Too Many Small and Micro Caches

[PCFrog]

When my kids were young, age 7ish, I started geocaching with my kids and they and I included loved it. They truly loved the hike and the mystery of finding a cache to be rewarded with a variety of caches filled with all sorts of swag. Fast forward 13 years and I find that when we cache that a huge shift has occurred over the years. I recently ran a PQ of everything in my zip code and broke down the numbers as shown below. I wonder how this sport is supposed to attract new families if the majority of caches are small or micros. 78% of the caches are not able to hold swag. Location is not a determination of size like it was back 13 years ago. You could almost guarantee that if it was in the woods it would be regular or large size. The small and micro caches were mainly found in populated areas in. I thought this might be something that was localized to my area until I went to Geowoodstock 2018.  The PQ resulted in 76% of the caches being small or micros. I was admittedly disappointed to see small and micros in the woods when it would be easy to hide regular or large caches. Before some of you get on me about how some people…..  I can accept that there will be small and micros in the woods but when they become the majority I feel that it takes away part of the essence of the geocaching. How are kids supposed to be attracted to geocaching by looking for 35mm or smaller container in woods only to sign a little tiny piece of paper? I know my kids would not have spent 13 years of searching for caches if it started out like the caches we find today. 

 

My area

micro     48.74551971%

small      30.28673835%

reg         11.55913978%

large      0.358422939%

All other 9.050179211%

[+Korichnovui]

I totally agree with you

 

I recently solved a puzzle and went to the geozone. It was a rocky hill with short many-branches trees. The cache size was micro but I thought a regular cache could still have been well hidden in the area. After half an hour of fruitless searching, I left in disgust.

 

Some guesses I have as to the shift in smaller size:

 

- more people are urban caching because it’s easy, and urban caching generally lends itself to small containers

- smaller caches are easier to obtain or are more affordable, also easier to replace if muggled

- smaller caches are easier to hide well

 

[+Max and 99]

I have lots of Ammo can size caches still, but so often people take and take until there's nothing left in the caches so I now I leave a lot less toys for kids. I can fill a cache with nice swag and unactivated trackables and check on the cache and find nothing but the log. Recently my ammo can stuffed with a lot of themed stuff I bought on Amazon was taken. All that swag gone. I can't afford that.

 

[+Max and 99]

Also, I'd like to add that 13 years ago there were a lot less geocachers and caches.  Saturation is a big issue in my area. Not a lot of spots left for ammo cans! 

[+cerberus1]

I sorta agree, and believe it's just an "adaptation" if you will, when a family hobby became a numbers game.  

With many of the new folks not bothering to learn the hobby, and the numbers crowd dumping pill-bottle throwdowns whether the cache is missing or simply can't find it,  some COs we know finally gave up and put out lesser containers.  

Though this time is no where as bad as when the "Intro" app first came out, so some are getting it. 

Like Max and 99,  rarely have we seen our ammo can swag close to even when we do maintenance. It's take, including the pencils and sharpeners.

 - And forget any mention of swaps, trackables, or maintenance warnings in a log ... by long-time players as well.

Again like Max and 99, we had a different crowd when we started, couples and families mostly. Not the same today.

We have tons of room yet here,  and little issue with "saturation".

 - Folks just have to walk more than 100' from a parking lot. 

 

 

[+Dragon_Oric]

I started Geocaching back in 2010. I also feel a large increase in micros. looking for them can feel more frustrating then fun at times. I would also like to see more swag in Boxes if there is a dry cache with nothing in it. ill put something in it. (Would you think it would be okay if i tossed the garbage when i find them inside a cache)?

[+Bear and Ragged]

Quote

 

My area

micro     48.74551971%

small      30.28673835%

reg         11.55913978%

large      0.358422939%

All other 9.050179211%

 

 

And, I bet the 'All Other' are micros - Nano, that the co doesn't want to admit to being a Nano, or the fact they don't realise that a Nano is a Micro size cache...

[+JL_HSTRE]

Performs have become a popular big micro.

 

Ammo cans have gone up in price quite a bit. They were once often $5, now often $15.

