Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6
EliteJonathan81

Why Do People Hate Micros

Recommended Posts

A trend that I'm seeing (now I'm new to this forum so please correct me if I'm wrong) is that people hate micros to the point where they're actively filtering them out. For me I actually prefer micros from bigger caches on the whole. Sure the whole "film canister" thing gets boring after a while, but so is seeing sandwich box after sandwich box. And personally micro caches make for more interesting hides (they can more easily be disguised as things, or be stuffed up small gaps), compared to bigger caches that are often just left in the undergrowth somewhere (which is often where stinging nettles lurk).

 

Now onto a more positive side sure you can make interesting larger caches (eg gadget caches) but you can with micros too. As I've been saying they can more easily be disguised as their surroundings. You can also hide larger caches in interesting places too but it's easier with micros.

 

The one thing I've not mentioned yet that micros don't have is 'swag' as people call it. I'm personally not into that, but some people are (including some kind souls that actually like to give out swag / trade up), but not everyone follows the rules here anyway. I guess if you're kids are into geocaching for the swag (and have been taught that they need to trade up or the same as) then micros might not interest them, but still. All I want is a fun time trying to hunt for the cache (which an interesting hide helps for) and then signing the log book afterwards.

 

I also love magnetic caches, I don't know why but for some reason I do. And yes when you do enough of them you get tired of seeing magnetic nano after magnetic nano after magnetic bolt.... but personally I'd rather find 100 magnetic nanos in a row than 100 sandwich boxes.

 

The one thing that I don't like about micros / nanos is sometimes getting the log books out can be a pain, but other than that, I feel like a lot of this micro hate is undeserved.

Edited by EliteJonathan81

Share this post


Link to post

They have their place. I dislike them when a larger container could be hidden, ie in the bush/forest, where the number of places a micro could be can be astronomical, and GPS signal can be bad. Nanos on locomotives are irritating also.....

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post

Micros have their place but I prefer to see a wider variety of cache sizes. In many places, the vast majority of caches are micros and that can be boring.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post

I do agree, I like a variety (I personally see more smalls than micros). My post might seem like a rant, but I'm not hating on larger caches. I just think micros should be appreciated too. And I do agree, micros can be much much harder to find that larger caches (as now they can be pretty much anywhere), but who said caches should be easy.

 

I also somewhat agree with not hiding a micro when you could have hid a small in the same location. Personally think micro caches should be in places that a small or larger cache could not, otherwise you've essentially just opened up a bunch more hiding spots in the area for little purpose. Though a hint the cacher narrow down the amount of hiding spots is always appreciated regardless of it's size.

 

Without a hint with lots of spaces it could be, I think the difficulty of the cache should be bumped up to about 2.5+ even if the hide itself isn't that sneaky. So long as the cacher is aware that they're in for a challenge to find a needle in a haystack I don't see the problem.

 

Sometimes magnetic nanos can be annoying if there's too many metal bits, but if there's only some metal objects and the hint tells you you're looking for something magnetic that vastly improves you're chances.

 

I personally get annoyed if the co-ords are out regardless of the size. Some caches the co-ords are out by up to 15m (and consistently, I don't mean fluctuating) and when my phone's GPS (yes I use my phone not a quality GPS) has an error of 3m when out in the open, I don't get how this can happen.

 

What also makes a difference is urban geocaching. The larger caches involve poking further in bushes which is harder to use stealth than checking a sign for nanos (though sometimes if the nano is on a locked container of something it might seem like you're trying to find a way to break in).

Edited by EliteJonathan81

Share this post


Link to post
The one thing that I don't like about micros / nanos is sometimes getting the log books out can be a pain, but other than that, I feel like a lot of this micro hate is undeserved.

I don't “hate” micros. But when a micro is listed as a “small”, I hate that. I hunt a cache larger than a “micro” with the thought that I may place some cool item. When it turns out to be a small-necked pill bottle MICRO, that's super annoying. Stop it. :rolleyes:

 

New cachers especially love “micros” because micros are cheap and easy and evil. It's simple to hide it so that it's frustrating to hunt for, part of the reason listing it as a “small” is a very, very bad idea. But cachers also don't understand that micros require constant attention, the entire container tends to need replacement at times, and the cache will be in bad shape before any log that mentions a problem. A couple of drops of water ruin the log sheet. With an ammo box, not so much. Also, caches need to be waterproof if in an exposed spot outdoors (yes, even in a desert). Remember that pill bottle I mentioned? NOT waterproof. Altoid box, NOT waterproof.

 

I placed several micros. They're bison tubes, match tubes, and 50ml centrifuge tubes (twist-tops). My coords are great, I've checked and tweaked them for weeks or months beforehand. There are suitable hints, mine are not (yet :anibad:) intended to be tough. All of mine have specific spots to put them back, mostly onto magnets which are clipped to a branch. All are in spots where a larger container has proven to be not feasible, and all are designed to be (I hope) a surprise and a fun find. The log sheets are in Teflon tubes so that the log is removed and placed back easily, and it keeps the log in nice shape. Most important, I check on these frequently, DNF or not, Find or not. The O-Ring is broken as often as every find (thankfully, not always that often), so I replace it. Every time it's opened with water present, the log sheet gets more wet, so I replace the log sheet frequently. I do the maintenance, so everybody, do not maintain my cache for me, I fix it myself. These things are a lot of work if you want people to NOT hate Micros. :anicute:

 

a996c3a3-59de-4e2b-a1bb-d420e8fabd2f.jpg

 

A match tube with its Teflon log ejection tube.

Edited by kunarion

Share this post


Link to post

I realized long ago it wasn't micros I hated, but urban caching. The latter encourages the former.

 

If a micro gets me deep into the bush or up a mountain, I love it.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
The one thing that I don't like about micros / nanos is sometimes getting the log books out can be a pain, but other than that, I feel like a lot of this micro hate is undeserved.

I don't “hate” micros. But when a micro is listed as a “small”, I hate that. I hunt a cache larger than a “micro” with the thought that I may place some cool item. When it turns out to be a small-necked pill bottle MICRO, that's super annoying. Stop it. :rolleyes:

 

New cachers especially love “micros” because micros are cheap and easy and evil. It's simple to hide it so that it's frustrating to hunt for, part of the reason listing it as a “small” is a very, very bad idea. But cachers also don't understand that micros require constant attention, the entire container tends to need replacement at times, and the cache will be in bad shape before any log that mentions a problem. A couple of drops of water ruin the log sheet. With an ammo box, not so much. Also, caches need to be waterproof if in an exposed spot outdoors (yes, even in a desert). Remember that pill bottle I mentioned? NOT waterproof. Altoid box, NOT waterproof.

 

I placed several micros. They're bison tubes, match tubes, and 50ml centrifuge tubes (twist-tops). My coords are great, I've checked and tweaked them for weeks or months beforehand. There are suitable hints, mine are not (yet :anibad:) intended to be tough. All of mine have specific spots to put them back, mostly onto magnets which are clipped to a branch. All are in spots where a larger container has proven to be not feasible, and all are designed to be (I hope) a surprise and a fun find. The log sheets are in teflon tubes so that the log is removed and placed back easily, and it keeps the log in nice shape. Most important, I check on these frequently, DNF or not, Find or not. The O-Ring is broken as often as every find (thankfully, not always that often), so I replace it. Every time it's opened with water present, the log sheet gets more wet, so I replace the log sheet frequently. I do the maintenance, so everybody, do not replace my log sheet, I fix it myself. These things are a lot of work if you want people to NOT hate Micros. :anicute:

 

a996c3a3-59de-4e2b-a1bb-d420e8fabd2f.jpg

 

A match tube with its Teflon log ejection tube.

 

That makes sense. Maybe the 'hate' as it were is just a minority of the community.

 

That's interesting though that they require much more maintenance. I always thought the micro geocaches you buy where designed to be waterproof (at least when you're not opening it. Especially with special waterproof log book paper inside as opposed to regular paper. The tenflon injection is a good idea rather than just putting it in on it's own.

 

I guess though it's more of whether the cache owner is prepared to maintain it. Unmaintained caches I think are the problem (and yes I am hypocritical here as I did leave 2 caches unmaintained for 7 years when I lost interest in caching, but thankfully they held up besides the outer camo layer, and these were smalls) as opposed to cache size in my opinion.

Edited by EliteJonathan81

Share this post


Link to post

I realized long ago it wasn't micros I hated, but urban caching. The latter encourages the former.

 

If a micro gets me deep into the bush or up a mountain, I love it.

 

+1

Share this post


Link to post

We cache to get out, hike and see new places. The find is secondary. So, we don't particularly like micros/nanos. And we really hate when they are listed as small as we also like TBs and coins

We probably aren't "pure" cachers, but we enjoy what we do.

Isn't it great that there is variety for everyone?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

I realized long ago it wasn't micros I hated, but urban caching. The latter encourages the former.

 

If a micro gets me deep into the bush or up a mountain, I love it.

 

The think with urban caching though is that they are easier to maintain if you stick one right outside your home, even if it's not the most interesting location for people to find a cache in.

 

Props to people who are prepared to put caches in interesting locations whilst still managing to maintain it.

 

We cache to get out, hike and see new places. The find is secondary. So, we don't particularly like micros/nanos. And we really hate when they are listed as small as we also like TBs and coins

We probably aren't "pure" cachers, but we enjoy what we do.

Isn't it great that there is variety for everyone?

 

That makes sense too, I'm not a 'pure' cacher either. I just grab whatever cache I can find (and I consider myself a newbie, although 7 years ago I was into it for a while and have came back). But then again, different people enjoy different things out of the game.

Edited by EliteJonathan81

Share this post


Link to post

That's interesting though that they require much more maintenance. I always thought the micro geocaches you buy where designed to be waterproof (at least when you're not opening it. Especially with special waterproof log book paper inside as opposed to regular paper.

Several of the Nanos I've found were corroded shut, O-Ring long gone (the O-Ring is gone after a couple of finds with a Nano). I never placed that kind of "Blinkie" Nano container, mainly because it costs almost as much as an ammo box, and definitely after replacing the Blinkie a couple of times, the cost adds up. Also, I cannot justify inflicting a "Blinkie" Nano on anybody :anitongue:. But one of my bison tubes is maybe only slightly wider than a Blinkie, so it's pretty close to being one.

 

I hardly ever use waterproof paper for Micro log sheets anymore (despite having two boxes each of fancy Nat Geo Map Paper and Rite in the Rain). I realized it made no difference in how frequently I had to change them. "Waterproof" paper still gets soaking wet, the ink bleeds and fades, gets moldy, and certain writing instruments will not work on each kind of that "paper". The only real advantage is it doesn't turn to mush if you ignore your caches. I just use real paper, and change it.

Edited by kunarion

Share this post


Link to post

That's interesting though that they require much more maintenance. I always thought the micro geocaches you buy where designed to be waterproof (at least when you're not opening it. Especially with special waterproof log book paper inside as opposed to regular paper.

Several of the Nanos I've found were corroded shut, O-Ring long gone (the O-Ring is gone after a couple of finds with a Nano). I never placed that kind of "Blinkie" Nano container, mainly because it costs almost as much as an ammo box, and definitely after replacing the Blinkie a couple of times, the cost adds up. Also, I cannot justify inflicting a "Blinkie" Nano on anybody :anitongue:. But one of my bison tubes is maybe only slightly wider than a Blinkie, so it's pretty close to being one.

 

I'd say whether a nano is 'inflicting' is more about the hiding place, that the cache itself. If you're told you're looking for a magnetic nano in the description / the hints, and there's only 1 metal thing in sight, you're looking for a nice easy find. On the other hand if you're looking for such a tiny nano in a sea of metal object you're going to be here a while. On the other hand a corroded nano like you describe isn't fun for anyone to find.

Share this post


Link to post

There is a nano over here hidden on a train in Sep 2016, with no FTF yet.....

 

Presumably not a train that's actually in use, I mean how can that have a consistent set of co-ords. And yes finding a nano on a giant disused train would take forever and should probably be a difficulty 4.5. So long as the difficulty represents the amount of potential hiding spots and not simply the type of cache (ie not all magnetic nano caches should have the same difficulty), then I'm fine with it (and if it's in good condition too).

 

Slight tangent here, I like the 'tricked you' type caches to make you think you're looking for a needle in the haystack somewhere, and the cache is someplace else. Stick a decoy in there too if you want to be really evil.

Edited by EliteJonathan81

Share this post


Link to post

It's a D5.... Now, a D5 regular sized cache that could remain unfound for so long - now that would be an impressive hiding feat.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
I'd say whether a nano is 'inflicting' is more about the hiding place, that the cache itself. If you're told you're looking for a magnetic nano in the description / the hints, and there's only 1 metal thing in sight, you're looking for a nice easy find. On the other hand if you're looking for such a tiny nano in a sea of metal object you're going to be here a while. On the other hand a corroded nano like you describe isn't fun for anyone to find.

Yeah, but it was easy to find. :anitongue:

Share this post


Link to post

It's a D5.... Now, a D5 regular sized cache that could remain unfound for so long - now that would be an impressive hiding feat.

I've been working on some ideas for ammo boxes, and maybe they're getting there. One is a 50 Cal (next size up from the usual ammo box), and I made the cammo for a friend's hide. Experienced cachers log that they walk right past it, search an extra 20 minutes... yet it's right there sitting on the ground. I wonder if I could kick it up a notch...

 

My 30 Cal ammo box cammo prototype is hard for me to find. I always spend a lot of extra time looking for it when I want to log some Trackable. Don't worry, people find it. Mostly, it's just that I'm that bad at finding caches. <_<

 

The challenge locally is that cachers here are of the Scorched Earth variety. Try to hide anything in a way that an atomic bomb crater won't expose it. If ya know what I mean. :ph34r:

Edited by kunarion

Share this post


Link to post

"A match tube with its Teflon log ejection tube."

 

I've never seen this before, thanks for sharing a great idea!

Share this post


Link to post

"A match tube with its Teflon log ejection tube."

 

I've never seen this before, thanks for sharing a great idea!

In many of these kinds of caches you could use a piece of a wide drinking straw (easy to find). If the log is still too big, split the tube lengthwise.

 

I use the tube mainly because as a cache owner, I like to not dig out the log sheets. But finders like it, too. :P

Edited by kunarion

Share this post


Link to post

Similar to Viajero Perdido I guess, it's not micros per se (for us), but where they are normally located (in this area). :)

Most are either urban, or along roadsides/guardrails, with 1.5 or less D/T, were you don't even bother to bring water, much less throw on a pack.

We're big on permission, so we see most being disrespectful as well...

 

We simply don't think of a HD parking lot as something associated with the hobby as we know it, and started with.

- Though if a location isn't unique, or present an awesome view, a 50cal won't make a bit of difference. :D

 

We still have one micro cache, our first hide.

Match safe with protection overhead, still has more issues than all our remaining ammo cans combined.

We believe it's simply the Terrain rating...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

The hobby has become flat out boring since 90%, probably more, of the containers being hidden these days are micro in size. More times than not, they're hidden pretty much the same way too. I've developed a distaste simply because there's so many of them.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

I don't hate (or even dislike) micros per se. But it depends on the location. Keeping it simple, I'll split it between urban and non-urban (where by non-urban I mean countryside, forest, etc).

 

Urban:

 

While I prefer non-Urban caching in general, a nicely hidden cache at an interesting urban location can be fun, especially away from home when I am discovering a new city. I have no issues with micros in this setting.

 

Non-urban:

 

While the journey is the most important for me, I don't like "needle in a haystack" type hides. If the cache is a micro in the woods, I say "why". I prefer a larger container here, mainly to make it easier to find.

 

Lastly - I don't care much about swag, except when I am with children, then it is nice. I do like to move and find trackables, so all being equal I prefer larger containers for that reason.

Share this post


Link to post

There is a nano over here hidden on a train in Sep 2016, with no FTF yet.....

 

After several searches I eventually found a nano on this old steam train engine (it was archived several years ago). It was hidden such that it could only be found by "feel". And, yes, I checked the lamp post skirt.

 

4a05814f-00ae-4211-9c6d-4b7ed0df2a21.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post

I realized long ago it wasn't micros I hated, but urban caching. The latter encourages the former.

 

If a micro gets me deep into the bush or up a mountain, I love it.

 

Honestly, urban caching encourages innovation. Anyone can shove a cache into a hole in a tree or zip tie it to a branch...but some of the most creative, best camouflaged hides have been in urban environments where they have to stay hidden from the general populous AND still be accessible to cachers.

 

One I'm often reminded of is a 'regular' sized cache hidden just off the abandoned rail line that is part of a major new trail (and eventual transit) system in Atlanta. People who are actually LOOKING for this cache have trouble finding it...and it's actually an ammo can just a few feet from the old rails...it's within the picture below:

 

GquL7ck.jpg

Edited by J Grouchy
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

I realized long ago it wasn't micros I hated, but urban caching. The latter encourages the former.

 

If a micro gets me deep into the bush or up a mountain, I love it.

 

I agree with you except for the micro in the woods part where a larger cache can be placed. :laughing:

 

I filter out micros, most around here are just junk owned by compulsive cache placers anyway. B)

Share this post


Link to post

I have a few micro caches, but I regret putting them out. I don't enjoy finding them at all. If I happen across one, I may spend 5 to 10 minutes on it, but no more. Afterward I don't feel happy that I found it, but more relief as I am glad it is over.

 

The worst are nano caches. A lot of folks label them as "other" which makes me avoid those listings too. I am sure I am missing out on some cool bird houses and neat hides, but I don't ever want to roll one of those back up again.

 

Also, I have an 8 year old. Even though most regular sized caches have nothing he is interested in, he at least has hope that they may. With micros or nanos, there is no hope.

Share this post


Link to post

<SNIP>Sure the whole "film canister" thing gets boring after a while, but so is seeing sandwich box after sandwich box. And personally micro caches make for more interesting hides (they can more easily be disguised as things, or be stuffed up small gaps), compared to bigger caches that are often just left in the undergrowth somewhere (which is often where stinging nettles lurk).</SNIP>

I find the majority of micro caches to be rather boring when it comes down to it. They don't *require* much thought or care - it's dead easy to hide something of micro size so the majority seem to me to be really quite tedious. It leads, I think, to an element of lazy cache hiding. I was thinking about placing a cache yesterday. Unfortunately, having scouted out the area I would need to hide it in, there really aren't any suitable hiding spots. I could have hidden a micro cache there if I'd wanted to, but given that I was planning a cache with at least 15 virtual stages to fully explore an interesting town with, I felt a micro as the final cache would have been really boring.

 

Which is a shame because they absolutely don't need to be boring. But it's just easier to filter out the majority of micro caches because, in my experience, the majority tend towards boring.

 

The other issue I have is that micro caches appear to be becoming the standard. In East Anglia there have been something like 2,100 caches hidden this calendar year. Just over 50% of those have been micro sized (1,085 compared to 1,038 non-micros). If micro sizes are allowed to become the standard size to be hidden then that trend will continue and I'm not sure that that is a particularly desirable development as it risks variety.

Share this post


Link to post
In East Anglia there have been something like 2,100 caches hidden this calendar year. Just over 50% of those have been micro sized (1,085 compared to 1,038 non-micros).

 

Of those 1,038 non-micros,, how many were "not chosen", "other", or "unknown"? I have a feeling 50% is too low.

 

As said, micros aren't the end of the world. There are some great caches out there that are micro in size. Some thought and creativity was put into those. The problem is there are too many being placed in the same boring fashion these days.

 

Edited, had typed the numbers in the wrong order, corrected.

Edited by Mudfrog

Share this post


Link to post

Micros tend to be the easiest cache to abuse. Easy to stash in a guardrail or under a lamp skirt. zzzzzzzzz

 

I enjoy hiking in the woods. Unless it's a well kept forest, hunting for a micro in the woods can be a thirty second or thirty minute affair. Not something I typically enjoy.

 

I have quite enjoyed caching along a hike/bike trail that goes from Jamestown to Richmond, about 50 miles. I've tackled it in spurts of a mile or two at a time. Most of the caches are micros. I have no problem with that. But they are also hidden such that I know I don't need to spend half an hour searching for a micro in the woods.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

 

The thing with urban caching though is that they are easier to maintain if you stick one right outside your home, even if it's not the most interesting location for people to find a cache in.

 

That's the crux of the matter right there, IMO. WHY am I placing a cache? Why do I want people to come to this location to find it? A front door cache that is a trackable hotel, and gives me opportunity to meet other cachers, that's great. But a chain link fence cap cache that's easy for me to maintain because it's my chain link fence ... and no other reason to bring folks to my street - that is not geocaching as it was originally intended.

 

The same for urban micro and nanos (of which I've found too many already in my short career!). I ask myself when I find one - what's here besides the cache? Some have interesting stories or locations, others seem to be hidden just to hide them in a lamppost skirt or guardrail. What's the interest in that?

Edited by CAVinoGal
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

I like finding a ammo can as much as the next guy. I have to admit one time I went for a hike with a group of cachers and my daughter. It was a long hard hike and we found many caches on that mountain. Weird thing was 90% of them on the mountain were ammo cans! After finding about 9 ammo cans in a row next to a bush, we found a well camoed micro! I was like...WOW! That is cool!

This was only this one day that I had that experience. I still like finding ammo cans but that day it was kind of like come on mix it up a bit! :)

Share this post


Link to post
In East Anglia there have been something like 2,100 caches hidden this calendar year. Just over 50% of those have been micro sized (1,085 compared to 1,038 non-micros).

 

Of those 1,038 non-micros,, how many were "not chosen", "other", or "unknown"? I have a feeling 50% is too low.

 

As said, micros aren't the end of the world. There are some great caches out there that are micro in size. Some thought and creativity was put into those. The problem is there are too many being placed in the same boring fashion these days.

 

Edited, had typed the numbers in the wrong order, corrected.

A qucik look at my home area (25 miles around Renton, WA): 184 caches placed this year (2017) so far (not including events or caches I've found, which locally aren't that many). The size breakdown: Large 4, Regular 21, Small 67, Micro 64, Other 28. If you count all Other as Micro (which isn't always true, but for sake of argument) that's exactly 50% micro and 50% larger.

Share this post


Link to post
In East Anglia there have been something like 2,100 caches hidden this calendar year. Just over 50% of those have been micro sized (1,085 compared to 1,038 non-micros).

 

Of those 1,038 non-micros,, how many were "not chosen", "other", or "unknown"? I have a feeling 50% is too low.

 

As said, micros aren't the end of the world. There are some great caches out there that are micro in size. Some thought and creativity was put into those. The problem is there are too many being placed in the same boring fashion these days.

 

Edited, had typed the numbers in the wrong order, corrected.

Iirc about 430ish.

 

Some of those will be correctly sized nano caches (and good on the cache owners for actually being able to size a cache correctly), others will be interesting things. I'd rather search for them to be honest - at least you know what you're likely to get.

Share this post


Link to post
In East Anglia there have been something like 2,100 caches hidden this calendar year. Just over 50% of those have been micro sized (1,085 compared to 1,038 non-micros).

 

Of those 1,038 non-micros,, how many were "not chosen", "other", or "unknown"? I have a feeling 50% is too low.

 

As said, micros aren't the end of the world. There are some great caches out there that are micro in size. Some thought and creativity was put into those. The problem is there are too many being placed in the same boring fashion these days.

 

Edited, had typed the numbers in the wrong order, corrected.

A qucik look at my home area (25 miles around Renton, WA): 184 caches placed this year (2017) so far (not including events or caches I've found, which locally aren't that many). The size breakdown: Large 4, Regular 21, Small 67, Micro 64, Other 28. If you count all Other as Micro (which isn't always true, but for sake of argument) that's exactly 50% micro and 50% larger.

In my local government area (Gosford city and environs) there've been 6 new caches so far this year, 5 small and 1 regular. All up, for active caches there are currently 98 micro, 217 small, 106 regular, 8 large and 18 other.

Share this post


Link to post
In East Anglia there have been something like 2,100 caches hidden this calendar year. Just over 50% of those have been micro sized (1,085 compared to 1,038 non-micros).

 

Of those 1,038 non-micros,, how many were "not chosen", "other", or "unknown"? I have a feeling 50% is too low.

 

As said, micros aren't the end of the world. There are some great caches out there that are micro in size. Some thought and creativity was put into those. The problem is there are too many being placed in the same boring fashion these days.

 

Edited, had typed the numbers in the wrong order, corrected.

A qucik look at my home area (25 miles around Renton, WA): 184 caches placed this year (2017) so far (not including events or caches I've found, which locally aren't that many). The size breakdown: Large 4, Regular 21, Small 67, Micro 64, Other 28. If you count all Other as Micro (which isn't always true, but for sake of argument) that's exactly 50% micro and 50% larger.

In my local government area (Gosford city and environs) there've been 6 new caches so far this year, 5 small and 1 regular. All up, for active caches there are currently 98 micro, 217 small, 106 regular, 8 large and 18 other.

Just checked the 50 mile radius around my area and see that 31 caches have been published since January 1st. 2 regulars, 9 smalls, 3 others, and 17 micros. I figure there's a good chance the "others" are micros and i know for a fact that some of the smalls are soda tubes, which i consider micro.

 

Out of the 31, 23 were listed with difficulties 1.5 and lower. Of the eight remaining, one was listed as a 4 difficulty, one a 3, and six in the 2s. Not much variety at all. :(

Edited by Mudfrog

Share this post


Link to post

This is just me, but micros are my favorite cache type because of the endless possibilities of hiding methods, now, a nano in the woods on the other hand, I really really don't like. I LOVE clever micros, especially those in plain sight, or have really good camo. Urban camo is hands down my favorite though.

However, I really don't like LPC's or boring, predictable hides. The only LPC that I have is one with a nano attached to a mousetrap (obviously a broken one.) That has the best logs, some people even try to test it with their pen! I try to hide caches where the finder assumes it is a normal hide, but is really clever after all.

Edited by TwistedCube
*typo

Share this post


Link to post

Micros have their place.  In the woods is not one of those places.  Typical micro hide in the woods up here results in 1000 square feet of forest floor/undergrowth being destroyed underfoot and many branches broken.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post

I don't hate micros. I just hate poorly listed/rated micros or micros with bad coordinates.

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/2/2018 at 3:54 PM, bflentje said:

I don't hate micros. I just hate poorly listed/rated micros or micros with bad coordinates.

This. I love them when they are in urban environments and cleverly worked in to the surrounding world. But if I hike in a pristine (or close to) world for an invested and cared about amount of time, I don't want to be breaking branches and flinging rocks, and mostly ruining the environment to get a pencil eraser sized container that takes me 4 tries and 15 minutes to re-roll. I would rather spend my rural adventures enjoying where you took me, what you made me see, and what you helped me enjoy...rather than your test against big fingers, arthritis, and bad closeup vision for logging.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

I don't mind micros unless the CO is very loose with their coordinates. We have quite a few micros but we take extra care with coords and averaging. We often get logs that say something along the lines (paraphrased) "knowing colleda's coords are usually spot-on we kept searching and eventually came up with the find right where it was supposed to be". As COs its very reassuring that we got it right.

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎6‎/‎29‎/‎2017 at 9:18 AM, J Grouchy said:

 

Honestly, urban caching encourages innovation. Anyone can shove a cache into a hole in a tree or zip tie it to a branch...but some of the most creative, best camouflaged hides have been in urban environments where they have to stay hidden from the general populous AND still be accessible to cachers.

 

One I'm often reminded of is a 'regular' sized cache hidden just off the abandoned rail line that is part of a major new trail (and eventual transit) system in Atlanta. People who are actually LOOKING for this cache have trouble finding it...and it's actually an ammo can just a few feet from the old rails...it's within the picture below:

 

GquL7ck.jpg

You hit it right on the head.   Innovation and creativity are the key.    Any cache hidden in a unique way or in a good location is fun.   I don't buy the "why hide a micro when you can fit large container" argument.   In fact I've dedicated the first four of a nine part series of caches to specifically refute that whole notion. 

One of the great things about this activity is the variety.    There's something for everyone.  

  

Share this post


Link to post

I don't mind micros in the woods - if the cache is clearly intended to be difficult. What I don't like are "simple" caches that are micros, hidden in a tree. Especially surrounded by many possible locations. Even if our gps is accurate, I have no idea if yours is. And if the nature of the hide is already difficult... well it's kind of like a puzzle cache with no checker and no way to know if what/where you're searching is actually correct.

So yeah, I don't think micros are the problem, it's how they're hidden and how they're listed. I like to be sufficiently prepped for the type of search I'm about to embark on :)

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/2/2018 at 5:09 PM, Ladybug Kids said:

Micros have their place.  In the woods is not one of those places.  Typical micro hide in the woods up here results in 1000 square feet of forest floor/undergrowth being destroyed underfoot and many branches broken.

That's the key. A micro is harder to find because  there are more places to conceal it. That means searchers are more likely to search longer and over more ground than they would with a regular sized cache.   A county  park system in NJ has banned micros in their parks draft geocaching policy because they observed significantly more impact at the location of  micro hides. 

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post

When I hear something like "I hate micros" I always check the speaker's profile to see how many caches they own and maintain, and of what type. It's so common when people criticize others without having any experience in hiding a cache. "Damned micros, why not placing a good old container full of interesting and useful stuff here?" Why: because the owner already checked different variants and probably even tried hiding a regular tupperware box but this container was stolen two days after that, and it was replaced, and stolen again, and replaced, and stolen, and then there appeared a nano cache which have survived 2 seasons already. The story may be different in this particular case, and we the owners know how many different stories happen.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

I might be in the minority, but I don't mind micros and nano's, especially if it brings me to an interesting area and/or if it is hidden in a creative way.    In Houma, LA, I found a micro that was hidden in a way that made me laugh for some reason (it was not a Geocache that was part of the Houma GeoTour). 

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎1‎/‎5‎/‎2018 at 9:18 AM, briansnat said:

That's the key. A micro is harder to find because  there are more places to conceal it. That means searchers are more likely to search longer and over more ground than they would with a regular sized cache.   A county  park system in NJ has banned micros in their parks draft geocaching policy because they observed significantly more impact at the location of  micro hides. 

Yeah, because cachers destroy the vegetation looking for a needle in a haystack.  

Share this post


Link to post

I like the larger cache size cause I like the trading and adding interesting things to the cache and seeing what is in there. Lame traders tend to diminish the fun by not taking trading seriously! Mostly I just want a great location I have never seen before! Take me somewhere really great! If you do good, I will take a picture of it and tell others about it, then write a nice log too! Surprize me!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6

×