Micros,, sheeeeeesh!

[+Mudfrog]

14 hours ago, coachstahly said:

 

 

 

All of you are somewhat missing the point I was attempting to make.  When you don't have anything BUT a film can to find because there aren't any more caches left to find due to a variety of factors, the biggest being that there's no one hiding new caches in your area, then I'd rather have a soggy film can vs. having nothing at all.  There's no choice available left to some cachers except to find what they can.  Jeff is getting to that point and while I'm certain he'd much prefer a wide ranging choice of size/type/difficulty, I think he'd be a bit more content having someone place some micros closer to his home location rather than continue having to drive farther and farther away to find caches.

 

Yes, I'd not like to find a film can with a soggy log.  It's not going to be a very good experience.   As ICUK has stated, the only possible redeeming quality might be if it's in one of those locations that geocaching has a surprising ability to bring you to.  However, it's not about the + 1 that I'm talking about.  If that's the ONLY option you have left available to you, then I'd rather have that option than no option at all.  It's not a choice we all have when it's the only type of cache we happen to have left to find that's within a reasonable distance from home, especially when it's a minimum drive of 50 miles or more to the nearest unfound cache.  We can all feel free to ignore the type of cache described by NYPC because it appears we all have lots of caches available to choose from.  

 

How many of you would choose to ignore this type of cache if it was one of a few left to you to find that wasn't too far a drive from your home area and the outlook for new caches in your area was bleak?

 

On the other hand, some cachers would just stop caching all together if soggy film cans happened to be pretty much all there was. Sounds like you are hooked on the hobby pretty good but I'd estimate that most people coming into the hobby via the app end up getting bored after a few finds and then simply forget about geocaching and move on to the next app.

 

To answer your question,,,  Me, I ignore em everyday. I drive within feet of caches all the time and just keep on going.

[+coachstahly]

7 hours ago, Mudfrog said:

 

On the other hand, some cachers would just stop caching all together if soggy film cans happened to be pretty much all there was. Sounds like you are hooked on the hobby pretty good but I'd estimate that most people coming into the hobby via the app end up getting bored after a few finds and then simply forget about geocaching and move on to the next app.

 

To answer your question,,,  Me, I ignore em everyday. I drive within feet of caches all the time and just keep on going.

 

I'm certainly not disputing what others would do, especially new cachers who only have those to experience and therefore think  this is what it's about.  I ignore them all the time as well but I have that luxury because I have so many around that it's much easier to do so.  However, were I in a situation similar to what Jeff is in right now, I'm pretty sure I'd not skip them.  We can easily point to all the micros we have around us and say things like, "there are too many", "they're causing people to leave or slow down their caching", "they're bad for the activity", and "they're only there for numbers".  That's fine and all, but in areas where caches aren't nearly as common, that may be all that a cacher has access to.  

 

The OPs post, for me, boils down to the situation in which cachers find themselves.  In a cache rich area, I'd tend to agree that micros, in part, are a reason for many to quit or slow down.  The types of things I said above about what people think about micros hold some kernels of truth in those areas where there are lots of caches available to the regular cacher.  However, in areas that aren't cache rich, it's my belief that most cachers in those types of areas don't look at micros in the same manner.  Since their options are limited, micros probably aren't typically viewed as disparagingly as they are in areas where there are probably too many.  I'm sure some of those cachers would prefer other sizes to find but if the options are limited, then I believe they'd take what they can get, micro cache or not.  I realize this is a specific scenario I'm focusing on but it's cachers like Jeff that have cached out their area, which was limited to begin with, that we tend to overlook because our situations are vastly different when it comes to the geocaches available for us to choose from.  

[+thebruce0]

That's not really the kind of cache I was referring to by 'obvious and attractive to muggles' - not just labeled 'geocache', more like the library cache I described. Not necessarily exactly that, but conceptually, something somewhere that, perhaps protected by permission/property (like a library), is accessible, family friendly, easily found, large with contents, easily maintained, not prone to loss from natural or human development, near or providing additional information, etc etc.