 

I own a half dozen anmo cans that I haven't placed yet because I'm trying to find places they wont get muggled or torched by prescribed burns (which are used by many land managers in FL).

[+L0ne.R]

34 minutes ago, Bear and Ragged said:

 

And, I bet the 'All Other' are micros - Nano, that the co doesn't want to admit to being a Nano, or the fact they don't realise that a Nano is a Micro size cache...

 

I don’t mind the small size caches because they should be 100ml in capacity and can usually hold a couple of small trinkets and trackables.  But at minimum, 50% of small’s are actually micros. Add ‘other’ and 50% of ‘small’, more than 70% of caches in the OP’s (and most places in North America) area are micro. 

 

[+barefootjeff]

Things are a bit different here. Of the 436 caches within 20km of home, the breakdown is:

• 81 micro (18.6%)
• 205 small (47.0%)
• 119 regular (27.3%)
• 10 large (2.3%)
• 21 other (4.8%)

The most common smalls and regulars are the Sistema range of plastic containers, with a fair number of metal ammo cans in the more remote locations. About half the "other" ones are earthcaches or virtuals.

Edited June 3, 2018 by barefootjeff

[+me N u]

1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

Things are a bit different here. Of the 436 caches within 20km of home, the breakdown is:

• 81 micro (18.6%)
• 205 small (47.0%)
• 119 regular (27.3%)
• 10 large (2.3%)
• 21 other (4.8%)

The most common smalls and regulars are the Sistema range of plastic containers, with a fair number of metal ammo cans in the more remote locations. About half the "other" ones are earthcaches or virtuals.

barefootjeff is obviously one of the lucky ones, within 20Km of our home coordinates there are 1693 caches

 

560 micros (33.43%)

728 small (43.46%)

141 regular (8.41%)

7 large (0.42%)

239 other (14.27%)

18 unknown (1.06%)

 

8 of the other size are earthcaches and we know from experience that some of the small are in fact micros.

[+Zane and Bianca]

9 hours ago, Max and 99 said:

I have lots of Ammo can size caches still, but so often people take and take until there's nothing left in the caches so I now I leave a lot less toys for kids. I can fill a cache with nice swag and unactivated trackables and check on the cache and find nothing but the log. Recently my ammo can stuffed with a lot of themed stuff I bought on Amazon was taken. All that swag gone. I can't afford that.

 

My large cache is similar. Called the travellers cache it was stocked with swag suitable for those travelling that utilised the area. Maybe one in ten do the right thing. But its always nice when you see that one log which makes it all worthwhile.

Much like recieving tags out the blue in the mail ?

Edited June 3, 2018 by Zane and Bianca

[+niraD]

10 hours ago, PCFrog said:

I was admittedly disappointed to see small and micros in the woods when it would be easy to hide regular or large caches.

FWIW, I know cache owners who now hide smaller containers in the woods because they would rather carry a couple smaller containers and some extra food/water, than carry a single ammo can. And I know cache owners who now hide smaller containers in the woods because they don't want to be nagged about trackables that may or may not be in their caches, and smaller containers can't hold trackables (or at least, they can't hold as many trackables).

 

Some cache owners just don't care about trackables and trade items, and choose their cache containers for other reasons.

[+cerberus1]

2 hours ago, niraD said:

 And I know cache owners who now hide smaller containers in the woods because they don't want to be nagged about trackables that may or may not be in their caches, and smaller containers can't hold trackables (or at least, they can't hold as many trackables).

 

Some cache owners just don't care about trackables and trade items, and choose their cache containers for other reasons.

 

A couple local have said similar. 

 - If part of cache "maintenance" is now hoofing it miles, to find just another incorrect trackable log, they're hiding pill bottles.  A simple fix.

[+Gill & Tony]

MY Unfound Local Caches database covers the NSW South Coast from Helensburgh to Pambula plus part of the Southern Highlands.  Of 1690 caches in the database:

 

573 Micro (30.4%)

748  Small (44.3%)

353 Regular (20.9%)
17 Large (1.0%)

All others  59 (3.5%)  Includes Earthcaches, virtuals, events etc. 

Edited June 5, 2018 by Gill & Tony

[+barefootjeff]

On 04/06/2018 at 12:53 AM, niraD said:

FWIW, I know cache owners who now hide smaller containers in the woods because they would rather carry a couple smaller containers and some extra food/water, than carry a single ammo can. And I know cache owners who now hide smaller containers in the woods because they don't want to be nagged about trackables that may or may not be in their caches, and smaller containers can't hold trackables (or at least, they can't hold as many trackables).

 

Some cache owners just don't care about trackables and trade items, and choose their cache containers for other reasons.

 

To date all my hides have been small or regular size. They're all in bushland, often well off the beaten track and in places that could be rather dicey for small kids (about half have the no kids attribute) so swag isn't a big consideration. My main consideration when choosing a container is what can be concealed at GZ and, in many instances, what might fit the theme of the cache. I've used an elephant, a big green frog, a couple of large spiders, a crocodile, a demonic imp, a wombat, a treasure chest, a jewelry box and some Star Wars characters, as well as the more traditional Sistema containers.

 

Now, though, I'm pondering a new hide in this hollowed-out boulder alongside the Great North Walk in bushland near Yarramalong.

 

 

Deep inside this hungry-looking rock is lots of honeycombing where I could conceal a micro (perhaps another novelty container) but nothing bigger. The GNW is a popular walking track and, being right alongside it, this cave is no doubt frequently explored by muggles, so anything in there needs to be concealed completely out of sight. So, do I swallow my pride and actually hide a dreaded micro? I can just imagine the good folks here looking down their noses and muttering what is he thinking? Not another micro in the woods?

 

We'll see; I haven't decided yet whether to go ahead with this one, but I already have another cache a couple of hundred metres away that's only had five finds in over a year, so I'm thinking the pair of them might attract a bit more interest. I can hear the gasps already - not just a micro, but a power trail to boot!

[+usyoopers]

On 6/3/2018 at 5:37 AM, Dragon_Oric said:

I started Geocaching back in 2010. I also feel a large increase in micros. looking for them can feel more frustrating then fun at times. I would also like to see more swag in Boxes if there is a dry cache with nothing in it. ill put something in it. (Would you think it would be okay if i tossed the garbage when i find them inside a cache)?

 

More than ok to toss the garbage, we do it all the time.

[+dprovan]

Well, not to put too fine a point on it, but the reason there aren't more family friendly caches is that the people that like family friendly caches didn't plant enough of them. I'm not saying that to accuse you and your kids of not giving back or anything, I'm just saying that since you have a personal reason to be motivated in this area, you'd be able to answer your question about what happened better than I would.

 

The other side here is that I'm pretty sure that if you did a PQ limited to only regular and large caches, you'd still find at least twice as many caches as there were 13 years ago. So it would be more accurate to say things are twice as good as they were, but only if you can bring yourself to ignore the somewhat unrelated fact that the micro end of the game has grown even faster.

[PCFrog]

3 hours ago, dprovan said:

 but the reason there aren't more family friendly caches is that the people that like family friendly caches didn't plant enough of them.

 

 

How can they when the area is saturated with small and micros?

[+Crow-T-Robot]

13 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Now, though, I'm pondering a new hide in this hollowed-out boulder alongside the Great North Walk in bushland near Yarramalong.

 

 

Deep inside this hungry-looking rock is lots of honeycombing where I could conceal a micro (perhaps another novelty container) but nothing bigger. The GNW is a popular walking track and, being right alongside it, this cave is no doubt frequently explored by muggles, so anything in there needs to be concealed completely out of sight. So, do I swallow my pride and actually hide a dreaded micro? I can just imagine the good folks here looking down their noses and muttering what is he thinking? Not another micro in the woods?

 

We'll see; I haven't decided yet whether to go ahead with this one, but I already have another cache a couple of hundred metres away that's only had five finds in over a year, so I'm thinking the pair of them might attract a bit more interest. I can hear the gasps already - not just a micro, but a power trail to boot!

