OMG What Happened to Geocaching?

[+Harry Dolphin]

With regard to the original issue the definition of what should get a favorite point is individual. A couple of years ago at a mega-event and went to a cache that had a large amount of points and it was a micro on a fence post with no redeeming value. I am guessing it is friends trading points.

 

Shh... All of my sister's or brother's caches that I've found get favorite points! (Never found any of my other brother's caches.)

 

But back to the OP. I've been caching over twelve years. And, yes, geocaching has changed considerably in those years. But it has come slowly. Not a smack in the face like to the OP.

Yes. It used to be "Let's go hiking and find some caches." Now, as the OP noted, it's all about the numbers. How many caches can we find today???

For me, I like pretty places and exercise. Though those seem to get less finds in the age of the cell phone. I still go for nice hikes for caches (especially blue caches.) Three mile hike for a cache not found in three years? Let's go! (Being a senior dolphin, I don't hike as far these days.)

But I will also enjoy the three mile hike along the easy trail with six caches. Not as pretty, but still a nice area, and my exercise.

I don't go hiking in the snow. So, Saturday after the nine inches of snow on Thursday, I went to a mall and found six caches walking 2.5 miles. Not great caches, but it got me out, and I got my exercise.

So, yes. Geocaching has changes considerably in the last twelve years. Numbers means money for Groundspeak. It's a business.

Do I still have 'a nice hike for a few caches and a great view" available? Definitely. But they're seldom found, and few are being hidden. But there are still a lot of them out there.

So, I agree with the CO. Major changes being made. In my opinion, not for the best. But, I can deal with it. Get my exercise hiking. Or get my exercise on easy trails, and even mall parking lots.

You go for what you like, and they are out there.

[+geodarts]

At some point, a friend sent me a cache description that stated that an area lacked a cache, so they left one in a parking lot. My friend sent it with the comment that the game was changing. So it was. It had nothing to do with repetitive trails (why do even critics call them "power trails" as if there was something powerful about a string of identical containers with throwdowns being the only maintenance policy - letting others control the language of the game?). It had nothing to do with the type of container, whether it was a micro. But it had everything to do with location.

 

I remember finding a container in a random spot on a city block and wondering why anyone would want to bring me there. Now I notice that a cache had been placed in a random spot and wonder why anyone would want to find one there. I think some of that could have been alleviated if Groundspeak required express permission for caches (at least those on private property), or required maintenance plans apart from throwdowns for caches. These decisions affected the game more than eliminating wording about not placing a cache every 600 feet.

 

Yes, it is true that you can still find nice caches in the old spirit of the game. I found a relatively new one today, that brought me to an amazing, fun location, provided additional waypoints for trailhead and other locations in the area, and allowed me to sign my name and post some pictures. Of course I did not use this game to help me identify the location. I found the location and then noticed it had a cache.

 

There is simply too much in the way to do it any other way. Favorite points? They have never worked for me or helped me identify the caches that interest me. Type of cache? Even micros can be like a summit register that records a visit to an interesting area - although I am not sure that there was any particular need for a micro that required the first finders to look for two hours after a hike.

 

These days, I look to see if there is a virtual or earthcache, then use other tools to identify traditionals. It could have been different. Groundspeak used to be the language of location. But it isn't.

Edited February 14, 2017 by geodarts

[+Mudfrog]

Sounds like a good proposal to me,, Where do i register to vote?

 

Right here!

Better yet, post to the Bug Reports and Feature Discussions forum.

 

Or post a comment on an existing thread about the saturation guideline, like this one:

Petition to change the Cache Saturation policy

 

Not sure how i missed that thread. Was going to post my opposition but noted the last post in it was over 2 years ago.

[+GarminArmin]

More Orville Redenbacher required 😆

[+Team Microdot]

Really? That's sounds very pessimistic. If the recent logs are along the lines of, "Another fantastic cache. Fortunately the hubby was willing to venture into the dark and get wet. Love this creepy cache. Yes worth another favourite point from me", I'd think there's a fair chance it's in good nick. If they're all just "TFTC" or "another smilie for me", perhaps not, but even then, the absence of a red wrench and any recent OM logs might help decide if it's worth visiting.

 

I don't think that works - at least not in my area.

 

Caches that I think are excellent get one-liner / TFTC logs.

 

Caches in a bramble thicket surrounded by trees festooned with bags of dog poop get Favourite Points.

 

It's all rather topsy-turvy.

 

A strategy that seems to work better, for me at least, is to look at where it is and who placed it there in order to guess at how much I'll like it.

[cezanne]

A strategy that seems to work better, for me at least, is to look at where it is and who placed it there in order to guess at how much I'll like it.

 

I have reasonably good experiences with this approach too (and it also helps to read the log who cachers whose preferences I know well). However this approach requires that one knows the style of the cache hider and/or some visitors of the cache. If one has taken a long break from caching things can get hard.

[+L0ne.R]

1487061441[/url]' post='5636045']

1487024975[/url]' post='5635980']

Really? That's sounds very pessimistic. If the recent logs are along the lines of, "Another fantastic cache. Fortunately the hubby was willing to venture into the dark and get wet. Love this creepy cache. Yes worth another favourite point from me", I'd think there's a fair chance it's in good nick. If they're all just "TFTC" or "another smilie for me", perhaps not, but even then, the absence of a red wrench and any recent OM logs might help decide if it's worth visiting.

 

I don't think that works - at least not in my area.

 

Caches that I think are excellent get one-liner / TFTC logs.

 

Caches in a bramble thicket surrounded by trees festooned with bags of dog poop get Favourite Points.

 

It's all rather topsy-turvy.

 

A strategy that seems to work better, for me at least, is to look at where it is and who placed it there in order to guess at how much I'll like it.

 

Focussing on the hider works for me too. If there was only a way to filter for the type of hiders who hide caches I enjoy. If I'm travelling and don't know an area I'd rather not have to find 15 junk caches before stumbling on the one good responsible cache owner who tries to provide quality, or completely missing that one good hider.

[+redsox_mark]

My cache selection uses a combination of things:

- The map

- FP/FP%

- Personal recommendations I've received from friends

- Cache Owner

- Size

- Reading logs

 

Map is the most used. I can tell using the right map if it looks like a good walk / location in the countryside. Or if it is in a parking lot. If it is good walk/location the container itself (as long as there is one) is secondary. Sure I prefer larger ones, and I prefer they aren't wet or broken.. and I like clever hides. But location is #1, and the map tells me that.

[+Mudfrog]

My cache selection uses a combination of things:

- The map

- FP/FP%

- Personal recommendations I've received from friends

- Cache Owner

- Size

- Reading logs

 

Map is the most used. I can tell using the right map if it looks like a good walk / location in the countryside. Or if it is in a parking lot. If it is good walk/location the container itself (as long as there is one) is secondary. Sure I prefer larger ones, and I prefer they aren't wet or broken.. and I like clever hides. But location is #1, and the map tells me that.

Agreed. The order you put these in is what seems to work best for me. But i would add, probably in the 4th spot, difficulty/terrain ratings. Filtering for certain ratings has helped to find caches that i enjoy.

[+coachstahly]

With regard to the original issue the definition of what should get a favorite point is individual. A couple of years ago at a mega-event and went to a cache that had a large amount of points and it was a micro on a fence post with no redeeming value. I am guessing it is friends trading points.

 

Shh... All of my sister's or brother's caches that I've found get favorite points! (Never found any of my other brother's caches.)

 

But back to the OP. I've been caching over twelve years. And, yes, geocaching has changed considerably in those years. But it has come slowly. Not a smack in the face like to the OP.

Yes. It used to be "Let's go hiking and find some caches." Now, as the OP noted, it's all about the numbers. How many caches can we find today???

For me, I like pretty places and exercise. Though those seem to get less finds in the age of the cell phone. I still go for nice hikes for caches (especially blue caches.) Three mile hike for a cache not found in three years? Let's go! (Being a senior dolphin, I don't hike as far these days.)

But I will also enjoy the three mile hike along the easy trail with six caches. Not as pretty, but still a nice area, and my exercise.

I don't go hiking in the snow. So, Saturday after the nine inches of snow on Thursday, I went to a mall and found six caches walking 2.5 miles. Not great caches, but it got me out, and I got my exercise.

So, yes. Geocaching has changes considerably in the last twelve years. Numbers means money for Groundspeak. It's a business.

Do I still have 'a nice hike for a few caches and a great view" available? Definitely. But they're seldom found, and few are being hidden. But there are still a lot of them out there.

So, I agree with the CO. Major changes being made. In my opinion, not for the best. But, I can deal with it. Get my exercise hiking. Or get my exercise on easy trails, and even mall parking lots.

You go for what you like, and they are out there.

 

While I agree with all of this, I have to take issue with the bolded part. It's all about the numbers only if you make it all about the numbers. I used to find just about everything when I went out. It didn't matter to me what type or where it was. My caching tendencies have changed since I got started and I no longer want to get all the caches in a designated area. I filter, sort, pick, and choose what I think I'd be interested in finding when I go out caching. Sometimes that includes LPCs, guard rail caches, traditionals, and micros. Sometimes it includes a nice hike in the woods with an ammo can at the end destination. That's not to say that all the caches I end up finding are great quality caches. Some are in need of some TLC. Some are in great shape. Some are in places I'd rather not go and some are in amazing locations I'd have never discovered without geocaching. I still get to get out and enjoy my time finding caches and it has not been about the numbers for me for quite some time.

[+hzoi]

For those that still wanted quality hides, where some thought was put into creating a unique experience, there were fewer and fewer places they could go because large swaths of real estate were taken up by caches placed for no other reason than to increase find counts.

And it's impossible to filter for, or sift through all the chaff for those few containers.

I disagree. Good caches get favorite points, and it's easy to sort for those. I've also found that most power trail caches are micros, and it's pretty easy to shake those out of a pocket query. Or use GSAK, filter for the power trail caches (I've yet to find one that doesn't have some identifying character combination, like "ET Highway"), and then put them all on your ignore list.My point is, there are plenty of options for filtering out the chaff.

Favourite points don't work anymore. They are too old. 5 FPs on a cache could have been earned 2 years ago, but since then the cache has gone to waste, no maintenance, maybe a micro throwdown has replaced it. You can't tell from the logs if the cache is still worth visiting. Maybe if we could get a bar graph showing when those FPs were earned, it would be a useful indication of how good a cache is now.

 

*sigh*

 

You win, Eeyore. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE. None of the things I suggested could ever work in any universe. No one else in geocaching has managed to avoid power trails; they are as inevitable as death and taxes. Anyone who says otherwise is lying. Time to find a new hobby; this one is clearly dead as disco.

 

I disagree. Good caches get favorite points, and it's easy to sort for those. I've also found that most power trail caches are micros, and it's pretty easy to shake those out of a pocket query. Or use GSAK, filter for the power trail caches (I've yet to find one that doesn't have some identifying character combination, like "ET Highway"), and then put them all on your ignore list.My point is, there are plenty of options for filtering out the chaff.

The local power trail has over 200 caches listed as 'small'. Over 90% of them are micros. That keeps them from being filtered out for micros.

 

I presume you're referring to "No. ___ Along Route 519." I guess you skipped the bolded text above.

[cezanne]

No one else in geocaching has managed to avoid power trails; they are as inevitable as death and taxes. Anyone who says otherwise is lying. Time to find a new hobby; this one is clearly dead as disco.

 

I think the above is unfair to Lone.R. She did not write that it impossible to avoid power trails. Given her personal preferences sorting out caches is definitely more difficult for her than for you and even than for me in unknown areas (in my home area it is not too hard in most cases).

Edited February 14, 2017 by cezanne

[+edexter]

Most of the folks contributing to this thread are concerned about finding quality caches, not simply numbers, and one big issue is how do you tell the good stuff from the pointless as quickly as possible. Filtering by fav pt, cache size and d/t combos are helpful but are made less reliable as noted above (roadside power trail micros placed identically every .1m with ratings of 2/2.5 are particularly obnoxious to me).

So filtering has to be followed up by reading the cache page, looking at the map location and making judgements about the CO and the loggers. These judgements are often described as "subjective", which they are for the group, but they are highly objective for the individual who wants to "do caches that I like". Make a list of qualities you desire in a cache: for me these minumum qualities include: a hike, in a pretty and/or interesting place, with some variety of terrain (ideally near water) with a physical cache bigger than my thumb, rated 2/2.5 or higher with a descriptive cache page and a location hint. If I see all this on the cache page and know of the CO and their maintenance practices I generally have a pretty good time. Your objective list may differ of course, but will fit you. This takes a fair amount of time. The shorthand form is to know what the CO puts out there, but this tends to only work locally as noted above. One thing that Groundspeak could do to decrease the effort for folks who are being selective is to make the "ignore" feature more powerful. Allowing you to ignore caches by common name (power trails and geo art) and distance from the road would go a long way towards de-cluterring the map for those who want to.

If anyone knows of a way to filter for distance off the road I would be interested to hear it. I have in the past created bookmark lists based on distance off the road manually (one at a time as they re published) which is useful for me but very time consuming and attempts to share the information have not been well received (listing a micro on a sidewalk in the middle of a city, or a countryside guardrail, as a "hide" or "curbside" rather than as a "real cache" or "off road" upsets some people). At any rate, there are a number of more or less useful ways to drill down to your preferred cache type, but my experience is the more selective you are the harder (in terms of the amount of time it takes) it is. For the record (fact, not opinion) in my area more than three quarters of all new caches are placed on or within 200 feet of a paved road or parking area. This appears to be true elsewhere as well (observation, not quantified fact)

edexter

[+Touchstone]

I guess I've been doing it wrong all these years. I look for a nice place to visit, and then see if there happens to be a cache there, not the other way around. If the cache happens to be not to my liking, I still have the benefit of the nice place.

 

Seems like all the time spent filtering, searching and parsing data on the site could be better spent just enjoying the outdoors. I don't need a cache to tell me I'll have a beautiful hike to an amazing view of a sunset or a walk along a meandering stream to a gorgeous view of a waterfall.

[+narcissa]

I guess I've been doing it wrong all these years. I look for a nice place to visit, and then see if there happens to be a cache there, not the other way around. If the cache happens to be not to my liking, I still have the benefit of the nice place.

 

Seems like all the time spent filtering, searching and parsing data on the site could be better spent just enjoying the outdoors. I don't need a cache to tell me I'll have a beautiful hike to an amazing view of a sunset or a walk along a meandering stream to a gorgeous view of a waterfall.

 

We use geocaching as a means to explore and spend time together. We pick an area we want to explore, select a cache or two as our main targets to sort of anchor the day, run a simply PQ and find whatever else is around the target.

 

We try to include a mix of caches in a day out, including some that are longer walks. If there's a puzzle or a multi around, all the better. Even though some of the caches are just micros at the side of the road, we're still getting out and seeing things.

 

I don't expect every cache I found to knock my socks off. I'm happy if one or two caches in a day are exciting enough to be worthy of a favourite point.

 

I use filtering at home to identify the target caches that we'll use as the focal piece of a day out. I look for caches we can do in the canoe, caches at historic or abandoned places, and caches that are just off the beaten path. We would miss so much if we ignored every cache that wasn't completely perfect. Often the cache that makes the day is one that doesn't have an exciting description or any other way of knowing that it's at a really cool place.

[+J Grouchy]

Gosh...another thread about someone who started way back in the day when every cache was an ammo can hidden two miles into the woods at a majestic waterfall view and now they are unhappy because lots of people have begun to enjoy the game and maybe like other kinds of caches too.

 

[pause for breath]

 

Surprise surprise.

 

/sarcasm

[+hzoi]

No one else in geocaching has managed to avoid power trails; they are as inevitable as death and taxes. Anyone who says otherwise is lying. Time to find a new hobby; this one is clearly dead as disco.

 

I think the above is unfair to Lone.R. She did not write that it impossible to avoid power trails. Given her personal preferences sorting out caches is definitely more difficult for her than for you and even than for me in unknown areas (in my home area it is not too hard in most cases).

 

Well, I tried to be helpful and encouraging, and that didn't work. So I shifted tactics and tried sarcasm, but apparently I failed again. Now I'm going to go for a third technique, which is to skip this thread and go find people who still enjoy geocaching, because those discussions are more fun and interesting.

[cezanne]

Well, I tried to be helpful and encouraging, and that didn't work.

 

I wrote that your suggestions work reasonably well for many cachers and they work the better the closer their preferences are to what the majority prefers.

 

FPs, maps and even logs are not very helpful when someone cares about nice swag and prefers a 0815 container in a 0815 hideout filled with nice swag to a very creative container with no swag in it (often not classified as micro). I do not care about swag but also prefer 0815 containers in 0815 hideouts which among other reasons makes FPs worthless for me too.

 

While I try to comment on the state of the log sheet and container whenever possible I never comment on when there was swag in a cache and never comment on the quality of the swag and that has become very uncommon indeed. In the early times some cache pages mentioned what has been placed in the cache container when it was placed (I did do that for my early caches too) but that soon stopped. While I do not care about swag at all, I can understand how difficult it has become for Lone.R to select caches that fit her preferences. Very often she will just end up with disappointments which is much less likely to happen for a cacher like you.

[+L0ne.R]

Most of the folks contributing to this thread are concerned about finding quality caches, not simply numbers, and one big issue is how do you tell the good stuff from the pointless as quickly as possible. Filtering by fav pt, cache size and d/t combos are helpful but are made less reliable as noted above (roadside power trail micros placed identically every .1m with ratings of 2/2.5 are particularly obnoxious to me).

So filtering has to be followed up by reading the cache page, looking at the map location and making judgements about the CO and the loggers. These judgements are often described as "subjective", which they are for the group, but they are highly objective for the individual who wants to "do caches that I like". Make a list of qualities you desire in a cache: for me these minumum qualities include: a hike, in a pretty and/or interesting place, with some variety of terrain (ideally near water) with a physical cache bigger than my thumb, rated 2/2.5 or higher with a descriptive cache page and a location hint. If I see all this on the cache page and know of the CO and their maintenance practices I generally have a pretty good time. Your objective list may differ of course, but will fit you. This takes a fair amount of time. The shorthand form is to know what the CO puts out there, but this tends to only work locally as noted above. One thing that Groundspeak could do to decrease the effort for folks who are being selective is to make the "ignore" feature more powerful. Allowing you to ignore caches by common name (power trails and geo art) and distance from the road would go a long way towards de-cluterring the map for those who want to.

If anyone knows of a way to filter for distance off the road I would be interested to hear it. I have in the past created bookmark lists based on distance off the road manually (one at a time as they re published) which is useful for me but very time consuming and attempts to share the information have not been well received (listing a micro on a sidewalk in the middle of a city, or a countryside guardrail, as a "hide" or "curbside" rather than as a "real cache" or "off road" upsets some people). At any rate, there are a number of more or less useful ways to drill down to your preferred cache type, but my experience is the more selective you are the harder (in terms of the amount of time it takes) it is. For the record (fact, not opinion) in my area more than three quarters of all new caches are placed on or within 200 feet of a paved road or parking area. This appears to be true elsewhere as well (observation, not quantified fact)

edexter

 

This ^^^

The key phrase that sums it up for me: ...decrease the effort for folks who are being selective

[SicilianCyclops]

Ten years ago, geocaching was a fringe hobby which nobody was making money off of. Today, it's a business which is trying to get as many people as it can into it and sell premium memberships. Don't see what the issue is.

[+L0ne.R]

 

FPs, maps and even logs are not very helpful when someone cares about nice swag and prefers a 0815 container in a 0815 hideout filled with nice swag to a very creative container with no swag in it (often not classified as micro). I do not care about swag but also prefer 0815 containers in 0815 hideouts which among other reasons makes FPs worthless for me too.

 

Thanks cezanne. You've captured what I'm trying to say.

 

When it comes to swag, I like to paw through it. I also like the anticipation that maybe, just maybe there will be something interesting in the cache that will make me smile. Maybe a geocoin or a fun trackable. Maybe someone's signature item. (I use to anticipate discovering/reading the logbook entries, but that's a thing of the past).

 

Geocaching for me is mostly about anticipation, discovery and exploring. From the location all the way down to the contents of the cache.

 

If 10% of the caches are placed by hiders that enjoy providing a good experience from beginning to end, I want to know about them. I want to plan excursions around them. I want to discover new territory/places/things around the caches placed by those hiders.

[+L0ne.R]

Ten years ago, geocaching was a fringe hobby which nobody was making money off of. Today, it's a business which is trying to get as many people as it can into it and sell premium memberships. Don't see what the issue is.

 

I think they can make more of an effort to decrease the effort for folks who are being selective. It might actually be good for business. They may retain more PMs.

 

[+fbingha]

One way favorite points can be misleading is with challenge caches that reward those with tasks that can only be completed if you find a humongous amount of caches. I notice that these caches, bison tubes stuck on a fence or a plastic tube in a SPOR, collect a lot of favorite points.

Edited February 14, 2017 by fbingha

[+Mudfrog]

No one else in geocaching has managed to avoid power trails; they are as inevitable as death and taxes. Anyone who says otherwise is lying. Time to find a new hobby; this one is clearly dead as disco.

 

I think the above is unfair to Lone.R. She did not write that it impossible to avoid power trails. Given her personal preferences sorting out caches is definitely more difficult for her than for you and even than for me in unknown areas (in my home area it is not too hard in most cases).

 

I use both, filtered pocket queries and gsak. I look at the map, favorite points, and geocacher's logs. Doing all these things help but it still takes some manual legwork to get the results i want.

 

One thing that would make the process easier would be for Groundspeak to listen to its customers and add a new cache type. It would be great to have the ability to filter power trails in or out of a pocket query. Yet for whatever reason, Groundspeak is resistant to initiating this, helpful to most everyone, idea. As it is now, it takes some perseverance to get caches i'm interested in into my gpsr.

[+barefootjeff]

One way favorite points can be misleading is with challenge caches that reward those with tasks that can only be completed if you find a humongous amount of caches. I notice that these caches, bison tubes stuck on a fence or a plastic tube in a SPOR, collect a lot of favorite points.

For me, FPs are about the whole experience, and looking back over my list of favourites, rarely does the container factor into it. For most, it's the journey to the cache, which includes solving any puzzles and waypoints to get there, and the natural features at GZ that inspire me to award an FP. Whether it's a bison on a fence or an ammo can full of swag is immaterial to me.

 

So I can understand now why someone interested in swag or clever containers wouldn't get much help from my FP list, in fact would be better off looking at the caches I didn't award FPs to!

[+niraD]

So I can understand now why someone interested in swag or clever containers wouldn't get much help from my FP list, in fact would be better off looking at the caches I didn't award FPs to!

I would love a Favorites system that correlated my preferences with those of others, and could then suggest caches that were enjoyed by those with similar preferences.

 

But right now, the Favorites system is pretty generic. You know that a cache with lots of Favorites points is somehow different, but the system itself offers no indication of how that cache is different. You're on your own to figure that out, and to figure out whether that difference is something that appeals to you (or something that appalls you).

[+thebruce0]

FPs have no context. You can't project context onto it and expect to find what you're looking for. Use them for what they are - a most non-informative measure of cache activity to happy cachers. That's about it.

In new areas, even, someone might place a nano, a style no one nearby has found. 15 finds later it's got 100% favourites with "it's so tiny!" comments, since most people don't realize how common they are outside their local area. So a nano on a bench may end up with more points than a carefully crafted container that's not often found.

 

FPs lose their relevance when directly comparing multiple caches. They have more relevance when cache age, find activity, and locale are also taken into consideration.

 

At some point though points do cross a threshold into cream-of-the-crop where at least few hundred points usually means it's a cache worth checking out.

 

They have their value. Just not as specific a use as people wish they'd have.

[+narcissa]

FPs have no context. You can't project context onto it and expect to find what you're looking for. Use them for what they are - a most non-informative measure of cache activity to happy cachers. That's about it.

In new areas, even, someone might place a nano, a style no one nearby has found. 15 finds later it's got 100% favourites with "it's so tiny!" comments, since most people don't realize how common they are outside their local area. So a nano on a bench may end up with more points than a carefully crafted container that's not often found.

 

FPs lose their relevance when directly comparing multiple caches. They have more relevance when cache age, find activity, and locale are also taken into consideration.

 

At some point though points do cross a threshold into cream-of-the-crop where at least few hundred points usually means it's a cache worth checking out.

 

They have their value. Just not as specific a use as people wish they'd have.

 

But people should assign FPs based on my preferences, not their own. If everyone did that, they'd be so useful to me.

[+niraD]

But people should assign FPs based on my preferences, not their own. If everyone did that, they'd be so useful to me.

You know, we really need a "wiping coffee off my screen" emoticon...

[+SlapShot44]

Wow ... I just started this hobby last August and have had no problem finding caches that are challenging (requiring repelling gear) to magnetic key holders stuck to guard rails like the one at my local gas station. I have found caches in areas that will take your breath away and also found some in littered "park and ride" parking areas. Each and every cache I found or DNF was because I CHOSE to hunt for that cache ... I had the CHOICE and there are thousands of them. You make this hobby what you want it to be.

 

Also the "it's all about me" is not surprising because they are evident in every hobby. Those that are so concerned about the "power trail" caches ... about 2 months ago someone published over 20+ caches on a paved bike/walking trail. Each cache had a unique name, but all ended with "HCA" ... Handicapped Accessible. This power trial was developed specifically for those in wheelchairs so that they could participate in this hobby ... shame on that guy for doing such a thing. How dare he litter my geocache world with such mundane and easy caches. Oh, how dare people place all those other caches along other greenway walking trails which aren't so challenging that one would need survival gear before setting out but rather they could be used to introduce young children and grandchildren to this wonderful outdoor hobby without risk or minimal risk of injury to young hikers/geocachers.

 

Why must the glass always be half empty ?

[+Dame Deco]

 

Why must the glass always be half empty ?

 

Because it's an internet forum, and that's just how they are. Geocaching is fine--started in 2010, and loving it still!

[+Mama514]

Wow ... I just started this hobby last August and have had no problem finding caches that are challenging (requiring repelling gear) to magnetic key holders stuck to guard rails like the one at my local gas station. I have found caches in areas that will take your breath away and also found some in littered "park and ride" parking areas. Each and every cache I found or DNF was because I CHOSE to hunt for that cache ... I had the CHOICE and there are thousands of them. You make this hobby what you want it to be.

 

Thanks for the perspective! Yes, sounds like some of us who aren't "old timers" to this hobby aren't so bad after all.

Edited February 15, 2017 by Mama514

[+bflentje]

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.

[+L0ne.R]

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.

[+L0ne.R]

1487127202[/url]' post='5636271']

1487124911[/url]' post='5636268']

Wow ... I just started this hobby last August and have had no problem finding caches that are challenging (requiring repelling gear) to magnetic key holders stuck to guard rails like the one at my local gas station. I have found caches in areas that will take your breath away and also found some in littered "park and ride" parking areas. Each and every cache I found or DNF was because I CHOSE to hunt for that cache ... I had the CHOICE and there are thousands of them. You make this hobby what you want it to be.

 

Thanks for the perspective! Yes, sounds like some of us who aren't "old timers" to this hobby aren't so bad after all.

 

You are also heavily in to grid filling and statistics. Which supports the argument that the game is geared to the numbers people and difficult for the more selective somewhat casual cacher who would like to continue a more recreational enjoyment of the pastime.

[+J Grouchy]

I generally ignore Favorite Points. I got enough logs on my caches telling me they loved it or thought it was a well-done puzzle or other such positive remarks...but no FP. I decided people either don't know about them, forget to assign them or, worst of all, didn't really care enough to bother, despite what they say in the log.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

No one else in geocaching has managed to avoid power trails; they are as inevitable as death and taxes. Anyone who says otherwise is lying. Time to find a new hobby; this one is clearly dead as disco.

 

I think the above is unfair to Lone.R. She did not write that it impossible to avoid power trails. Given her personal preferences sorting out caches is definitely more difficult for her than for you and even than for me in unknown areas (in my home area it is not too hard in most cases).

 

I agree. For a cacher is not discriminating about what caches they find and just want to find a lot of them, they need to do very little to get the caches they want on their GPS (or phone). Perhaps, they might create a PQ which limits results to traditionals with a D/T rating of 2/2 or less but that's very easy with a PQ or pretty much every mobile app.

For the cacher that is more selective about the quality of the caches they want to find there is more work that has to be done. Using favorite points or limiting by size may help, but may still let a lot of caches that one doesn't want. Using a pattern for the cache name to create a ignore list has a couple of flaws. First, if someone creates a PT with 200 caches in it, all starting with the same string, one can only filter out those caches *after* they've been published (and know that the pattern is). That means they're still going to get 200 email notifications for caches they have no desire for ever finding. Once they *can* filter caches by name pattern, unless I've missed something they have to add each cache in the results, one by one, to an ignore list. I don't know if one can do that with GSAK (I didn't pay for the 7.* to 8.* upgrade) but even if one can, that means one has to pay $30 (or whatever it is these days) for a third party app (and if they have a Mac, have to jump through some additional hoops and install more software) in order to cache the way they want.

 

Sure, it's not impossible to avoid power trails. It's just that those that want to avoid them have to do a lot of work that those that want to do PTs don't have to do.

[+candlestick]

1487127202[/url]' post='5636271']

1487124911[/url]' post='5636268']

Wow ... I just started this hobby last August and have had no problem finding caches that are challenging (requiring repelling gear) to magnetic key holders stuck to guard rails like the one at my local gas station. I have found caches in areas that will take your breath away and also found some in littered "park and ride" parking areas. Each and every cache I found or DNF was because I CHOSE to hunt for that cache ... I had the CHOICE and there are thousands of them. You make this hobby what you want it to be.

 

Thanks for the perspective! Yes, sounds like some of us who aren't "old timers" to this hobby aren't so bad after all.

 

You are also heavily in to grid filling and statistics. Which supports the argument that the game is geared to the numbers people and difficult for the more selective somewhat casual cacher who would like to continue a more recreational enjoyment of the pastime.

 

Hold up now.....

Let's not skim over the great point that was made. Many easy caches are available for kids, handicap, and people who are new to the game. Not all geocaches have to be for those folks but not all geocaches have to be more challenging or just for hikers either. Why does it matter if a person is a little into statistics? That just means they've had even more experience finding all sorts of different caches. Wouldn't that give them the chance to have the best judgement of what's supposedly "worth it" out there? Maybe it is difficult for some to filter out but there might be a really cool gadget cache that's in the back of a parking lot but because of filtering you might miss out on that. Different strokes for different folks?

[+coachstahly]

1487127202[/url]' post='5636271']

1487124911[/url]' post='5636268']

Wow ... I just started this hobby last August and have had no problem finding caches that are challenging (requiring repelling gear) to magnetic key holders stuck to guard rails like the one at my local gas station. I have found caches in areas that will take your breath away and also found some in littered "park and ride" parking areas. Each and every cache I found or DNF was because I CHOSE to hunt for that cache ... I had the CHOICE and there are thousands of them. You make this hobby what you want it to be.

 

Thanks for the perspective! Yes, sounds like some of us who aren't "old timers" to this hobby aren't so bad after all.

 

You are also heavily in to grid filling and statistics. Which supports the argument that the game is geared to the numbers people and difficult for the more selective somewhat casual cacher who would like to continue a more recreational enjoyment of the pastime.

Sorry, but the game is exactly the same for both those out for numbers as well as those who would like to be more selective. Find a cache, sign the log, claim the find. What has changed is the sheer number of caches and the effort needed to selectively choose the caches we wish to go after. Is it easier for numbers cachers to find caches they wish to try to find? Absolutely. No argument here. Is it harder for selective cachers to find the caches they're interested in finding? Absolutely.

 

However, geocaching is not "geared" toward the numbers people. They don't get any preferential treatment. Their biggest advantage is that more people hide caches that selective cachers are less likely to try to find. I'm one of those more selective cachers now as well and while it certainly takes more time and effort to narrow down the caches to those I'd like to go after, it still can be done. It's NOT easy. It takes some time and effort. Can it be made easier for cachers who wish to be more selective? Except for the power trail icon suggestion, I don't really see any way that it can be simplified. Cachers have to find a process that works for them and the way they want to cache. What will work for one cacher won't necessarily work for another. I've managed to find a method that works for me but I'm pretty sure that it won't work as well for someone else because they don't share my exact preferences when it comes to caching.

 

You can complain all you want about how numbers cachers have it better than you because they aren't picky. That's fine (and true) but it's not helping you any. Have you hidden any caches of the type that you wish to find so that others can be inspired by your cache to hide something better than what they have to this point? Have you been an example to the caching community about how your caches are properly maintained? Have you hidden any caches that are properly listed with regard to size to demonstrate to other cachers what size caches should really be?

 

You also chose to point out that the two responders to SlapShot44's post are number hunters concerned with stats and grids. Mama has 1905 finds over 20 months so I certainly wouldn't call her a numbers hound since that averages to less than 100 a month. bflentje has been caching for almost 12 years which averages out to just over 1000 finds a year, which is less than 100 finds a month and it took 7 years to complete their grid. Again, I fail to see how that's a number or grid hound unless you define it differently, which is certainly a possibility. I don't see how their totals support your argument as they're not caching every day, nor are they finding everything they can in their surrounding area. If they were, their totals would be much higher.

Edited February 15, 2017 by coachstahly

[+candlestick]

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'm all for a nice hike in the woods and climbing mountains, trees, kayaking to get caches but ammo cans aren't exactly challenging to find either. There's only so many places they could be...Whereas a nicely hidden micro could be a fun challenge for some and still provide a great/interesting place to scout out.

Edited February 15, 2017 by candlestick

[cezanne]

Sorry, but the game is exactly the same for both those out for numbers as well as those who would like to be more selective.

 

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.

 

Is it harder for selective cachers to find the caches they're interested in finding? Absolutely.

 

That's not the real issue for people like me. It's natural that selecting something when one is more selective is more difficult. However my point is that the offer in certain areas is influenced by how the scene has changed.

 

Have you hidden any caches of the type that you wish to find

 

Yes though these are not my most successful caches.

I will continue to hide such caches where I clearly now that other cache designs would lead me end up with many more happy visitors.

I'm not shying away from hiding caches along walking routes that are not spectacular - just nice walks with no special highlights. One cannot target for highlights all the year long. One does not eat a Christmas meal every day.

 

so that others can be inspired by your cache to hide something better than what they have to this point?

 

I do not think that better is the right word. There are many cachers out there who will always think that instead of having a multi cache with x stages (regardless of virtual ones or physical one) a cache series which provides you with x finds will be better as it makes people end up with x finds and not only one.

 

Have you hidden any caches that are properly listed with regard to size to demonstrate to other cachers what size caches should really be?

 

I think that one mainly needs to blame Groundspeak as they have no clear rules for what designates the size.

If someone creates a 50cm high sculpture out of wood and colours it artfully and then drills a hole into the sculpture and places a pet preform with a log sheet there and then hides

the sculpture say at a tree stump under pieces of bark, many cachers will argue that small is a legitimate size choice. Of course other or micro are also choices - none of them conveys all the information.

 

 

You also chose to point out that the two responders to SlapShot44's post are number hunters concerned with stats and grids. Mama has 1905 finds over 20 months so I certainly wouldn't call her a numbers hound since that averages to less than 100 a month. bflentje has been caching for almost 12 years which averages out to just over 1000 finds a year, which is less than 100 finds a month and it took 7 years to complete their grid. Again, I fail to see how that's a number or grid hound unless you define it differently, which is certainly a possibility. I don't see how their totals support your argument as they're not caching every day, nor are they finding everything they can in their surrounding area. If they were, their totals would be much higher.

 

I'm not Lone.R but I guess what she meant was something different. The majority of cachers out there take at least part of their motivation and many of their caching goals out of number related aspects.

For example they want to hunt for cache X not because it is a nice place or an interesting cache but because it has been hidden in month they still miss or because it has a certain D/T combo.

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. Given the choice whether you would prefer that such a cache you have long sought to visit gets archived shortly before your visit and getting the chance to visit it with the wet logbook, most who are driven by the stat aspect of that very cache would opt for the latter.

 

I do think that for those who care a lot about the containers and their contents it is very difficult to make a good cache selection as the majority does not care about cache contents and so it is often not something you can get information about from logs and cache descriptions and certainly maps etc are useless anyway.

[+coachstahly]

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'm all for a nice hike in the woods and climbing mountains, trees, kayaking to get caches but ammo cans aren't exactly challenging to find either. There's only so many places they could be...Whereas a nicely hidden micro could be a fun challenge for some and still provide a great/interesting place to scout out.

You can do all those things but it requires some extra effort on the seeker's part. Like many have said, it's not as easy as it could be to find those types of caches. However, as many have pointed out, it requires some extra time and effort to find those types of caches. The maintenance issues and size are also harder to pick up on as some smalls have been incorrectly marked (matchstick containers as smalls for example) as well as some regulars being too small and some larges being too small. Rarely do you find a cache that's larger than what the listed size is. Maintenance is another thing that's hard to determine unless you read the logs, which requires even more time.

 

There's no easy way to be selective, which is the main complaint for some. Although I wish there were, with the exception of the power trail icon, there's no simple way to make things that much easier for those being more selective. FPs don't guarantee anything (although I find them to be somewhat beneficial), size doesn't guarantee anything, and no NM logs don't guarantee anything. That being said, I fully understand that to find the types of caches I like to find will entail more effort on my part, rather than just loading up the GPS or phone with any cache that's out there. It's just part of the hobby and I don't find it nearly as difficult as others claim it to be. If you want to cache and you want to find caches you like to find, you have to exert some extra effort into your research. Even then, there's no guarantee that you'll find what you're looking for but I'm fine with that.

[+coachstahly]

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.

[+coachstahly]

 

I think that one mainly needs to blame Groundspeak as they have no clear rules for what designates the size.

If someone creates a 50cm high sculpture out of wood and colours it artfully and then drills a hole into the sculpture and places a pet preform with a log sheet there and then hides

the sculpture say at a tree stump under pieces of bark, many cachers will argue that small is a legitimate size choice. Of course other or micro are also choices - none of them conveys all the information.

 

Wrong. Groundspeak has clear rules. Cachers have muddied the waters.

 

http://support.Groundspeak.com//index.php?pg=kb.page&id=815

[cezanne]

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

 

Not so easy in areas where there are many caches which are not single stage caches.

 

What kind of selected caches are we talking about here? Ones that have nice swag, nicely maintained, larger than a sandwich container?

 

Everyone has different preferences. The ones above fit well to Lone.R 's preferences.

 

I'm all for a nice hike in the woods and climbing mountains, trees, kayaking to get caches but ammo cans aren't exactly challenging to find either. There's only so many places they could be...Whereas a nicely hidden micro could be a fun challenge for some and still provide a great/interesting place to scout out.

 

I do not seek out for search challenges at all. I like when I know already from 50m distance where the cache will be.

[+J Grouchy]

I do not seek out for search challenges at all. I like when I know already from 50m distance where the cache will be.

 

So, mostly D1 through D2 caches? That's pretty searchable.

[+coachstahly]

 

I'm not Lone.R but I guess what she meant was something different. The majority of cachers out there take at least part of their motivation and many of their caching goals out of number related aspects.

For example they want to hunt for cache X not because it is a nice place or an interesting cache but because it has been hidden in month they still miss or because it has a certain D/T combo.

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. Given the choice whether you would prefer that such a cache you have long sought to visit gets archived shortly before your visit and getting the chance to visit it with the wet logbook, most who are driven by the stat aspect of that very cache would opt for the latter.

 

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. You can guess all you want but Lone.R pointed out that the two responses were "...heavily into grid filling and statistics." Finding a specific D/T combo, or a cache placed in a certain month of a certain year does NOT mutually exclude the fact that a cacher cares less about a wet log. They are not mutually exclusive ideas. 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.

[cezanne]

I do not seek out for search challenges at all. I like when I know already from 50m distance where the cache will be.

 

So, mostly D1 through D2 caches? That's pretty searchable.

 

Not necessarily as they can involve 10 and more stages and many km walk.

My comment was however not meant with respect to the hardness of filtering out such caches but rather a reply to a previous comment that micros are more challenging.

[+candlestick]

It sounds to me like there are many different reasons why people geocache whether for numbers, exercise, a cool place to visit or casual finding which is all good. Whatever the case, OP was surprised by the caches they recently found and brought up an unfortunate issue which is the increasing count of unmaintained caches and that they aren't all hidden in the way they used to be. Partially, I see a loss of the sentimental value of geocaching perhaps due to ignorance or other reasons.

What can be done? You can try to filter to what you want to find, write NM logs and eventually the caches will be maintained or archived and/ or you can place caches you want to find and encourage other hiders to have a higher standard for this activity. If we continue to encourage and maintain better standards HOPEFULLY geocaching can still be a great hobby for everyone.

[+Mudfrog]

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.

 

For the newer cacher's replies above,,

 

If i just started, then yes, i'd be able to come up with caches that were appealing to me. I was once in your shoes so know that most every cache is fun, at least for a while. Some people continue to like finding any and every cache but many, i'd bet most, end up developing preferences. It's likely that many will be bored with keyboxes on guardrails after a short while. People that like numbers, trying to fill grids, are into stats and/or it doesn't matter to them what they find, are in great shape. They have tons of stuff to go after. Those of us looking for something besides the basics aren't so lucky.