting in. Then 4 months later people leave messages that the log is pulp and unsignable. The contents wet and deteriorated, maybe moldy. The one with no response from the long-gone CO. Or worse, the shirker - an active cache owner who continues to hide caches. His idea of maintenance is to let the reviewer archive the cache eventually if anyone will log an NM and finally an NA. So again, it's not the accidental short-term messy cache, it's the one ignored by the CO. And to make it more in-line with the OP's original post, that goes for PT caches too.

http://support.Groun...g=kb.page&id=57

6.3. Maintenance expectations

To make sure your geocache is in good health, monitor the logs and visit the cache site periodically. Unmaintained caches may be archived.

Here is a list of your responsibilities as a cache owner:

Choose an appropriate container that is watertight.

Replace broken or missing containers.

Clean out your cache if contents become wet.

Replace full or wet logbooks.

Temporarily disable your cache if it's not accessible due to weather or seasonal changes.

Mark trackables as missing if they are listed in the inventory but no longer are in the cache.

Delete inappropriate logs.

Update coordinates if cache location has changed.

After you maintain your cache, make sure to
remove the "Needs Maintenance" icon
.

If you no longer want to maintain your cache, retrieve the container and
archive your listing
.

Yes, we all know that maintenance is part of the game. Quoting bits of the website at people who regularly post NM and NA logs isn't useful and doesn't elucidate any kind of point.

Sometimes, as finders, we're going to be the ones who have to report maintenance. Sometimes, despite our best efforts, we're going to find geocaches that just aren't what we wanted.

If finding a cache in a state of needing maintenance is going to derail an otherwise good experience, that's a matter of poor attitude more than anything else. Note the poor maintenance in an appropriate log and move on. I would love it if every cache was a nice dry ammo can with an interesting logbook and no junk / swag in it. Most caches aren't. Yet somehow, life goes on and I enjoy other caches too.

Geocaches are containers outside in the elements. Sometimes they get damaged. It is not realistic to expect caches to be in a state of perfect repair at all times, nor is it realistic to expect all other geocachers to share such an extreme expectation. It is not reasonable to expect other geocachers to assign FPs on the criteria that is important to you, and it's absurd to expect the website to be redesigned to somehow filter on qualities that are ephemeral and unsustainable.

Simply and eloquently stated narcissa ... +1

Some can't see the forest for the trees.

7.4k · February 17, 2017

You've listed some things that I agree are undesirable and would discourage. My problem isn't with talking about those problems, it's with blaming those problems on one way of playing the game or another. For example, someone can enjoy filling the grid without losing sight of the individual caches. I can still enjoy the hike, log my impressions, and complement the cache even though I picked that cache because it was D3.5/T4.

I think the problem is that Groundspeak doesn't seem to want to consider selective cachers. They would rather cater to the numbers. Why can't we have it both ways. Make the database attractive to the numbers majority and to the selective minority. But the majority say - it can't be done, the selective people must conform, work harder, or quit.

So what would you suggest? All I've mostly heard is complaints and laments and the only suggestion that makes any sense to help filter out some of these things is the power trail icon. The problem isn't Groundspeak. The problem is that there are so many types of selective cachers that they'd never be able to figure out a way to appease all of them. Selective cachers have so many individual preferences when it comes to caching and the caches they choose to go after that it would be asinine of them to even try to narrow it down even more than they already have.

You can run a PQ that filters by type, size, premium/non-premium, TBs/no TBs, found/not found recently, disabled/enabled, specific D/T ratings or all D/T ratings, specific states, cities, nations, towns, zip code, specific coordinates, distance from starting point, specific placed dates, attributes to include and attributes to exclude. You can run a search by type, D/T rating, size, minimum FP, name of cache contains, not found by, hidden by, limiting the search location, enabled/disabled, premium/basic, and corrected/not corrected coordinates. Then, once the search is run, you can sort the results by distance, FPs, size, D and T, last found date, and placed date. After all of that, you can then put the PQ and search caches in a list (if you'd like) and narrow it down even more based on maintenance issues and previous logs as well as the cache description to determine if it's one that sounds like you'd be interested in trying.

And you want MORE?

There's no way to guarantee that every cache is a well maintained cache. There's no way to guarantee that every cache is properly sized. There's no way to guarantee that the D/T ratings are accurate for every cache. There's no way to guarantee that loggers write meaningful logs that offer more than a simple recap of a cacher's day or a TFTC.