 

I'd say go ahead! That looks like something interesting to visit and explore. I would imagine a micro cache would be fairly challenging to find in that location, so if it can withstand the searching, it would be a fun place to find a cache.

[+hukilaulau]

i think that families are not the target demographic anymore. The target is a young male who wants to show you his big number.

[+dprovan]

1 minute ago, hukilaulau said:

i think that families are not the target demographic anymore. The target is a young male who wants to show you his big number.

Do you think COs have target demographics?

[+hukilaulau]

2 minutes ago, dprovan said:

Do you think COs have target demographics?

no, I was referring to company target demographics. I understand that not everyone will agree. 

Actually some COs definitely do have target demographics, which can vary greatly, but that's another topic maybe

[+Beechtrees]

I'd love to place more family friendly sized caches (as in original query on this thread.) But finding spots that are also suitable for family walks or scrambles isn't always that easy.

 

I enjoyed making a series based on Minecraft figures but after a few months and several boxes emptied of age appropriate swag, I decided local kids were playing another game; "Where's she hidden it this time?!" Since changing all but one to small and micro, I seem to be winning at the moment. But it can get expensive replacing both caches and swag. 

Hats off to COs who manage to keep the larger caches going!

[+dprovan]

17 hours ago, hukilaulau said:

no, I was referring to company target demographics.

Of course you were. That's why I pointed out that caches are placed by COs, not by the company, so you'll have to work harder to link the demographics with the results before I'll take the argument seriously. Without such a link, it comes across as a "big company bad" statement that I don't normally find very interesting, but is downright laughable when it comes to GS.

 

17 hours ago, hukilaulau said:

Actually some COs definitely do have target demographics, which can vary greatly, but that's another topic maybe

You'd have to give me an example. Some COs plant particular types of caches, mainly because they like that kind, but it doesn't imply that there's a specific class of geocachers they have an interest in attracting, especially because I associate "target demographics" with people trying to make money off the target audience.

 

But, yeah, that's another topic.

[+hukilaulau]

20 hours ago, dprovan said:

Of course you were. That's why I pointed out that caches are placed by COs, not by the company, so you'll have to work harder to link the demographics with the results before I'll take the argument seriously. Without such a link, it comes across as a "big company bad" statement that I don't normally find very interesting, but is downright laughable when it comes to GS.

 

You'd have to give me an example. Some COs plant particular types of caches, mainly because they like that kind, but it doesn't imply that there's a specific class of geocachers they have an interest in attracting, especially because I associate "target demographics" with people trying to make money off the target audience.

 

But, yeah, that's another topic.

Wow...

I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition...

For the record, I've been supporting GS for nearly 14 years, as a premium member and buyer of goods, so there's no way I'm making a "big company bad" statement.

Regarding the two points that you seem so outraged about:

1. I  believe that through rule changes and advertising "the company" is targeting a demographic that they want to attract to the game. I believe that many in this group are more likely to hide one type of cache than another. I'm not faulting GS for this, I'm just working a little harder to explain my point, as you requested.

2. C'mon, Man!!! You don't think that COs place caches with a certain type of finder in mind? Three  obvious examples: Cache pages that say something about fun for families. Cache pages that say they are placed to help powercachers build up their totals, remote caches where the cache page says they are placed for people who like to hike.

 

[+hzoi]

2 hours ago, hukilaulau said:

I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition...

 

No one ever does!

 

...where'd I put that photo?  ah, yes...

 

[+dprovan]

3 hours ago, hukilaulau said:

I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition...

I'm sorry you think I'm being extreme. I was just having a conversation. Now I'm afraid to reply to your points, but I will.

 

3 hours ago, hukilaulau said:

For the record, I've been supporting GS for nearly 14 years, as a premium member and buyer of goods, so there's no way I'm making a "big company bad" statement.

I'm sorry if I overreacted. Many people in the forums are saying GS is ruining geocaching by going commercial. And many of them are upset precisely because they've been supporting GS for nearly many years. So forgive me for mistaking your position to be in agreement with them.

 

3 hours ago, hukilaulau said:

1. I  believe that through rule changes and advertising "the company" is targeting a demographic that they want to attract to the game. I believe that many in this group are more likely to hide one type of cache than another. I'm not faulting GS for this, I'm just working a little harder to explain my point, as you requested.

Everything I've ever seen tells mt that GS wants as many people as possible to cache. I see no evidence of any specific target demographic, only that some demographics happen to be easier to attract. It might seem unimportant, but it's the difference between saying GS is doing what they think is best for geocaching and saying GS is only out to make the big bucks. I've had my problems with some of the things GS has done in the last couple years, but I can always see that their hearts are in the right place.

 

3 hours ago, hukilaulau said:

2. C'mon, Man!!! You don't think that COs place caches with a certain type of finder in mind? Three  obvious examples: Cache pages that say something about fun for families. Cache pages that say they are placed to help powercachers build up their totals, remote caches where the cache page says they are placed for people who like to hike.

As I said, people like to plant family friendly caches or power trails or hiking caches because they want to have more caches of that type. I've never heard anyone say they're planting a family friendly cache because they don't want number grubbers or hikers to find their caches. And a good thing, because it wouldn't work very well: most geocachers don't focus narrowly on one type of cache, so you'll get 90% of all cachers regardless of which demographic you were trying to target.

[+L0ne.R]

On 07/06/2018 at 2:50 PM, dprovan said:

I've never heard anyone say they're planting a family friendly cache because they don't want number grubbers or hikers to find their caches.

 

But they do say, 'I'm planting a micro where a larger family-friendly cache can go because it's easier. I don't care about swag, signature items and trackables. And I don't care if some people prefer larger caches for swag, signature items and trackables."

Essentially they are excluding part of the geocaching community. Their target audience excludes anyone who wants a fuller experience than a pill bottle with a scrap of paper.  

[+geocat_]

On 6/3/2018 at 7:58 AM, barefootjeff said:

Things are a bit different here. Of the 436 caches within 20km of home, the breakdown is:

• 81 micro (18.6%)
• 205 small (47.0%)
• 119 regular (27.3%)
• 10 large (2.3%)
• 21 other (4.8%)

The most common smalls and regulars are the Sistema range of plastic containers, with a fair number of metal ammo cans in the more remote locations. About half the "other" ones are earthcaches or virtuals.

How/where did you generate those numbers?

[+barefootjeff]

19 minutes ago, geocat_ said:

On 03/06/2018 at 9:58 PM, barefootjeff said:

Things are a bit different here. Of the 436 caches within 20km of home, the breakdown is:

• 81 micro (18.6%)
• 205 small (47.0%)
• 119 regular (27.3%)
• 10 large (2.3%)
• 21 other (4.8%)

The most common smalls and regulars are the Sistema range of plastic containers, with a fair number of metal ammo cans in the more remote locations. About half the "other" ones are earthcaches or virtuals.

How/where did you generate those numbers?

 

Just with the website search function, setting the radius as 20km from home and selecting each cache size in turn.

 

Edited June 10, 2018 by barefootjeff

[+fizzymagic]

On 6/7/2018 at 11:50 AM, dprovan said:

I've never heard anyone say they're planting a family friendly cache because they don't want number grubbers or hikers to find their caches. And a good thing, because it wouldn't work very well: most geocachers don't focus narrowly on one type of cache, so you'll get 90% of all cachers regardless of which demographic you were trying to target.

 

I specifially target a demographic in my cache placements.  Or, rather, I *avoid* a particular demographic -- the numbers hounds.  My goal for my caches is for them to be solved and found by people who can enjoy the whole experience.  If a cache gets too many TFTC or cut-and-paste logs, I archive it.

[+Harry Dolphin]

56 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Just with the website search function, setting the radius as 20km from home and selecting each cache size in turn.

 

 

I click on size, and it goes away.  It doesn't give me a number,  1347 caches within ten miles.

[+barefootjeff]

5 minutes ago, Harry Dolphin said:

 

I click on size, and it goes away.  It doesn't give me a number,  1347 caches within ten miles.

 

That's strange. If I select just, say, Micro, then click on Update Search, I get the number of micros.

 

 

[+Harry Dolphin]

1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

 

That's strange. If I select just, say, Micro, then click on Update Search, I get the number of micros.

 

 

 

Thanks.  Not intuitively obvious to the senior dolphin.  The modern world is confusing.  Hey.  I still like my typewriter!

Within ten miles form the Dolphinarium: 1351 caches

Micro:     390 28.9%

Small:     589 43.6%

Regular:  312 23.1%

Large:         4      .2%

Other:       56    4.1%

Edited June 11, 2018 by Harry Dolphin
Added percentages.

[+STNolan]

Figured I would add my #s into the mix. 

Based on my home coordinates in Juneau, AK at a 10 mile radius I have observed the following in a sample size of 281 caches:
 

• micro - 90 caches - ~32%
• small - 125 caches - ~44%
• regular - 43 caches - ~15%
• large - 1 cache - ~.3%
• other - 22 caches - ~8%

[Blue Square Thing]

Eastern UK - within 16km (which includes a bit of sea). Physical caches only.

 

Micro: 470 - 59%

Small - 178 - 22%

Regular - 7 - 1% (2 of which are mine)

Large - 0

Other - 79 - 10%

Not chosen - 61 - 8%

 

Total - 795

 

I've given up looking for micros. The area got "evented" recently with 20-30 caches hidden. Almost all micros with 2 regular and about 4 small - all of which seem to be 35mm containers (hidden by people caching for years with > 8000 finds).

 

My aim for this year is to find less caches pretty much as a result of this.

Edited June 11, 2018 by Blue Square Thing
correct typo - see post below

[+STNolan]

29 minutes ago, Blue Square Thing said:

I've given up looking for micros. The area got "evened" recently with 20-30 caches hidden. Almost all micros with 2 regular and about 4 small - all of which seem to be 35mm containers (hidden by people caching for years with > 8000 finds).

 

Emphasis mine.

 

I've never heard this term used. Is it a colloquial term for saturated? 

[+coachstahly]

On 6/9/2018 at 7:41 PM, L0ne.R said:

 

But they do say, 'I'm planting a micro where a larger family-friendly cache can go because it's easier. I don't care about swag, signature items and trackables. And I don't care if some people prefer larger caches for swag, signature items and trackables."

Essentially they are excluding part of the geocaching community. Their target audience excludes anyone who wants a fuller experience than a pill bottle with a scrap of paper.  

Because it's easier to do what? Maintain?  Aren't you a cacher who complains about caches that aren't maintained?  Yet someone gets the urge to place a cache and opts for a micro because it's easier to maintain.   Then you complain about that placement because it's a micro (that is easier to maintain) and not a small or something larger.  It seems to me that you're only happy when people hide caches that suit your tastes, which are extremely limited in scope, based on your history of finds.  You choose to exclude a majority of caches to find, yet complain about others excluding you from finding caches because they're not the type of caches you want.  You're entitled to cache the way you want to, but I get tired of continually hearing about your limited caching opportunities when you essentially limit the caches you have an opportunity to find to a very small subset of all the caches out there.

 

The same type of exclusion could be said for those that place multis, challenges, puzzles, or any other non-traditional hide.  They're excluding cachers who only want to make a single stop, pull out the app, and quickly find a cache.  I don't care if people prefer quick and easy finds for numbers.

 

Essentially they are excluding part of the geocaching community.  Their target audience excludes anyone who wants a simpler experience than finding multiple stages before claiming a find, figuring out how to do a puzzle before finding the cache, following directions to get to the final location, achieving some sort of caching challenge before finding the cache, or using a phone or GPS to find a Wherigo.

 

I place my caches without any target demographic in mind, but I tend to gravitate toward non-traditional caches, so that's what I typically hide.  Those types of hides are generally avoided by quick numbers run types of cachers, but it's not by design.  I don't put them out to exclude them.  They exclude them on their own, just like you exclude micros (for the most part) and most other types of caches that aren't traditionals.  Not everyone enjoys caching the way you do or the way I do, nor do they enjoy hiding the types of caches that we might place, but that's OK.  That's part of the beauty of the way this is set up.  There's something for everyone.

[+coachstahly]

782 caches placed within 10 miles.

 

398 micros - 51%

203 smalls - 26%

115 regulars - 15%

7 larges - 1%

59 others - 7%

 

I think part of the reason it's skewed this way, at least for my area, is that I'm in suburbia, with limited green space (although still quite a bit) but lots of small pockets that can easily hold micros, but not caches much larger than that or they'd get taken.

[+L0ne.R]

On 11/06/2018 at 9:11 AM, coachstahly said:

Because it's easier to do what? Maintain?  Aren't you a cacher who complains about caches that aren't maintained?  Yet someone gets the urge to place a cache and opts for a micro because it's easier to maintain.   Then you complain about that placement because it's a micro (that is easier to maintain) and not a small or something larger.  It seems to me that you're only happy when people hide caches that suit your tastes, which are extremely limited in scope, based on your history of finds.

 

We can have a pastime that includes maintained, family-friendly caches. It doesn't have to be one or the other, it can be both.  

Edited June 17, 2018 by L0ne.R
grammar

[+coachstahly]

38 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

 

We can have a pastime that includes maintained, family-friendly caches. It doesn't have to one or the other, it can be both.  

 

But that's not what you implied (or I inferred) in the post I quoted.

 

On 6/9/2018 at 7:41 PM, L0ne.R said:

But they do say, 'I'm planting a micro where a larger family-friendly cache can go because it's easier. I don't care about swag, signature items and trackables. And I don't care if some people prefer larger caches for swag, signature items and trackables."

Essentially they are excluding part of the geocaching community. Their target audience excludes anyone who wants a fuller experience than a pill bottle with a scrap of paper.

 

You're lamenting the fact that a possibly well maintained micro is going in a spot rather than a larger possibly well maintained family friendly cache can go and excluding you and those others who like larger caches.  The implication is that a larger cache should have gone there rather than the smaller micro.  There's no approval on your part for that micro (at least none mentioned) that the CO plans on maintaining because it's easier to do so.  If you truly believe we can have both, you wouldn't complain (you're being excluded is your complaint) about a micro placed where a larger cache could go, because it's easier to maintain than the small cache that might have worked there as well.  

 

I believe we actually do have both.  Micros are more prevalent because the places that have room for smalls or larger are mostly taken by caches already there, at least in my area.  Urban/suburban caching doesn't really include much room for smalls and up due to the concrete jungle that's taken over.  Green spaces are rarely NOT manicured anymore, especially if they're in smaller sizes.  Larger tracts are usually less manicured and will have room for larger containers because they're less likley to be spotted if they're placed off the beaten path.  However, again, at least in my area, those larger tracts of land are already saturated to the point that micros have the best realistic chance of surviving due to their size.  

 

I'd love it if we had more larger caches, but my area is so saturated that rarely will spots open up that can support smalls and up.  I tried to hide an ammo can on private property (permission granted) in the middle of the city in some thick bushes on a side street (not the main street that ran past the building) but within 6 months it was taken.  I'm NOT going to keep replacing an ammo can that is going to get taken just to keep some cachers who prefer larger caches happy.  I'll place them where I think they'll be able to survive for a long time, and those spots are becoming less and less frequent.  The only areas that can support that type of cache with increasing frequency is the national forest south of me, but I don't have the time to drive down there any time there's a possible maintenance issue with the cache.

[+colleda]

Micros may be easy to maintain but, as with any size cache, doesn't mean that they will be. We were recently in Edinburgh where most caches we found were micros (nanos) and most of these had full log sheets with many finders logs, both FIs and NMs, mentioning this but no response from COs. No one is posting NAs perhaps because there are so few traditionals in the city.

[Blue Square Thing]

12 hours ago, STNolan said:

 

Emphasis mine.

 

I've never heard this term used. Is it a colloquial term for saturated? 

Oops. Typo - or autocorrect possibly. I meant evented - i.e. a bunch of people left some cheap, throwaway able caches for a smallish event.

 

I'll correct it in the original as well.

[+cerberus1]

On ‎6‎/‎9‎/‎2018 at 7:41 PM, L0ne.R said:

 

But they do say, 'I'm planting a micro where a larger family-friendly cache can go because it's easier. I don't care about swag, signature items and trackables. And I don't care if some people prefer larger caches for swag, signature items and trackables."

Essentially they are excluding part of the geocaching community. Their target audience excludes anyone who wants a fuller experience than a pill bottle with a scrap of paper.  

 

I'm not sure who "they" are, but most our containers where picked by the landowners.  Every cache we asked for permission on we've shown up with an assortment of containers, and they picked it.

Our oldest  cache is a micro.  It needs more maintenance than all left combined.  That's not "easier"...

It was a hide-a-key, a film can,  then a hide-a-key rock, and finally a matchstick safe.   That seems to be holding up.

 - A small plano stowaway would be perfect, but the landowner doesn't want a bigger cache so near what we're showing folks.  

[+cerberus1]

We don't consider most containers in searches anymore.   I now look at the map too (for green), insteada just looking at 2 an up in D/T.

Missing  out on some awesome spots because of an aversion to a cache size is (to me) a bit silly.  What happened to "language of location" ?

Our areas  most popular hider leaves mediocre micro/small containers and sometimes underrates the terrain.  

Such cool spots, I'm sure not gonna be the one to tell him he's "doing it wrong"...  

 

Some  here are upset that so few care about the hobby anymore, so what's there, in place of a lock n lock, will havta do.

Swag taking, and now having to maintain a cache that may, or may not, have a trackable in it,  many have gone very small or micro. 

 - Though for many the norm now is "small",  but really just another pill bottle micro.

[+kunarion]

36 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

 

Our oldest  cache is a micro.  It needs more maintenance than all left combined.  That's not "easier"...

 

+1

Based on my own caches, and those I've found, Micros tend to need more maintenance than bigger boxes. Micros have full or soaked logs, broken or lost parts, or they're misplaced or dropped (not put back as hidden or now lost among leaves). Micros are less forgiving of the lack of maintenance than even a small L&L. It's so much extra work keeping a Micro viable, I've upgraded several of mine to "Small" boxes. They still require attention, but don't lose an O-ring on every find.

 

 

Edited June 11, 2018 by kunarion

[+geodarts]

Micros may be less forgiving in terms of maintenance, but they are easier to place. I have a friend who places micros because they are easier to carry to remote locations or trees.   The same is probably true of most hides.   How many ammo-can-in-the- woods cachers are there these days?  

 

It does not bother me that much.  Some places are appropriate for micros, some for ammo boxes.   But is the result that much different?  

 

If I am in a particular location that I want to visit apart from caching and there is a micro nearby, I'll look for it.   I just won't look very hard.   For me, the full experience does not lie in the container or the search - those usually are the least interesting things about this game.  If you can't interest me in the location - or give me some reason to log the cache - I probably will not bother to look for a container.   It makes this game much simpler.

 

But then perhaps I am one of the few who believes that there are around 2 million caches too many.  Whether they are micros or small is not the key factor.  

[+cerberus1]

Our longest walk/toughest to get to hides are mostly ammo cans.   We've yet to meet anyone who does those that bothers with swag anymore.  

One still has most of the same quality stuff I put in it when it was published.  Nine years next month.  I asked one who went there a few years ago if he'd remove all the LED flashlights,  he could keep 'em.

 - Just ammo cans fulla swag with no one interested ...   

 

Edited June 11, 2018 by cerberus1
spllellling

[+niraD]

51 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

 - Just ammo cans fulla swag with no one interested ...   

I found an ammo can with lots of nice stuff, including a cell phone with all the accessories, still in the box. Who brings something to trade for something like that? I bring small trinkets to trade for other small trinkets (personal signature items left by other geocachers). I don't bring anything valuable to trade for other valuable things.