There are things in place to try to address these things but with such a large demographic of cachers with varying degrees of interest and commitment, it's virtually impossible to get the utopian geocaching experience you appear to want. So, they're left with the choice to keep things as they are with some occasional tweaks to the system or to come up with an "easy" way to filter caches based on individual preferences for each and every selective cacher out there. I can certainly see why they chose the first option with some tweaks that allow for some specificity to sort out caches that any cacher might not be interested in.

+1

6.8k · February 17, 2017

So what would you suggest? All I've mostly heard is complaints and laments and the only suggestion that makes any sense to help filter out some of these things is the power trail icon.

That's not true. For example the idea of a recommendation system like the one on amazon (or something along the lines) has often been suggested.

I'm sure that if gc.com were a community project some gifted and engaged cachers would already have come up with such a system which of course requires access to the FP data (which also could have extended by some reason for a FP choice).

People who want to buy books are also very different in their tastes. Right now the Groundspeak system cannot even list all caches that have been favourited by people who favourited a particular cache.

There's no way to guarantee that every cache is a well maintained cache. There's no way to guarantee that every cache is properly sized. There's no way to guarantee that the D/T ratings are accurate for every cache. There's no way to guarantee that loggers write meaningful logs that offer more than a simple recap of a cacher's day or a TFTC.

Certainly not but the unclearer the guidelines are in these respects, the more inconsistency will result.

Also when it comes to challenge caches, why do they recommend in the new guidelines that the T rating should be chosen according to the terrain difficulty and then publish challenge caches with 5/5 rating which clearly state that the terrain difficulty of the cache is 2* (and no it's not a challenge that requires one to find 5* caches).

There are many small aspects that add together. For example when it comes to trackables a clear statement by Groundspeak that I are not happy if lists of trackable codes are posted as logs for events, would help a lot. Right now a lot of local abuse arises in many aspects and the few cachers are not happy with it are not heard as they are not believed when they argue that it is not supposed to be done that way.

15.3k · February 17, 2017

Some other examples: D/T ratings and attributes are originally thought to be descriptive and to help the cache searchers and not to offer people a chance to fill a gap in their grids or obtain a badge..
Seriously? How has that had an "unfortunate" impact?

I guess you've missed the threads about listings with absurd ratings/attributes created so others can fill grids. Or the threads expressing angst because some cache owner dared to change a cache's ratings/attributes to reflect changing conditions.

7.5k · February 17, 2017

That's not true. For example the idea of a recommendation system like the one on amazon (or something along the lines) has often been suggested.

I'm sure that if gc.com were a community project some gifted and engaged cachers would already have come up with such a system which of course requires access to the FP data (which also could have extended by some reason for a FP choice).

That's what I'm thinking about when I mention the possibility of other communities. geocaching.com has become focused on geocaching, and I think that's reasonable. If you want a community that recommends caches with characteristic X, find or invent a community that's all about characteristic X and talk about caches there. I'm not saying that because I want to get rid of you or I don't think you should be allowed here. On the contrary, I'd be thrilled if your community X could exist right here where I could watch it. But history suggests that that's not going to work because of the direction geocaching is headed. So it's time to think about what you're enjoying that's no longer part of geocaching and develop that path without feeling constrained to making it integral to geocaching. It seems as if people no longer content with geocaching see no option but to leave geocaching behind, but I see no reason to think you couldn't develop the community you want while keeping it connected to geocaching if that's what works out.

6.8k · February 17, 2017

That's not true. For example the idea of a recommendation system like the one on amazon (or something along the lines) has often been suggested.

I'm sure that if gc.com were a community project some gifted and engaged cachers would already have come up with such a system which of course requires access to the FP data (which also could have extended by some reason for a FP choice).

That's what I'm thinking about when I mention the possibility of other communities. geocaching.com has become focused on geocaching, and I think that's reasonable.

What I wrote above was not targeted at my personal case and not at any other specific cacher. We do not need book recommendation systems for every different sort of preference either.

Even the very simple recommendation system at one of the competing sites already is better than nothing (the status quo at gc.com) and there are many ways to expand on it.

I do think that cachers like Lone.R but also very different minded cachers could profit from such a system (which also NiraD sketched) a lot. This does not mean that you suggestion in itself is bad - different communities can make sense if there is enough critical mass. Improvements within this community can however still make sense too and there would be many more options than just a power trail icon.

OMG What Happened to Geocaching?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment